We covered the articles 10-12 (X-XII) of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, and Iowancap acknowledged his own errancy on the definition of infallibility. Questions considered were:
* How do the enemies of Christianity “lie with facts” when it comes to textual criticism?
* How do the people who deny inerrancy in favor of infallibility define infallibility?
* What does infallibility really mean?
* How does their idea of infallibility but not inerrancy impossible even with their understanding of infallibility?
* How is the biblical history actual history?
* What does the statement mean in its statement about science? What DOESN’T it mean by that?
* How is heliocentricity a good example of the way biblical study and science interact rightly?
* How is conversion therapy a good example of the science has “corrected” biblical study with terrible results?
* When will Iowancap just do his own work and stop linking Cave to the Cross for everything?
* What’s your AMA question for episodes 50 and 51?
Relevant links:
Chicago Statement
Defending Inerrancy
Explaining Inerrancy
Cave to the Cross Cornucopia:
FANTASTIC J. Warner Wallace Interview
Andreas Köstenberger Interview
Follow Iowancap on Twitter
Follow Jeff
Leave a comment at AnarchistBibleStudy@gmail.com
Support us at buymeacoffee.com/Flyover
