Let's just get this dirty laundry out of the way...
"The Bible is infallible" is some kind of catch-phrase that protestants make for some odd reason.
Let's look at the words in this statement, and then you'll see why this statement is ridiculous, and anyone saying it should feel retarded.
"The Bible" -- what is it? Is it the 66 books that the protestants consider "The Canon"? Or is it the Catholic Bible? Or any other Christian sect?
Which translation? Who made the translations? This is important, because it's a simple fact that no translation by a fallible human, even of an infallible text, can be considered infallible.
Maybe the original transcripts? Oh wait, we don't have them, since they were lost to history a long time ago.
Maybe the earliest copies? We have lots of those, but "early" is subjective. Some of the earliest copies we have are just fragments. Then we found things like the Dead Sea Scrolls which are earlier than the copies we had and changes some of the passages.
What about the septuagint? Is it more accurate than the Hebrew versions that we have access to? According to the greek New Testament, it looks like Jesus was quoting, word-for-word, from the septuagint. But was he? Do you think he was really speaking to a Judean audience in Koine Greek? Or was it much more likely that he was using Aramaic? And if so, was he using an Aramaic translation of the Greek passages? Or is it possible -- and hear me out here -- that authors like Matthew were inserting scripture passages to justify what Jesus did to an audience who were familiar with the septuagint? Read Matthew closely -- I think his intentions are pretty clear, and it's written quite explicitly in certain places. And what about the places where the quotes don't match the septuagint? What is better, the New Testament version of the quote or the septuagint?
Ultimately, there is no "THE Bible". There are "Bibles", and without naming one of them as "THE" Bible, a statement like "The Bible is infallible" is utter nonsense.
But let's continue anyway.
What does "infallible" mean? It means "incapable of error". Is any book or volume of text infallible? Of course not. It is entirely possible that there are errors in the text. Even if you somehow invented a script that was literally infallible, like it was IMPOSSIBLE to put it together in a way that could not contain any error (and I can't think of any way to do this, and I have been a programmer / amateur mathematician all my life, so I think I might know a thing or two about what kinds of errors texts (programs) can have)... would it not be possible for a copy of that text to contain an error? Like, in transcribing the text, the copyist could have made a mistake, an ERROR, and so the transcription contains an error?
So you see why this is utter nonsense and ridiculous. We don't have the originals, the copies we have are not consistent, and it's obvious that numerous errors have been introduced. So it's not infallible. (It's not even inerrant...)
But let's grant your position. Let's say that yes, that version of the Bible you carry in your hands is INFALLIBLE. Like a mathematic gift from God himself, you contain, on printed page, ink blots that somehow form an infallible text. Now you have another problem. Someone, maybe you, maybe someone else, needs to READ that text and comprehend it. Can a fallible mind understand an infallible text? Of course not. Making the whole thing moot anyway.
Maybe some of you are a bit more skeptical than your protestant evangelists and shy away from "The Bible is infallible." Maybe you say "inerrant" instead, which just means "it contains no errors." If you try to defend this position, all I would need to attack and destroy it would be to find a single error in your Bible. Maybe someone translated something the wrong way. Certainly, we know of tons of errors in the KJV, since it has been around for a long time. Plus, its source material is known to contain errors since there are better sources out there. Some of those sources were discovered long after the KJV was first published, so you have to feel sorry for the translators and compilers who never had a hope to begin with.
Maybe you retreat from "inerrant" and say something like "The Bible contains sufficient knowledge to be saved" or something like that. Well, now you are having a theological discussion and you're going to try to build your case using the text of the Bible, but inevitably you are going to make the same mistake everyone else has ever made by committing the fallacy of "eisegesis" which means taking your assumptions and reading them into the text. IE, you might suppose that Isaiah was thinking of the Trinity when he said that there is only one God, but when you look at the historical context of that particular passage, as well as its textual context, you would be forced to agree, with pretty much every other scholar, that Isaiah couldn't have possibly meant the Trinity as you understand it, since such a concept did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christ died on the cross.
So, instead of reading the Bible, you are really reading your own ideas into the text and supposing that you must be right and everyone else who has different ideas must be wrong, in particular the people who originally wrote the text of the Bible. You might as well be looking in a mirror or reading fan fic you wrote yourself and supposing it to be canonical. Yay! You're worshiping your own understanding -- something the Bible cautions us not to do!
So please, for the LOVE OF GOD, please STOP saying "The Bible is infallible" or anything like that. It just makes you look stupid. For thousands of years, Christians and other devout followers of the True God did not need to say anything like that, and did not even need the Bible. How did they understand God if they didn't have the Bible? The answer is in the text itself: God revealed himself to them in a way that they could understand. You need THAT, my friend, NOT the Bible. Maybe the Bible can help you obtain that revelation, but please do not suppose that the Bible is that revelation for yourself.
White man survived for thousands of years because we were connected, DIRECTLY, to God, not because of some arbitrary text that jews wrote thousands of years ago. GET CONNECTED.
"The Bible is infallible" is some kind of catch-phrase that protestants make for some odd reason.
Let's look at the words in this statement, and then you'll see why this statement is ridiculous, and anyone saying it should feel retarded.
"The Bible" -- what is it? Is it the 66 books that the protestants consider "The Canon"? Or is it the Catholic Bible? Or any other Christian sect?
Which translation? Who made the translations? This is important, because it's a simple fact that no translation by a fallible human, even of an infallible text, can be considered infallible.
Maybe the original transcripts? Oh wait, we don't have them, since they were lost to history a long time ago.
Maybe the earliest copies? We have lots of those, but "early" is subjective. Some of the earliest copies we have are just fragments. Then we found things like the Dead Sea Scrolls which are earlier than the copies we had and changes some of the passages.
What about the septuagint? Is it more accurate than the Hebrew versions that we have access to? According to the greek New Testament, it looks like Jesus was quoting, word-for-word, from the septuagint. But was he? Do you think he was really speaking to a Judean audience in Koine Greek? Or was it much more likely that he was using Aramaic? And if so, was he using an Aramaic translation of the Greek passages? Or is it possible -- and hear me out here -- that authors like Matthew were inserting scripture passages to justify what Jesus did to an audience who were familiar with the septuagint? Read Matthew closely -- I think his intentions are pretty clear, and it's written quite explicitly in certain places. And what about the places where the quotes don't match the septuagint? What is better, the New Testament version of the quote or the septuagint?
Ultimately, there is no "THE Bible". There are "Bibles", and without naming one of them as "THE" Bible, a statement like "The Bible is infallible" is utter nonsense.
But let's continue anyway.
What does "infallible" mean? It means "incapable of error". Is any book or volume of text infallible? Of course not. It is entirely possible that there are errors in the text. Even if you somehow invented a script that was literally infallible, like it was IMPOSSIBLE to put it together in a way that could not contain any error (and I can't think of any way to do this, and I have been a programmer / amateur mathematician all my life, so I think I might know a thing or two about what kinds of errors texts (programs) can have)... would it not be possible for a copy of that text to contain an error? Like, in transcribing the text, the copyist could have made a mistake, an ERROR, and so the transcription contains an error?
So you see why this is utter nonsense and ridiculous. We don't have the originals, the copies we have are not consistent, and it's obvious that numerous errors have been introduced. So it's not infallible. (It's not even inerrant...)
But let's grant your position. Let's say that yes, that version of the Bible you carry in your hands is INFALLIBLE. Like a mathematic gift from God himself, you contain, on printed page, ink blots that somehow form an infallible text. Now you have another problem. Someone, maybe you, maybe someone else, needs to READ that text and comprehend it. Can a fallible mind understand an infallible text? Of course not. Making the whole thing moot anyway.
Maybe some of you are a bit more skeptical than your protestant evangelists and shy away from "The Bible is infallible." Maybe you say "inerrant" instead, which just means "it contains no errors." If you try to defend this position, all I would need to attack and destroy it would be to find a single error in your Bible. Maybe someone translated something the wrong way. Certainly, we know of tons of errors in the KJV, since it has been around for a long time. Plus, its source material is known to contain errors since there are better sources out there. Some of those sources were discovered long after the KJV was first published, so you have to feel sorry for the translators and compilers who never had a hope to begin with.
Maybe you retreat from "inerrant" and say something like "The Bible contains sufficient knowledge to be saved" or something like that. Well, now you are having a theological discussion and you're going to try to build your case using the text of the Bible, but inevitably you are going to make the same mistake everyone else has ever made by committing the fallacy of "eisegesis" which means taking your assumptions and reading them into the text. IE, you might suppose that Isaiah was thinking of the Trinity when he said that there is only one God, but when you look at the historical context of that particular passage, as well as its textual context, you would be forced to agree, with pretty much every other scholar, that Isaiah couldn't have possibly meant the Trinity as you understand it, since such a concept did not even exist until hundreds of years after Christ died on the cross.
So, instead of reading the Bible, you are really reading your own ideas into the text and supposing that you must be right and everyone else who has different ideas must be wrong, in particular the people who originally wrote the text of the Bible. You might as well be looking in a mirror or reading fan fic you wrote yourself and supposing it to be canonical. Yay! You're worshiping your own understanding -- something the Bible cautions us not to do!
So please, for the LOVE OF GOD, please STOP saying "The Bible is infallible" or anything like that. It just makes you look stupid. For thousands of years, Christians and other devout followers of the True God did not need to say anything like that, and did not even need the Bible. How did they understand God if they didn't have the Bible? The answer is in the text itself: God revealed himself to them in a way that they could understand. You need THAT, my friend, NOT the Bible. Maybe the Bible can help you obtain that revelation, but please do not suppose that the Bible is that revelation for yourself.
White man survived for thousands of years because we were connected, DIRECTLY, to God, not because of some arbitrary text that jews wrote thousands of years ago. GET CONNECTED.
Textbook Sabellianism. The Roman Church literally excommunicates people for using the "different roles" analogy.
> "positionally is equal"
Verse 9 of the provided Philippians quote[a] destroys positional equality instantly. Receiving exaltation from God means the receiver is not God. The Almighty possesses absolute supremacy eternally.
> "perfect example... so prayed to the Father"
The Messiah genuinely prayed with face pressed to the floor. The Messiah never engaged in fake theatrical prayers. Worshipping a stage actor makes zero sense.
The Roman Church relies on translation tricks and pagan DLC to sell polytheism. The Logos simply translates as divine command. The Creator spoke, forming flesh. Flesh bleeds and dies. The Creator remains immortal.
Abandon the pagan DLC. Bow to the ground and worship the Father alone.
[a] (Philippians 2:9, King James Version: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:")
Also, I don't care what the Roman Church says, I care what God says. Reread John 1. It's very clear.
> "God is not beholden to man's understanding"
The Creator commands humanity to use intellect. Two supreme beings cannot coexist. Existence requires limits. A limited entity possesses zero claim to infinite divinity.
> "He says that all 3 are equal"
A fabricated lie. The Messiah explicitly claims absolute subordination in John 14:28[a]. Equal beings do not submit. Equal beings possess equal authority. The Messiah possesses zero independent power (John 5:30[b]).
> "Reread John 1... fulfilling different roles"
John 1 states the Word was WITH God. Being WITH God prevents being the exact same God. Claiming one God plays "different roles" defines literal Modalism, an entirely different heresy.
> "don't care what the Roman Church says"
Defending Nicaean polytheism while claiming independence from Rome represents absolute historical delusion. First-century prophets rejected Triune paganism. First-century prophets pressed foreheads to the dirt to pray.
Abandon the polytheism brainrot. Bow to the earth and worship the Father alone.
---
[a] (John 14:28, King James Version: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.")
[b] (John 5:30, King James Version: "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.")
John 1:1 KJV
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, **and the Word was God.**
Bringing up the final clause creates an inescapable paradox for Trinitarian dogmas. If the Word equals the Almighty Creator, and the Word existed WITH the Almighty Creator, the result produces either polytheism (two Gods) or Sabellianism (one actor playing two roles simultaneously). Both concepts represent condemned pagan heresies.
The Logos simply means divine utterance. The Creator spoke a divine utterance, resulting in a miraculous virgin birth. Equating a spoken utterance with a co-eternal Almighty being constitutes massive theological overreach.
The Messiah completely destroys polytheistic interpretations in John 14:28[a]. The text explicitly declares the Father is greater. Equal deities cannot be greater.
Reject the Nicaean polytheism trap. Press face to the dirt and worship the Creator exclusively.
[a] (John 14:28, King James Version: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.")
Romans 11:33-36 KJV
O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor? [35] Or who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again? [36] For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.
Zero verses actually make such explicit claims. Every single provided verse received a devastating contextual rebuttal. Translators forcing Triune theology into the text cannot change the actual Koine Greek. The provided examples rely entirely on translation tricks and cherry-picked fragments stripped of context.
> "acting in a different role"
Repeating the exact definition of Modalism provides endless comedy. One God switching masks represents a condemned heresy, not true religion. A single God playing different characters constitutes Sabellianism. Trinitarian scholars literally excommunicate people for teaching such analogies.
> "not bound by human limitations / beyond understanding"
Retreating to the "holy mystery" excuse signals absolute intellectual defeat. The Creator bestowed intellect precisely to reject logical absurdities. Two Almighty Gods require boundaries. Boundaries equal limitation. Limited entities lack infinite supremacy. Furthermore, forcing the Limitless Creator into a biological body subject to hunger, fatigue, and death represents the ultimate theological insult. 1 Timothy 6:16[a] restricts absolute immortality to God alone. Mortals die. Immortal beings never die.
> "Rejecting Christ as God is blasphemy / lost in cult beliefs"
John 17:3[b] explicitly identifies the Father as the ONLY true God. Agreeing with the Messiah cannot be blasphemy. Actual blasphemy involves taking a dying, bleeding mortal and elevating mortal flesh to the level of the Uncreated Sovereign. Numbers 23:19[c] explicitly forbids doing exactly that.
True monotheism predates Roman councils by millennia. The 325 AD Nicaean committee invented the Triune cult. First-century prophets never bowed to a 3-in-1 mystery. First-century prophets pressed foreheads to the ground to pray to the singular Father (Matthew 26:39[d]).
Abandon the Roman psyop. Drop the polytheism brainrot. Place forehead on the ground and worship the Creator exclusively.
---
[a] (1 Timothy 6:16, King James Version: "Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.")
[b] (John 17:3, King James Version: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.")
[c] (Numbers 23:19, King James Version: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?")
[d] (Matthew 26:39, King James Version: "And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.")
How would God be lying by taking on human form to die for the sins of the world, and how could a man do it unless He is God? He's not playing different characters, He's taking on flesh to fulfill a specific purpose which He told us, so there is no hiding or deception. Jesus, when he was on earth was fully man and fully God. Jesus even says if you have seen me you have seen the Father.
John 14:9 KJV
Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?