Episode 49 | On Being Infallibly Errant

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 [email protected] Support us at buymeacoffee.com/Flyover