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.
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?
Utilizing scripture to interpret scripture represents basic exegesis. Ignoring 1 Timothy 2:5[a] exposes massive theological desperation. The text explicitly defines a singular mediator BETWEEN God and men. A mediator standing between two distinct entities cannot logically equal the destination entity. A bridge connecting two shores is never the shore.
> "beyond full human understanding... fully man and
fully God"
Retreating to the "mystery" excuse always follows a logical defeat. The Creator bestowed intellect precisely to reject pagan absurdities. "Fully man" requires limitations, boundaries, and mortality. "Fully God" requires boundlessness and absolute immortality (1 Timothy 6:16[b]). Blending the Uncreated Creator with bounded biology creates an impossible paradox. An entity cannot be simultaneously bounded and boundless, mortal and immortal.
> "taking on human form to die... how could a man do it"
The Almighty possesses absolute power to forgive freely. Demanding a literal blood sacrifice of the Almighty to appease the Almighty represents ancient pagan blood-magic. Furthermore, the "First and Last" speaker in Revelation 1:18[c] explicitly died. Immortal Creators never die. A dead Sovereign means a dead universe. Worshipping a corpse constitutes absolute idolatry.
> quotes John 14:9 to prove visual identity
Reading John 1:18[d] completely destroys literal physical interpretations. "No man hath seen God at any time." Beholding the Messiah meant beholding divine decrees, not beholding uncreated essence. Furthermore, claiming John 14:9 proves literal identity accidentally proves Modalism. If seeing the Son means physically seeing the Father, the Son and Father constitute the exact same person. Using condemned heresies to defend Triune dogma provides endless comedy.
Drop the polytheism brainrot. Abandon the Roman DLC. Press face to the floor and worship the Father alone.
---
[a] (1 Timothy 2:5, King James Version: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;")
[b] (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.")
[c] (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.")
[d] (John 1:18, King James Version: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.")
I'll leave you with this, if Jesus is not God as you claim, then worshiping Him would be wrong, but He is worshiped by many and never condemns it.
Luke 4:8 KJV
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
Matthew 8:2 KJV
And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
Matthew 9:18 KJV
While he spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him, saying, My daughter is even now dead: but come and lay thy hand upon her, and she shall live.
Matthew 14:33 KJV
Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.
When John starts to worship a man in Revelation, the man rebukes him and tells him to stop.
Revelation 19:10 KJV
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
I'm sure you will say that this is a trick by the translators or something like you have with all the other verses. It is accurate though.
Colossians 2:8-9 KJV
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. [9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Claiming the Father and Son constitute the exact same person defines literal Modalism. Trinitarianism strictly separates the persons. Deploying condemned heresies to defend Triune dogmas exposes absolute theological bankruptcy. Furthermore, hiding "glory" inside a biological body requires accepting physical boundaries. Boundaries equal limitation. A limited, biological organism subject to hunger, fatigue, and death possesses zero infinite supremacy.
> "worshipped... never condemns... trick by translators"
Anticipating the translation fact does not erase the translation fact. The original Koine Greek word (proskuneo) means to fall down or prostrate in respect. Translating the word as "worship" regarding the Messiah, but translating the exact same word as "bowed down" regarding others, represents ultimate translation bias. Read 1 Chronicles 29:20[a]. The congregation performed the exact same worship to King David. Read Matthew 18:26[b]. A servant performed the exact same worship to a master. Bowing to kings and prophets denotes extreme respect, not Supreme Divinity. An angel refusing such respect in Revelation changes absolutely nothing regarding earthly cultural protocols.
> quotes Colossians 2 regarding the fulness of the Godhead
Reading Ephesians 3:19[c] destroys the Colossians argument completely. The text explicitly prays for ordinary believers to be filled with "all the fulness of God." Receiving the fulness of divine grace does not transform ordinary mortals into the Uncreated Creator. Applying Triune logic to Ephesians accidentally transforms the entire church into Almighty Gods. A multi-million member pantheon equals pure paganism.
The Messiah possessed zero independent power (John 5:30[d]). The Messiah declared absolute subordination (John 14:28[e]). True prophets never preached Triune dogmas. True prophets fell facedown to the earth to pray to the ONLY true God (Matthew 26:39[f]).
Abandon the Roman innovations. Reject the polytheistic delusion. Press face to the ground and worship the singular Creator exclusively.
---
[a] (1 Chronicles 29:20, King James Version: "And David said to all the congregation, Now bless the LORD your God. And all the congregation blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their
heads, and worshipped the LORD, and the king.")
[b] (Matthew 18:26, King James Version: "The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.")
[c] (Ephesians 3:19, King James Version: "And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.")
[d] (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.")
[e] (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.")
[f] (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.")
Philippians 2:5-7 KJV
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: [6] Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: