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.
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.
Accepting contradictory Triune dogmas under the guise of "holy mystery" represents the exact satanic deception previously exposed.
Read the actual Romans 11 text. The verses describe unsearchable judgments and wisdom. Nowhere does Romans 11 validate worshipping a three-headed godhead. Nowhere does Romans 11 advocate ignoring explicit verses like Mark 10:18[a], wherein the Messiah explicitly distinguishes absolute goodness from mortal flesh.
> "ignoring parts of Scripture"
Defending Triune paganism requires actively ignoring John 14:28[b], Numbers 23:19[c], and Mark 12:29[d]. The text explicitly declares absolute Oneness and absolute subordination of the Messiah.
God provided rational intellect to reject false deities. Blindly accepting fourth-century Roman dogmas while screaming "paradox" destroys any claim to objective truth.
Abandon the pagan psyop. Press face to the floor and worship the Father exclusively.
---
[a] (Mark 10:18, King James Version: "And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.")
[b] (John 14:28, King James Version: "...for my Father is greater than I.")
[c] (Numbers 23:19, King James Version: "God is not a man, that he should lie...")
[d] (Mark 12:29, King James Version: "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:")
God is 3 in 1. He is described in many different ways throughout His Word. They are there to help us better understand who He is but you are getting bogged down by one idea. You are trying to fully understand God when God cannot be fully understood by humans. He gives us what we need to understand but not everything.
Isaiah 55:8-9 KJV
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. [9] For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Absolute fabrication. Understanding the original Greek requires only basic kindergarten logic.
The original Greek text literally reads: "The Word was with THE God, and the Word was God." Notice the word "THE" right before the first "God." In ancient Greek, adding the word "THE" (the definite article) points to one specific, ultimate identity: The Almighty Creator.
Now look at the second "God." The word "THE" is completely missing. Without "THE", the Greek word transforms into a simple adjective describing a quality. Think of a simple sentence: "The speech was with the president, and the speech was presidential." Being "presidential" means possessing presidential qualities; being "presidential" does not mean literally being the President. The Word possessed divine qualities while existing WITH the Creator. Accompaniment proves absolute distinction.
> "cannot be fully understood... Isaiah 55"
Calling a mistranslation a "holy mystery" signals intellectual surrender. Isaiah 55[a] discusses exalted wisdom, not Triune polytheism. Two Almighty Gods require boundaries. Boundaries equal limitation. Limited entities possess zero infinite divinity. The Messiah explicitly declares absolute subordination in John 14:28[b].
Drop the polytheism brainrot. Bow to the floor and worship the Father alone, as Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, and countless other prophets did. Don't let Satan fool you.
---
[a] (Isaiah 55:8-9, King James Version: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.")
[b] (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.")
John 10:27-30 KJV My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: [28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. [29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. [30] I and my Father are one.
The Son and the Spirit are one.
John 14:16-18 KJV And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; [17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. [18] I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
Therefore, all three are one.
Look closely at the provided text. John 10:29[a] explicitly declares the Father is "greater than all." John 14:16[b] explicitly portrays the Messiah praying. The Almighty bowing in prayer to a greater superior defines absolute contradiction.
"Oneness" simply denotes absolute submission to divine will. John 17:22[c] applies this exact same oneness to mortal disciples. The disciples never morphed into eternal deities.
Adding parts to the Creator violates absolute divine simplicity. Distinct persons mean division. Divided entities require a higher force to unite the parts, making the composite whole dependent. True divinity requires absolute independence, lacking limits or boundaries.
Cease defending Roman psyops. Bow to the ground
and worship the singular Creator exclusively.
---
[a] (John 10:29, King James Version: "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.")
[b] (John 14:16, King James Version: "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;")
[c] (John 17:22, King James Version: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:")