An Atheist Discusses Biblical Inerrancy

[stevehayes13]

Genesis. Sentence three. God moved on the waters. What? This is before god created any stars and stars have to form, live for billions of years and die before there is an oxygen in the universe. No oxygen, no water. And that is only sentence three and the first two sentences are merely an introductory assertion. The 'errors' in the Bible are legion.

[5355vbxjbj76rvn]

What is a contradiction ? Serious question. Some people would say WW2 began in 1939 - others would say it began in 1941. Is it impossible for both to be right ? Contradiction is a form of difference of things from each other - but not all difference is contradiction.

What is to stop the Gospel accounts of the sending of the 70 - or 72 - being influenced by the theologies of the writers ? That could have happened in this case - the difference may depend on how the writters use the OT.

[Montgomery7674]

Verbal Plenary Inspiration - The words of Scripture were only inerrant in their original form, when they were breathed out through men by the Holy Spirit. Through the process of textual criticism, and forming an eclectic text, we believe we have the closest thing possible to the original Scriptures.

[tillnow67]

@Montgomery7674 Montgomery, you can "claim" the originals were inerrant and I can "claim" that they have errors. We can each "claim" whatever we want about them because there are no surviving original manuscripts to check. The ONLY EVIDENCE we have about what the originals were like is the copies. When we look at the copies, the "closest thing possible to the original Scriptures", we see errors. So what makes you believe the originals were perfect? Something you read in the imperfect copies?

[HAITIAN909]

I tell you the truth, God's 10 commandments are the strongest foundation anyone can built upon. They never fail. Look at all the nations of this world, not one of them have a good foundation of laws. Know why? Bcuz this is not Heaven! All this will past and everything will be made new. God with the Lord God and not against Him. Gain real knowledge, read your bible. Bible college is cool, but Jesus used 11 fishermen and gave them true knowledge and power. You don't need a degree to teach/know God

[HAITIAN909]

If only we all knew Hebrew then we could truly learn God's word. Also I would like to point this out, out of all the "religions" in that came and went in this world why is Christianity or the thought of one True God still lives and thrives? You pagans need to look yourselves in the mirror. I was a pagan also but I decided to look in the mirror. I studied the Bible and got baptized on 23 of Dec. 09'. I'm still having studies, thus keeping the word of my father sharp in my mind. Plz keep reading

[coolbeens21]

@HAITIAN909

fiction in any language is still fiction

[businessventure2012]

@coolbeens21 very true!

[HAITIAN909]

There is no fiction when you speak God's language, but since you're so caught up and fluent in Satan's language you don't see that. I pray that everyone who reads these comments focus on God and not Satan's servants who will do anything and use anything to fight God, even though they know that they already lost....or did Satan lie to you about that too??? The presence of God is everywhere but hell, repent and get baptized before its too late my friends. Trust in the Christ.

[coolbeens21]

LMFAO

I don't know if you are joking or if you are being serious...

[businessventure2012]

@HAITIAN909 Christianity has stuck around for so long because it has been used as a tool of fear to not only oppress people in this life it was created for that reason but to use false hoods to make people believe in torture in the after life it is hardly the word of God slavery genocide child murdering wife murdering etc. all supposed demands of God in the bible the bible has held back the evolution of man were still cavemen believing in this propaganda

[HAITIAN909]

Hmmm let me see..a set of Commandments that teach people how to live, how to treat others, how to treat the animals, and how to glorify their maker...yup thats tools of fear alright. You're so smart you're stupid. Please keep reading the bible. If you can't understand with your heart then you will never understand. You'll just be like the Israelites when they came out of Egypt. Living only by your mind and not combining it with your heart. Your mind has no feelings and your heart has no thought.

[businessventure2012]

@HAITIAN909 matthew mark luke and john didnt write the new testament i know im sure your preacher minister or priest will say this is satan testing you in all honesty hon no one has the answers just theory were all searching for the truth but you wont find it in religion

[HAITIAN909]

What you call religion is what I call culture. Living a life full of morales and values is better than living a life for you pagans. This world has believed so much in Satan that it will take Christ coming back to open your eyes. But by then it will be too late my friend. Let God open your eyes now before its too late. All I can say is this, who gave you the free will to think such things? If you really think there's no God then you really need to get out of the U.S.A my friend. I'm Haitian.

[zo10]

One of the biggest bible contradiction is

Thou Shall Not Kill.

And throughout the old testament they did the complete opposite, KILL, KILL KILL, and in god's name!!!

[ByGoneBlues]

This is easily reconciled:

Two accounts forbid "staves" (plural)

Mark, the "dissenter" affirms "staff" (singular)

When compared with the instruction about two coats, all three accounts can be harmonized as such:

"Do not take more than one staff. "

Saying do not take multiple staffs does not forbid the instruction about keeping a singular staff. He's not saying do not take ANY staff PERIOD... it's saying do not take multiple staffs (staves).

[DonSSanders]

So what would be the point of carrying around TWO staffs...wouldn't that look dumb? You have cleaver logic...just wrong. As long as you see everything through the a prior i lens of inerrancy, you will never even see these facts. Xtians are the masters of self delusion. Norman Geisler is a tap dancer.

[ByGoneBlues]

What would the point of carrying around two coats be? You're missing the point of the lesson Jesus is teaching, and that is: AVOID SELF-SUFFICIENCY. Don't take EXTRA gear to protect yourself and have backups, because he is calling them to rely upon God to provide their needs in this ministry.

Often you can focus on the nitty gritty details of grammar and so forth, and miss the very teaching of the text. Don't swallow camels.

Cheers.

[DonSSanders]

I understand your view about biblical interpretation. I have a BA in Biblical Studies from a conservative xtian university, the founding president of that school's "Evangelicals for Orthodoxy." campus club. The fact is that guys like Dr. Norman Geisler (Challenges to Inerrancy ) are incredibly good "tap dancers" about reconciling apparent contradictions ion the bible.  Most of his explanations are valid but sometimes he has to make extreme leaps of logic.like this issue about the staffs.

[coolbeens21]

@ByGoneBlues

he is talking about staves in general.. just like he is talking about shoes.

shoes and staves are used both in plural form so are you saying that the scripture says that A shoe is allowed as well?

[ygp1012]

It is a GOOD thing that u left the Pegan religion of christianity but now i challenge U 2 take another view of the bible but this time due it in the mindset that it was originaly writen Hebraic understanding and all will make sence But u need 2 get out of the Greeko-Roman-European- Westernised mind set of thinling I know what i'm talkig about 4 I am Hebrew

[gambleor]

-In Matt's rendition, Jesus says that the Apostles should not accept gifts or payment other than nourishment.

-In Mark's rendition, Jesus says that the Apostles should not carry away from their journey anything more than they went on it with.

-Since we agree that Luke's and Matt's accounts are not contradictory, this matter can be laid to rest as a simple lingual misinterpretation.

-The verb used in Luke and Mark is not "ai" but "airo"

[jazzyhap]

Staves - plural

Staff - singular

In other words, don't bring more than one.

[tillnow67]

He was talking to twelve men, thus the plural "staves" the same as the plural "purses". When he meant two of something he said exactly that as with "neither two coats".

[jazzyhap]

Wittgenstein is right about one thing, language is our problem.

When I say brother, you may think of something totally different than me, though we both have a strong concept of the word.

Nonetheless, when you read the bible assuming it to be wrong, you can make the language wrong. When you read it assuming it to be right, it rationally makes no conflict whatsoever.

So it definitely lies in your world view.

[trac4yt]

benali,

God inspired and preserved His Word perfect in the Bible according to HIS promises. It is thus sacred, infallible and final authority.

It cannot be otherwise.

Always dump Bible critical information. It's all worthless.

"Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." (Joh 17:17)

:-)

[BenAliGtor]

A quantum leap exists from "the scriptures as originally God breathed are inerrant " to "the Bible is 100% accurate". The oldest complete NT manuscript dates to the Fourth Century, and the oldest complete OT manuscript dates to even later. Chains of custody and records of transcriptions back to the autographs can't be documented. Therefore, even if someone accepts a traditional standard of inspiration, one cannot conclude that the Bible we hold in our hands is "the inerrant word of God".

[Epydemic2020]

Just brainstorming.

Matthew = dont buy a new staff

Luke = dont bring an extra staff, like you dont bring an extra coat.

Mark = bring 1 staff

[QstnZapper]

You are correct to point out that Mark says to bring nothing except a staff. A traveler at this time would normally bring a staff with him on his journey. Matthew and Luke say not to acquire another staff - not that they shouldn't bring the staff they already have. Thus, all three accounts can agree that they can bring one staff but not more than one. There is no contradiction here.

[tillnow67]

You either didn't watch the video or you are a little slow on the uptake. Matthew's verb means "aquire", but Luke and Mark use the same exact verb for carry or take and opposite commands. That most certainly IS a contradiction. But don't just take my word for it. Break your cycle of dependance on apologists and LOOK IT UP. It's not that hard. You can find sites with Strong's numbers online and look at the original language. Or put your head back in the sand. Your call.

[QstnZapper]

Mark 6:8 reads literally: "They should take nothing for the road except a staff only." Matthew 10:9-10 reads literally: "Do not acquire... staffs." Luke 9:3 reads literally: "Take nothing for the road, neither staffs..."

So I'm puzzled here: Why is there necessarily a contradiction when one text says to take nothing except a staff when the other two say not to take/acquire staffs? Why can it not be that they would take their own staff and not bring any extra ones?

[smurfmash]

Qst... You are a retard.

[migkillertwo]

AAHAHAHAHAA!

I'm listening to William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith podcast and the opening audio from this video is replayed in it.

[tillnow67]

Yeah, that's a pretty funny podcast. " We don't claim inerrancy for anything but the original manuscripts". How convenient for them there are NO surviving original manuscripts. Claim anything you want about them. I also find it funny that he is aware of videos like this one, but he makes no attempt to answer it here. I guess that's because he can't dice and splice it here. Typical apologist.

[migkillertwo]

Perhaps if Craig was trying to defend inerrancy your objection would hold importance, but Craig did not intend to do any such thing. He actually lays out the case for inerrancy being not very important at all and vastly less important than many contemporary christians claim. if one disproves inerrancy it does not disprove Christianity. Just look at me, I dont buy the inerrancy BS, and I'm one of the most ardent apologists you'll probably ever meet.

[tillnow67]

Actually, he was conflating inerrancy and inspiration and he was defending them both. He backed away from literal inerrancy, what he called a "wooden inerrancy", but said more than once that the truths taught through the bible are inerrant. Of course his podcast is pointless since he watered down his definition of inerrancy so much. I wonder why he even bothered claiming inerrancy for the originals if it was "not very important at all."

[migkillertwo]

"Of course his podcast is pointless since he watered down his definition of inerrancy so much."

ehh no. maybe if he was DEFENDING inerrancy it woudl be pointless, but that's not his point. His point is Christ first, bible second.

[tillnow67]

He WAS defending inerrancy and his podcast WAS pointless. BTW, I love this quote: "His point is Christ first, bible second." As if everything you think you know about Christ didn't come from the Bible! You can throw in the towel on defending inerrancy and try instead to downplay it's importance, but if everything you believe is based on a flawed, self-contradictory book, then everything you believe (including your beliefs about Christ) is "suspect."

[migkillertwo]

"everything you belief about Christ is suspect" not if the books we are talking about are historically reliable, and as demonstrated by Gerharddson, Dunn, Byrskog, Bauckham, Boyd, Eddy, Blomberg, Wallace, Komoszewski, Sawyer, and Moreland, the New Testament documents are thoroughly reliable.

[tillnow67]

Riiiggghhhhttt! So when the New Testament says that when Christ died there were earthquakes, darkness at mid-day, and thousands of dead crawling out of their graves all over Jerusalem, none of which is even MENTIONED by any secular source, you call that thoroughly reliable? PFFFT! You can't pass off fairy tales as historically reliable.

[migkillertwo]

coulden't that be a metaphor to stretch the age-shifting significance of Christ's death?

but seriously, have you ever heard of a presentation of Bauckham's arguments?

[tillnow67]

The resurrection could be a metaphor. The virgin birth could be a metaphor. Walking on water could be a metaphor. Healing the blind could be a metaphor. Raising the dead could be a metaphor. His whole life could be a metaphor. The bottom line is you want to claim that the Bible is an accurate depiction of Christ's life and "historically reliable" until it wanders into the absurd and then it is metaphor. The problem is the whole thing is absurd.

[migkillertwo]

"The resurrection could be a metaphor."

Bultmann actually believed this. The problem with this, as noted by N.T. Wright, is that Paul names witnesses to the resurrection.

*miracle X could be a miracle" well for one the Gospels rather clearly belong in the bios genre of literature, and in many of those miracle stories witnesses are named.

"and then it is a metaphor" images like earthquakes and zombies, are part of apocalyptic literature.

[tillnow67]

Matthew says the dead in Jerusalem were "seen by many" and he says the centurion in charge of the crucifixion "saw the earthquake." Are you implying that if their names were given these would be viable eyewitnesses and therefore these events would be considered historical rather than metaphorical? Or are you just grasping at straws trying to make a distinction?

[migkillertwo]

"Are you implying that if their names were given these would be viable eyewitnesses and therefore these events would be considered historical rather than metaphorical? Or are you just grasping at straws trying to make a distinction?"

well I dont think this affects the general historicity of the NT, just Matthew. But I think Miller has written a great essay on this subject. christian-thinktank(dot)com/od­drise(dot)html

[jt13055]

This is pretty sorrow evidence to try and discredit inerrancy. I personally have found several other more "weighty" passages that challenge me in that area. Perhaps the different accounts refer to different occasions. Jesus could have commanded that some disciples take staffs and others not take staffs. Although there is much harmony in the Gospels, they were all written from a different perspective. This does not make them untrue.

[tillnow67]

I agree. The truth is there. It's as plain as the nose on your face. Are YOU looking for it? You can accept all of your apologists mental gymnastics for each seperate error or you can concede that one simple explanation takes care of them all....the Bible is not the inspired inerrant word of a perfect God. But you don't want to hear that, even if it is the truth.

[highwind8124]

This was an awesome video. Thanks, man. This is some solid work.

[Akulshae]

Some apologist explanations do sound feasible, but some are blatantly idiotic.

It's the ones that get REALLY far out there that are just ridiculous. You can probably name more of them then me.

[artbiztommy]

your atheism is as flawed as the fairy tales you used to believe in. staves, shmaves....the bible is so full of errors that it is totally unecessary to waste any time on the tenses of the verbs or what walking stick to take, if any.

the only proper response to the bible is laughter

[YoungApologist]

Has it ever occurred to you that God allows contradictions in His book, to test the faith of the followers?

[tillnow67]

Thank you so much for bringing up that point, not because it is valid or insightful, but because it demonstrates how backwards Christian apologetics thinking is. Thanks. Really.

[anarkus03]

YoungApologist illustrated a perfect example of circular reasoning or logic. No matter what the evidence against, there will always be an insignificant reason from a closeminded believer to reinforce their own beliefs. Nice job tillnow67. keep it up.

[ride4ruin]

"Has it ever occurred to you that God allows contradictions in His book, to test the faith of the followers?"

That is possibly one of the stupidest justifications for biblical contradictions I have ever heard, even trumping the "It proves they weren't colluding" gem.

Has it occurred to you that the bible has errors because it was written by a bunch of bronze age bigots who had no idea what they were talking about? Has it occurred to you that it has contradictions because it is complete bull?

[jassi4010709]

i think your here to test my faith...in humanity!

[Akulshae]

Has it ever occurred to you that you are making excuses to justify bullshit?

[paltalker3000]

Notice that in Matthew 10:10 Jesus said they were not to take 'two coats'. If Jesus had also said 'take one coat only', would he be contradicting himself? No, of course not: In Mathew and Luke, Jesus did not say 'No staff' (singular), he said 'staves' (plural). The disciples could take 'a staff only' as in Mark 6:8, and not be in contravention what Jesus said in Mathew and Luke.

[tillnow67]

He said staves plural because he was talking to disciples plural. But you can go on pretending that your semantics argument makes all the fairy tales in the Bible real if you want to. But you are only pretending.

[paltalker3000]

The passage obviously implies they could take only one coat each: (One item per person). Likewise, they were allowed to take one staff each. Each disciple was forbidden to take an extra staff, however they were permit to take 'a staff only' (Mark 6:8)

[smurfmash]

Why would anyone ever take two coats? Who wanders around with two pairs of coats! And why would one coat be ok but 2 not? Wow christians are so deluded.

[YoungApologist]

Ah yes, we Christians pretend that our Bible is real.

[Reservoirdog119]

Yes you do. Its a book of mythology and folklore, nothing more, without a single shred of scientific evidence backing any of its claims about the universe, yet you xians believe it literally word for word as though it was fact without question. Where I come from, that is called pretending something is real, yes.

[revjayw]

Are you serious? This is the best example of error?

Is this what you will use to explain unbelief when standing before Jesus himself.

Sorry. Not enough. More study needed for sure.

[tillnow67]

Rev, I notice you stopped by to smirk, but didn't offer an explanation. Typical. It's been 2000 years and Jesus hasn't returned. Is this contradictory book of fables really enough to keep you hanging on? Are you serious?

[chriss179]

Basically, if you look at the stars you'd think 2000 years is a little short thru the corner. It's like god should race to be in time for "your" agenda. We can see the immense dimensions of god, which are endless like the heavens. But he had to return before dinner? No, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day for him. For you a thousand years sound impressive, maybe. But is that really a fact?

[Nicx950]

Is God a fact?

[chriss179]

Well, is he?? You prove to me god is a fact! Maybe you'll strengthen my faith....

[gpokriff2]

AZ101010 You just go around copy and pasting this.. dumb ass.. #1 Albert Einstein was an Atheist. #2 even if he wasn't EVERYONE can be wrong .. just as he was wrong about Quantum Theory ... Thats why its not used as an argument...READ A BOOK DUMB ASS THEIST!!!

[Mahoivlich]

keep fighting the good fight bud.

[alianchild]

its easy to destroy the appologists, if god exists would he allow his book to be full of misstranslations, no, it would be devine translation, or devinely inspired translation. so its f'd up and there is no god.

[Valvallar]

Awesome video! Keep up the good work!!!

-Subscribed-

gr33tingz

Valvallar

[ypevan]

Wow, there are a lot of tough contradictions in the Bible, this just isn't one of them.

Matthew and Luke says don't take Staves, plural, as in multiple staffs. Is doesn't say don't take stave, but staves.

No contradiction, all three accounts Jesus states don't take multible staffs.

[tillnow67]

When he says don't take staves he uses the plural because he was talking to a group. When the writer meant don't take more than one coat each he made it clear by saying don't take "two coats". Your "explanation" doesn't hold water.

[Mozza314]

It's really bad language to say not to do something and then use the plural form to indicate that doing one is an exception. This is why when people do this they stress the 's' to indicate that they are talking specifically about more than one.

A child who's parent tells them "You can't have lollies until you finish your schoolwork" understands that this doesn't mean they are allowed a single lolly.

[smurfmash]

And by your logic the mother asks the kids each with a sweet in their mouth. "Are you all enjoying your lolly" NO she doesn't you moron she says "Are you enjoying your lollies"!!! It is not rocket science!!

[Mozza314]

Can you please explain how that follows from my example?

[smurfmash]

You are clearly too stupid to understand the written word. How simple can I make it for you? We have both tried spoon feeding you!

[Mozza314]

You know, looking at your scenario again it is kind of interesting how we use the plural form of words in this way.

If, in my example, I had said that children were instructed not to have lollies, perhaps there would be a connection here but I still cannot see it.

And honestly, you don't know me and your stupidity accusation is not warranted.

Also, who is 'we'? You are the only one who has talked to me about this objection to what I said earlier.

[grandconjunct]

this is why why you became an atheist?

jeeez you atheists got lots and lots of faith

talk about a big leap in the dark .

[tillnow67]

Fundies are sooooooo funny! One unanswered question nullifies any scientific theory for them, but dozens of contradictions and errors in a supposedly inerrant, divinely inspired book are no problem. I notice you didn't offer an expalanation. Is that blind faith or can you not see for having your head up your ass?

[GenMata]

All four of them wrote the gospels after Jesus ascended into heaven. When they wrote the gospels, they thought back to their experiences with Jesus and wrote down what they remembered.. None of the gospel writers could possible write down everything Jesus said and did nor precisely.

[GenMata]

Matthew 10:9 ("Do not acquire...."), instead of "provide" or "take." In Matthew, Jesus is saying: "Do not acquire anything in addition to what you already have that may tempt you or stand in your way. Just go as you are." As Mark indicated, the apostles were to "take" (airo) what they had, and go. The apostles were not to waste precious time gathering supplies but instead were instructed to trust in God's providence for additional needs.

[Bowermml]

Part 1 (to be less than 500 characters):

I am curious about your explanation of Mark 6:8. I don't read Greek and have been unable to find any supporting web articles that show the greek verb differences as you did.

[zimplyelizabeth]

I can tell that you speak from the heart. To expose the truth can be a very lonely journey full of opposition. Keep up the good work! Only the truth will set you free!

[kenkhim]

In Matthew 10:10 and Luke 9:3 and Mark 6:8-9 The "Stave(s)" or staff and two tunics kept on jumping at me. I understood it like this:

The "Staves" more than one staff, should not be taken more than one. Just like more than one tunic. It didn't say, do not take a tunic, but "two tunics a piece." I guess I see it as though, not to take more than you need. Matthew and Luke used Stave(s) Mark says except a staff, just one staff, no more than one = stave(s).

[tillnow67]

In the same sentence where the writer MEANT two tunics he SAID two tunics. Why would you suggest that when he meant two staffs he wouldn't have just said two staffs? This is what I mean when I say a christians last defense against admitting contradictions is "the Bible doesn't SAY what it actually MEANS or really MEAN what it actually SAYS".

[kenkhim]

It didn't say two staffs, just more than one, Stave(s). They didn't need more than what they may already have. Matt. and Luke says "Staves"= multiple, There's noting conclusive that Jesus didn't say just take one except for Mark "a staff" = just one. Not multiples.

[kenkhim]

I'm not an apologist. I can be wrong, but that's what my logics leads me to understand. "Hey don't take multiple staffs, which Matt. and Luke documented. Just take one, not multiples, which Mark documented. If God does not exist than we're good, we have nothing to answer to. If He does... I can't convince you, I'll try. At the END, you're alone.

[gyro30]

yeah i think its a contradiction, look at matthews others.... Matthew 20:30 "ONE blind men were sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was going by they shouted , Lord, Son of David have mercy on us"

Mark 10:46 ............. A blind MAN Barimaeus was sitting by the roadside begging 47: when he heard that it was Jesus of Nazareth, he began to shout Jesus, Son of David have mercy on me

Luke 18:35 ..... A blind MAN

[gyro30]

oops, i meant to quote matthew as matthew 20:30 Two blind men

[planoangel]

question for the speaker do you know a man by the name of zane hodges

[yancur]

Great video, perfectly debunking the Christian bullshit..

[ozatheist]

Matthew and Luke diagree with eachother on alot of things.

[moonlightbateman]

Thank you for correcting the apologists' error. I believe your correction lends credibility to the inerrancy of the bible. It was right (according to your correction) and the apologist was wrong.

[tillnow67]

LOL....I think you'd better watch it again. You obviously missed something. I can make a slowed down version for you if you still don't get it.

[KasparHauser4]

Thank You for your video!

[HexDemon666]

Wayne Atkins? That's like the most professional name ever!

Completely irellevant, I know. =P

Cool videos, dude.

[schrodcat]

Or. Who knows. Maybe one of the three couldn't really read well what the other one had written in the copy he got for himslelf, and the third one copied the wrong one, maybe. Or all three of them had two different copies of the old old copy. If they only had proper glasses at the time...

[stevowonders2007]

I always wondered why Jesus told the Disciples that the Answers to the Parables were not meant for public consumption but only for his Disciples to hear. (Mathew 12:1-23) Why it is that those same answers were then written down by those disciples for public consumption, when it was to be secret and revealed only to them. Inspired Contradictions?

[stevowonders2007]

Duh, (Mathew 13:1-23), my bad.

[AQuinault]

Sorry to disappoint you, John Gill has a reasonable harmonization on Mt 10:10 vs Mk 6:8 (at freegrace dot net/Gill). I will say this, however, unlike John Shelby Spong, you have integrity.

[tillnow67]

Not a harmonization at all. In Mt 10:10 when he means two coats the writer says "two coats". Same in Luke. Had he meant don't take two staves why wouldn't he have said "don't take two staves"? He simply said don't (talking to disciples plural) take staves. That is a different command than "don't take two staves".

[perfcon]

So do you believe all religions are contradictory and inerrant or just Christianity? Because there are a lot of religions in the world that make complete sense and there is hardly anything irrational about them.How do atheists explain the things that science can't? I'm not attacking you. Just looking for answers myself.

[tillnow67]

I only focus on Christianity because I am most familiar with it and because it is the most prevalent in the U.S. I haven't seen any other religion without the same problems. I can't speak for ALL atheists, but I would tell you that science can't now, nor ever will explain everything. But we know more now than we did 100 years ago and we will know more tomorrow than today.

[perfcon]

There are religions in the world that dont rely "heavily" on their holy scriptures. Ofcourse, the three major religions - Christianity,Islam and Judaism arent examples of them. But there are sects in Hinduism,Jainism(eastern religions) that arent all abt the scriptures. And they are more scientific in their approach to life.

[HAITIAN909]

Yes we know more now than we did 100yrs ago, but the bible already told us that. You're now just realizing that??? Please people read you're bible. The only difference between the 3 major "religions" is Jesus Christ. The Jews think he's a good person, muslims think he's a great prophet but not the Son of God, and Christians know he's the Son of God. Everything is the same until Jesus Christ is mentioned and thats when Judaism and Islam go astray and into the darkness. I am a disciple of Christ.

[TLCTugger]

It's a shame that you have to go to such rigorous lengths to convince some people of the obvious human origins of scripture - and that some will never be swayed even if it said black was white.

Good Job. As long as people can shamelessly assert that they have an invisible bully in the sky on their side, the world will never know peace. Shame on all such obstacles to peace.

[takizzle06]

I believe the Bible is inerrant but I must admit you did catch his mistake. There is an answer to this, but I won't mention it.

[tillnow67]

Oh I have no doubt you have SOME answer for it. But mentioning it would involve the risk that it would be shown to be wrong as well. So you will ignore the one simple, obvious answer staring you in the face....the Bible is the flawed work of man.

[takizzle06]

Not "SOME" answer for it, the answer. I studied the greek text and became a Christian. If it is a flawed work of man, it is a life changing and powerful work of man.

[Gearson141]

Hmm really? Then please give us this answer please. I see no reason not to say it, if it is THE answer.

Very nice Wayne. Good job.

[KingHeathen]

LMAO! "I won't mention it"...what? Is it a secret?  Nice job, Wayne, on an in depth analysis.

[takizzle06]

To mention it would make me like the apologists he was talking about.

[shortfu]

Good video soldi...ummm ex soldier. Keep 'em comin'

[JFZcafe]

Great job. I liked your video. You and I share nearly identical experiences while studying at a bible college. Keep up the good work.

[owheydusoapsk]

No criticism here. It seems to me Christians ignore the Jewishness of their religion sometimes to the point of anti-semitism. Who are the N.T. prophets if not the apostles.

[owheydusoapsk]

No criticism here. It seems to me Christians ignore the Jewishness of their religion sometimes to the point of anti-semitism. Who are the profits in the New Testament if they weren't apostles?

[snappa52]

I've been in law enforcement for about 10 years now. And i've never seen a report by different people covering the same circumstance that is alike. There is always a different skew or account on what they have seen. The Aspostles were not prophets, and what i've learned is that the inspired word is from the prophets.

[owheydusoapsk]

I guesse what bothers me is the over-confidence, arrogance and condecension of some Christians. For the most part it is none of my business what a person's faith or lack-of is. It does matter when those beliefs impact law and public policy.

[owheydusoapsk]

And while I'm not a christian I am agnostic and enjoy god-talk. Presuppositional apologetics is an especially agressive example insisting one can prove bible inerrancy and superiority of the christian religion.

[owheydusoapsk]

So your Jewish?

[snappa52]

I am a Christian that doesnt divorce himself from the Jewish roots. there were prophecies in the new testament too. Christianity was started by Hebrews. Unless i'm completely mistaken Jesus is still a Hebrew.

[owheydusoapsk]

You obviously were never really a christian. If you had the holy spirit, you would be able to read the bible and see that there are no contradictions. Just teasing. That's a pat answer some christians would give your video. I'd be surprised if you hadn't heard this response already.

[tillnow67]

Yep, too many times. But when they claim that I just don't understand the Bible because I lack the illumination of the Holy Spirit I just smile and ask them "How does someone like you who is filled with the spirit explain this contradiction then". Their pat answer is I can't explain it, but I have faith that there IS an explanation. Funny thing is, they never take that stance about things like the origin of the universe. If they can't explain it, God did it.

[owheydusoapsk]

There is no end to apologetic answers and there is an answer to EVERY contradiction. They start with I KNOW "this is the word of god" so it has to be consistent. How do you respond to, "well I'm going to pray for you"?

[KingHeathen]

"How do you respond to, "'well I'm going to pray for you'"? - Here ya go: "Then I'll think for both of us" - Taken from The Quotable Atheist, author anonymous

[rxbandit21]

that's a good zinger

[owheydusoapsk]

I like it!