Does the Bible contain errors? Steve Chalke vs Andrew Wilson debate #1

Progressive church leader Steve Chalke debates Biblical inerrancy with New Frontiers theologian Andrew Wilson. The first of their 4 video debates on the Bible hosted by Justin Brierley from the Unbelievable? archives 2014.

Debate #2

[Judahmangi]

When Jesus says "you have heard it said... but I say to you..." He isn't disagreeing with the Torah! He's correcting popular teachings of the time with proper understanding of Scripture. When He quotes the Bible, He says "it is written, " when he's quoting popular teaching he says "it was said, " (He corrects some teaching which quotes the Bible but misunderstands it (e.g. Matt. 5:38), and some that teaching which was not based on Scripture at all (e.g. 5:43)). The idea that Jesus is disagreeing with the Old Testament is untenable once you understand that the sermon on the mount shows Jesus correcting unbiblical teaching of His time, not correcting the Bible.

[samuelnaylor]

Moderator needs to keep Steve from cutting Andrew off. Not a debate when one guy just over talks the other.

[horatiobottomley]

To be scrupulously fair to Steve Chalke, I think one has to ignore the way he presents in debate: talking over and interrupting his opponents; the constant, unsubstantiated claims that serious scholars subscribe to his positions, and the routine use of personal anecdotes - as a substitute for scriptural evidence - does little to enhance his credibility. But if we can leave all that baggage aside, perhaps it would be more charitable to judge what he is trying to say, rather than the manner in which he says it.

Steve claims that he has a high view of Jesus, and a high view of scripture. This is not strictly accurate: he has a high view of a re-imagined Jesus - a liberal, user-friendly, inclusive Jesus who has been grossly misunderstood by all but Steve Chalke. A Jesus who shares Steve's disdain for every part of scripture which doesn't agree with Steve's agenda. The Holy Spirit may be the author of some of the bible, but clearly not those sections which disagree with this re-imagined Jesus.

If Steve Chalke really had a high view of Jesus, he would not find it necessary to re-invent him. As for a high view of scripture, that could only be true in a world where a 'high view' is synonymous with contempt. It seems Steve has created such a world - at least, in his imagination.

[dcbcplymouth]

The problem starts when Andrews view is called "Biblical" while Steve 's is called "controversial"... both are biblical and controversial

[Daniel-ciqp]

Love this. Unscripted, Uncut. Christians with different opinions talking about important questions. It would be interesting though if both parties would be willing to not only understand the other person but even to correct their own opinion if the arguments of the other one are better. So to speak if both of them would seek the truth together instead of just defending their own opinion.

[Elwood_McCable]

1:37 terrible, maddening music clip loop ends

[Jebbersful]

“No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says.
He’s always convinced that it says what he means.”
George Bernard Shaw.

[walterclaycooke]

Bring back Tom Holland, NT Wright and Jordan Peterson, altogether if possible. Maybe add Bart Ehrman to the mix. Then re-ask that panel the same question. That would be an exciting event.

[divinehealthlife]

The Old Testament are the words of God, but it is a shadow / a represetation that bring us to the New Testament. It is not the reality which can reveal the true nature and character of God.
That's why Jesus came to reveal the Father to us.

John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) full of grace and truth.

John 1:17 - For the law was given by Moses,  BUT grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

[pannonia]

Simple question. Why could not God make sure the Bible is inerrant thus indicating that this collection of texts is not simply human works, but God's words? The fact that God failed to do so, is not an indication that this collection of texts has nothing to do with God, and maybe there is not even such a thing as an omnipotent God?

[AFFLCTED]

Great stuff! I've only recently discovered your program and I'm loving the content. May God bless you in your work.

[MikeWinger]

Thank you Unbelievable? for bringing so many great and informative conversations!
It seems that Andrew is trying to be clear and consistent and Steve is trying to be persuasive without being clear about what he is trying to persuade people of.
The treatment of "eye for an eye", by Steve, was quite a false representation of both what Jesus said and the judicial context of the idea in the Old Testament which is about justice, not revenge.
As I continue listening it seems that Steve admits that the original context of the "eye for an eye" command is about justice and not revenge. But this undercuts his whole point, or so it seems to me.

[stevetucker]

It seems to me that most Christian theologians define inerrancy as “without error in the original autographs.” So with that definition, they’re admitting that we don’t currently have an inerrant Bible, and we never WILL have an inerrant Bible since we don’t possess the original autographs. How do we know the Bible is inerrant if inerrancy only applies to the original autographs, which we don’t have?

[renebarrow.virtualreality]

The debate went completely off tangent. I was waiting to hear what the errors were supposed to be, and waiting to hear the rebuttal. However, all it became is an argument over the meaning of 'the Word of God'. I mean sure, it may be an interesting tangent, the Bible is a library of books that contain different authors perspectives, how many books are there in the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Bibles, is Jesus referring to the New Testament when he says 'Word of God', etc etc etc. but still...But the main point - 'Does the Bible contain errors?' is not addressed.

[mramirez]

Wilson, well done. You certainly held your patience and spoke clearly, even when forced to speak quickly and being spoken over, but mostly for upholding what Chalke refuses to even hear. I heard you. I thank you. I agree with what you presented.

[antiscientism]

Is funny Bart Ehrman called dr and obviously found contradiction in the holy bible, but in the case of Mark 2:26 you can read 1sa 22:20 2sa 8:17 and 1 Chr 18:16 and see both Abiathar and Abimelech( father-son) had both names interchangeably. I hope Bart Ehrman open his heart

[charlesmadison]

The discussion about "losing faith" prior to 5:00 says a lot about what is really a concern here.
Actual truth be damned, enter the apologists with their Gish-galloping, tap dance around the blatant errors.
_Viz._ " ...for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE
SEA MONSTER, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in
the heart of the earth." (NASB) Matthew 12:39-40
Yet Jesus was interred for only a day & a half. What day of the week did that infamous third night fall?
Sweep the obvious aside and you get to keep your "faith".

[drcrocker]

If you feed your doubt, your faith will die.
If you feed your faith, your doubt will die.

[wellnessgirl]

Great subject for discussion, but so argumentative with raised voices I found this too stressful to listen to - it gave me a headache!
Can we hear some more peaceful conversations please so that more can be said and heard without guests speaking over each other and raising their voices please?

[hreader]

I believe that 'an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth'' was an improvement on what went before - strict equivalence so a sort of rough justice.