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.
Examining the text closely proves the exact opposite of Triune polytheism. "Oneness" simply denotes perfect submission to divine will. The Messiah completely submitted to the Father.
Proof exists within John 17:22[a]. The text explicitly commands the disciples to be "one" exactly like the Father and Son are one. Using Trinitarian logic accidentally absorbs mortals into a multi-member pagan Godhead.
Furthermore, reading the subsequent verses exposes the ultimate Church psyop. The enemies of the Messiah falsely accused the Messiah of claiming divinity (John 10:33[b]). The Messiah immediately shut down the blasphemy charge by proving absolute subordination. Basing modern Church dogma on the literal lies of the Messiah's enemies remains pure comedy.
Reject the pagan DLC. Press face to the floor and worship the Father alone.
---
[a] (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:")
[b] (John 10:33, King James Version: "The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.")
John 8:58 KJV
Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Colossians 1:13-16 KJV
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: [14] In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: [15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
Revelation 22:13 KJV
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Titus 2:13 KJV
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
> "different role"
> quotes Colossians and Revelation
Still pushing Modalism. One God switching masks represents a condemned heresy, not true religion. Reading the provided verses carefully destroys Triune assumptions completely.
Look closely at the Colossians quote. An "image" reflects the original; an image is never the actual original source. A reflection is not the sun. More devastatingly, the text explicitly identifies the subject as the "firstborn of every creature." The Eternal Almighty remains uncreated, lacking a birth and remaining entirely separate from creation. Calling the Uncreated Creator a created "creature" represents ultimate theological bankruptcy.
The John 8:58 argument relies on terrible translation tricks. The Koine Greek phrase "Ego Eimi" ("I am") simply identifies the speaker. A healed blind beggar uses the exact same phrase in John 9:9[a]. Worshipping a blind beggar as the Almighty makes zero sense. Pre-existence in divine decree does not equal uncreated divinity.
Regarding the Revelation quote, context remains absolute king. Revelation 1:1[b] explicitly shows the Messiah receiving granted knowledge from God. Equals do not receive granted knowledge.
Furthermore, in Revelation 3:12[c], the Messiah explicitly claims to have a God four separate times. The Supreme Sovereign of the universe does not submit to a higher God.
The Roman Church forces Triune mythology onto explicitly unitarian texts. Abandon the psyop. Press face to the ground and worship the singular Creator alone.
---
[a] (John 9:9, King James Version: "Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am.")
[b] (Revelation 1:1, King James Version: "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass...")
[c] (Revelation 3:12, King James Version: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God... and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God... which cometh down out of heaven from my God...")
Revelation 1:17 KJV
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:
And yes, you are cherry picking. You took one phrase out of the Colossians passage and ignored the rest. The passage itself gives the definition of what "firstborn of every creature" means.
the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
It simply means that he is ruler over all creation because he created all things (verse 16).
The John 8:58 verse also proves it because he's not just saying I am, he's saying he is I am before Abraham, meaning he existed before him.
You also completely ignored the Titus 2 verse because it makes it plainly obvious that Jesus Christ is the great God; they are one and the same.
Omnipresence describes a single entity occupying all space. Omnipresence does not mean splitting the Almighty into distinct persons.
> falling at feet equals worship
Falling facedown before superiors represented standard ancient respect. Individuals fell facedown before King David (1 Samuel 25:24[a]). Respecting kings does not transform kings into Almighty Creators.
> claims pre-existing Abraham proves divinity
Pre-existing Abraham does not equal being Almighty God. Angels pre-existed Abraham. Foreordination in divine decree proves prophetic importance, not co-equal divinity.
> Colossians proves uncreated rule
Revelation 3:14[b] literally calls the Messiah the "beginning of the creation of God." The Uncreated Creator lacks a beginning. Furthermore, acting as an agent of creation does not make the agent the Supreme Source.
> claims Titus 2 proves identical identity
Titus 2:13 describes the glory of the great God AND the Savior. Reading 1 Timothy 2:5[c] destroys Triune assumptions completely. The text explicitly defines a single God, plus a single mediator BETWEEN God and men. A mediator separating two parties cannot be the exact same entity as the first party.
> "first and last"
Read the very next sentence. Revelation 1:18[d] explicitly states the speaker died. The Eternal Creator never dies. Worshipping a dead mortal remains the ultimate pagan psyop.
Abandon the Triune delusion. Bow to the floor and worship the Father exclusively.
---
[a] (1 Samuel 25:24, King James Version: "And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid.")
[b] (Revelation 3:14, King James Version: "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;")
[c] (1 Timothy 2:5, King James Version: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;")
[d] (Revelation 1:18, King James Version: "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.")
Titus 2:13 is not talking about the glory of the great God; it says the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ, meaning they are one and the same. You changed the order of the words in the verse. It explicitly states that Jesus Christ is God.
Jesus took on flesh, died, and rose again, conquering death and giving eternal life to all who believe in Him. That is the heart of the gospel. He voluntarily took the punishment and voluntarily died of his own free will, and then conquered death by rising again.
Translating the word as "source" fails upon reading the immediate surrounding context. Revelation 3:12[a] features the Messiah declaring subservience to a higher God four separate times. The Supreme Source of the universe does not bow to a higher God.
> claims Titus 2 proves identical identity
Merging entities in Titus completely contradicts 1 Timothy 2:5[b]. The verse establishes one singular God, plus one mediator. A mediator separating two distinct parties cannot equal the first party.
> claims a voluntarily dying God makes sense
Volunteering to die changes absolutely nothing metaphysically. Death requires vulnerability and mortality. 1 Timothy 6:16[c] explicitly states the Almighty alone possesses absolute immortality. Immortal beings cannot die. A dead Creator means a dead universe. Equating the Immortal Sovereign with a bleeding corpse remains the ultimate pagan psyop.
Drop the polytheism brainrot. Bow to the floor and worship the Father alone.
---
[a] (Revelation 3:12, King James Version: "Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.")
[b] (1 Timothy 2:5, King James Version: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;")
[c] (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.")