Christian vs Agnostic: Is the Bible Really Perfect? | ABS EP 9

If you’ve ever heard someone say “the Bible is inerrant” and wondered what they’re actually claiming, we’re going straight to the definition before we argue about the implications. I’m Joe Teel, and I sit down with Pastor Cole Yeldell, who holds a doctorate in theology and apologetics, for a respectful, point-by-point conversation about biblical inerrancy, what it covers, and what it does not. We talk about the common formulation “without error in the original manuscripts,” why that raises immediate questions since we don’t possess those originals, and how people try to handle textual variants, translation, and interpretation without hand-waving.1

From there we move into inspiration and authority, including 2 Timothy 3:16 and the debate over what “Scripture” refers to in its historical setting. That naturally opens up a big New Testament scholarship topic: the dating of the Gospels. We zero in on Mark, the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, and why Mark 13 becomes a litmus test for some listeners. Is it predictive prophecy, or does it read like history written after the fact? You’ll hear both instincts and the reasoning behind them.

We also get into biblical literalism and genre, especially around Genesis, creation, and Noah’s flood. We wrestle with evolution, the problem of death before the fall, ancient flood traditions like the Epic of Gilgamesh, carbon dating assumptions, and what archaeology can and can’t settle when you’re talking about deep history. This is part one of a multi-part series, and next time we plan to bring specific “problem passages” and put inerrancy to the test. Subscribe, share this with a friend who loves Bible debates, and leave a review so more people can find the show.

Transcript

How Early Was Mark Written

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Most people date Mark to like sixty-five to seventy, and then that's typically the first one. And so Yeah, I would push back on that a little bit. Okay, let's that's more of a skeptical dating. Um I mean So you think it's before the temple fell? Like like how's how early do you put Mark?

SPEAKER_01 0:16

Yeah, I mean I I would think within the forties to fifties. Before Paul? I mean, not not necessarily, but but almost all of church history puts the gospels between or before AD 70, just because of the falling of the temple, that that would be a theological gold mine as far as some of the references.

SPEAKER_00 0:35

Yeah, but I think I'd push back and I'd say that, you know, like Mark 13 specifically, where he starts talking about all the stones being thrown and all the stuff. Like either it seems like you could just say, well, that's a prophecy, or you could just say Mark knew what happened and said Jesus said it. So yeah. Which I mean, we may not get to the same spot there. And that's fine.

SPEAKER_01 0:53

Well, and and this is one of those things too that we kind of referenced beforehand, but this is what's muddy about some of the historical dating, is it really that it's ranges. And so even within, you know, every study Bible that I have, there's always a range. Like this is an absolute fact, but there are a variety of reasons why we suppose that this is written around, you know, fitting together a lot of these things with historical time.

SPEAKER_00 1:17

What's going on? It's your host, Joe Till, and this is another episode of the Agnostic Bible study. Y'all, I am super excited for y'all to hear this conversation I had with Pastor Cole Yodel. He has his doctorate in apologetics, and the original conversation was two and a half hours long. So I shot this interview before I had even come up with the idea for this specific show. So I've been sitting on one of the best conversations I've had about faith and the Bible and theology and context and history, geography, all that. I've just been sitting on it. So I've decided to cut that long conversation into sections and drop them as Thursday episodes. I enjoy talking to him. I really respect Pastor Cole. We do not agree on a lot of things, but we always keep it respectful. And this is a really thoughtful conversation. Not really a debate, but we do openly push back and it's a good time. So today is part one, and we're going to talk about inerrancy, what it is, what's the definition, what specific version does he believe in? Strap in, it's a fun conversation. Thank y'all so much for watching the show. Let's get into it. Boys, I have another great guest. I have Cody Odell back for part two.

SPEAKER_01 2:23

How are you doing, man? Doing good, man. Thank you so much for having me back. I'm I'm excited.

Pastor Cole’s Apologetics Background

SPEAKER_00 2:27

So yeah, dude. I realized that I was a pe on last time. I didn't know anything. Tried to ask some good questions. Uh, but it was it's one of the best performing episodes I've ever done. People really enjoyed it. Lots of people from town were letting me know they really enjoyed it. So that was cool. Um, and it's tough. It's tough topics, it's fun things, it's challenging, it's it's all the stuff. It's uh it's algorithms love it. So that's that's another good thing. Absolutely. But no, uh, I man, I've just gotten super deep in this journey of of you know the Bible and learning about it and and the scholarship behind it and the history and and all the things. And so I'm excited to have you back on. Uh before we get into the topics, um, all right, where did where so you went to seminary? I'm just saying, right? Yeah, yeah. Supposed to call you doctor, I believe. This is not to do that.

SPEAKER_01 3:14

I want to set the bar as low as possible. But uh yeah, so I went to seminary at Liberty University, have uh doctorate in theology and apologetics. So uh not saying I know a ton, but I know more than I did several years ago, just on a journey of learning and researching and trying to grow in the faith. So happy to be able to bounce some ideas around and try to do my best to answer some questions.

SPEAKER_00 3:36

So last time we left, I was like, I wonder, like what so what was your dissertation on?

SPEAKER_01 3:40

Oh, wondering about that. Well, what was neat about my specific project, which they kind of the way my program was, they called it a like a final project, but I I got to do it within my specific like ministry realm. They wanted me to. So I got to do it over youth ministry. And there's uh a significant barn of stat from a few years ago that 64% of kids and teens within church world today will just walk away from the faith during college years, adult years. And so my entire project wrote 150 pages over it was awful. Uh but we made it through, but uh was uh just simply about what can churches do uh to better disciple uh their young people, to see them last in the faith and to kind of, you know, their for their faith to be upheld and a lot of skepticism and a lot of these things that we see today. And so uh I got to do a lot of research and things on that and hopefully help us to build a stronger, you know, youth ministry. That's what I do at at our church.

SPEAKER_00 4:35

So Dan you're a church with a rock.

SPEAKER_01 4:37

Yes, sir, yes sir.

Defining Inerrancy And Its Limits

SPEAKER_00 4:38

Okay, I was just curious from last time. I thought that'd be fun to ask to get the get it going. To hit inerrancy, how would you define that? So, what is inerrancy to like what is that to you?

SPEAKER_01 4:47

Well, there's kind of a variation a little bit, you know, between scholars and churches and and some of that. But you know, the the summary line is that the Bible is without error in its original manuscripts. That's what a lot of people believe. Without error, but um really definitionally it it's without error is in reference, most would claim to to more of its truth claims. Okay. Um, you know, a lot of uh, you know, a lot of scholars wouldn't proclaim that the Bible is out was without like grammatical errors or things like that. Like those things are are found. Um yeah, like textual variants and stuff like that. Yeah, yeah, for sure. And and again, that that inerrancy would always relate to the original manuscript. Original manuscripts. Okay, that's that's a specific form of inerrancy. Yes, yes. And and so there are people that argue different facets of that, okay. Um, and and so there are quite a few variations, but I would say that's probably like a safe middle definition.

SPEAKER_00 5:43

Right, yeah. So like I know there was like the Chicago statement, and that was like in the 1970s where they got together and they like made it a doctrine.

SPEAKER_01 5:51

Yeah, you have Norm Geisler and a bunch of these like genius guys. That uh I I don't know that they were making it a doctrine as much as they were trying to define it. What what is this? They were they were trying to come up with bullet points as far as like what should the church affirm?

SPEAKER_00 6:04

Do you think it was in response to how the world was changing? Maybe more textual criticism, maybe more different history, more different science, things of that nature?

SPEAKER_01 6:14

Uh per perhaps. You know, I think some of the the cultural challenges and things might even raise some good questions where, oh, okay, well, that is kind of an outlandish claim here. Uh so I I think defining it obviously kind of like we did, that's one of the first things that people do in these debates. Well, what do you mean by this?

SPEAKER_00 6:28

Well, yeah, that's what I want to start with. So where you felt because there are people that are just like, everything's a hundred percent perfect, and then there's the people that are like, well, the original manuscripts were perfect, which is interesting because we don't have any of the original manuscripts. Yeah.

Inspiration And What Counts As Scripture

SPEAKER_01 6:41

So it's like this thing is perfect, but we don't have it. Yeah, that that's one of the caveats, like say a skeptic or somebody is obviously gonna point to what's convenient, you know, that we don't we don't have those. Uh but I don't think that it was something as far as a doctrine that was created, especially as late, you know, as in in the 1900s, but uh it it's it's really a a logical and theological development rooted within scripture. Okay. So inspiration, the reason I say that, because scripture claims to be inspired. This is not a a church claim necessarily or a Christian claim. It's that scripture itself claims to be inspired by God. Which verse? Uh well, Timothy is one of the prominent ones. Uh he's talking about all scripture being God-breed. 2 Timothy 3.16. Yeah, I think it might be 1 Timothy. First is it first or 2 Timothy 3.16? I think it's 2 Timothy.

SPEAKER_00 7:29

But but I mean, I would argue on that one that that's not even talking about that, though.

SPEAKER_01 7:32

Well, it it we talked about this last time, but particularly, you you would then have to define what is what is he actually referring to as he's writing this letter as scripture.

SPEAKER_00 7:43

I think he's talking about the Old Testament as far as because like 2 Timothy 3.15 says that these are the scriptures he was talking to Timothy, the scriptures you knew like as a child.

SPEAKER_01 7:52

Yeah, well, and I think minimally, yeah, well, we talked about this last time, even as Jesus, you know, uh is affirming a lot of scripture in Old Testament canon, uh, that that minimally we could say that that that's at least in reference to the Old Testament. Uh, but the reason I say that, uh, that this is built upon uh claims from scripture, that which, you know, we believe is a part of the canon as far as the church. So if it is inspired by God, okay, uh, if it's brought by God, God uh does not err. Like there's no error within it. And so so it's really more of a theological claim, uh one about the text, but also about God and and his yeah, I just I would just push back and say that I think that like Second Timothy was probably written before the gospels, maybe not Mark, but probably Matthew, Mark, uh Matthew, Luke, and John.

Temple Prophecy And Gospel Dating

SPEAKER_00 8:40

And and so like that would be Paul forward, like like in the future saying that this is something that will eventually be added in. Yeah. And so like the the New Testament's not even being finished being written before that verse is more than likely because Paul probably died in what, 64? Yeah, yeah. More than likely. And so, you know, most people date Mark to like 65 to 70, and then that's typically the first one. And so Yeah, I would push back on that a little bit. Okay, that's more of a skeptical dating. Um, I mean so you think it's before the temple fell? Like, like how how early did he put Mark?

SPEAKER_01 9:17

Yeah, I mean, I I would think within the 40s to 50s. Um before Paul? I mean, not not necessarily, but but um I mean almost all of church history, and and I'm gonna struggle to recount all the specific dates, but but almost all of church history puts the gospels between or before AD 70, just because of the falling of the temple, that that would be a theological gold mine as far as some of the references, uh, one to now the you know God's presence and spirit dwelling within the temple, now the the temple being you know part of the New Testament or being the New Testament believer, that we're the temples of God, um, and then the prophetic word from Christ about its destruction. A lot of people just argue that those things would would be mentioned.

SPEAKER_00 10:01

Yeah, but I think I'd push back and I'd say that, you know, like Mark 13 specifically, where he starts talking about all the stones being thrown and all the stuff. Like either like even it seems like you could just say, well, that's a prophecy, or you could just say Mark knew what happened and said Jesus said it.

SPEAKER_01 10:19

Yeah, yeah, I I guess you could claim that, but you would just assume that it would be mentioned in other parts of scripture as well. Um, you know, that that it happened. If they were gonna give a prophecy, then they would likely try to showcase its fulfillment uh and and then make theological statements on top of that. About the tip of the thing. And so, yeah, um, and and so, and we would probably see references to some of that significance with on within some of the other New Testament letters. And so, uh, yeah, I it depends on what scholars you're referencing, but as far as church history, uh, I don't know that anyone uh in traditional church history dates Mark's gospel that way, uh, just because of that reason.

SPEAKER_00 10:55

So I mean I think there's more reasons too, but like you think I mean, all the people I listen to tend to put it uh like at least at 65, which we may be at the beginning of the Jewish Roman War-ish. Um and then Matthew in the 80s, seven late early uh late 70s there, and then Luke after that, and then John is dated to like 90s, 100 a lot of times. He lived the longest life, so that makes sense. So yeah. So I mean, we may not get to the same spot there, and yeah, and that's fine.

SPEAKER_01 11:23

Well, and and this is one of those things too that we kind of referenced beforehand, but this is what's muddy about some of the historical dating, is it is really that it's ranges. And so even within you know, every study Bible that I have, there's always a range given. Like this is an absolute fact, but there are a variety of reasons why we suppose that this is written around and you know, fitting together a lot of these things with a historical timeline. Obviously, I I would say, you know, as a Christian, I would say, and you would say the same about me, but as a as a Christian, I would say a lot of skeptical scholars are gonna push those datings later. To discredit to discredit, and you're gonna say the same, you know, about a uh a Christian perspective.

SPEAKER_00 12:02

But I mean, I see a lot of people that are like what a lot of the debates I listen to, when it is the the Christian on the other side and and the like the and also the atheists on the other side, a lot of them really big ones that I listen to, they they seem to place Mark and them like that late, typically.

SPEAKER_01 12:18

Well, yeah, well, that that's interesting for sure. I I don't know that I have any scholarly say uh as far as like study Bible, commentaries, anything that I've gone through. I I wanted to say that my ESV study Bible that I looked at a few days ago said something about Mark being written in 54.

SPEAKER_00 12:35

Uh and so I used to, but yeah, like I said, we're dealing with with first century history.

SPEAKER_01 12:41

Like neither one of us knows yeah, yeah, no, and you're exactly right. And I and I think you know, you're just trying to fit those things together and and see. And so I think a lot of people concede those things because it's not necessarily something for us to make a big deal about.

How Literal Is Genesis

SPEAKER_00 12:54

Right. I got you. I forgot why I even asked that. And I forgot what the original deal was. We were talking about inerrancy, which on the dating I don't think we'll see out of that. And that's perfectly fine. Because this is, like I said, it's first century history. We're not supposed to not gonna agree on that. Um, in your view of inerrancy, how literal is the Bible? Like, like everything, like I'm talking Noah's Ark to uh where they went, you know, how they traveled from one place to one place in like Mark or something, on the on the spectrum of stuff. How how literal are we getting like Genesis happening exactly, Noah's Ark happening exactly, yeah, um, them traveling from Capernaum to Nazareth or something. You know what I'm saying? Like that.

SPEAKER_01 13:34

You're obviously gonna find deviations, you know, within that as well, within Christendom. But um, you know, one one of the specific claims about inerrancy is that it is truthful in what scripture or God is intending to communicate. And so uh not necessarily claiming that uh everything is truthful, you know, in light of our terrible interpretations. And so uh each, you know, each passage and letter particularly needs to be interpreted within its proper genre and understanding and historical context. And that's one of the things that gets a little bit muddy when you begin to read some of these stories, and while some of this gets confusing, because some people, Christians alike, uh, you know, might apply allegory or some significance like that to say the Genesis account where you have strong, strong uh literalists for that as well. Right.

SPEAKER_00 14:19

So I guess that's kind of where I'm fine.

SPEAKER_01 14:20

Where how literal are you about something like Genesis? You know, I to me, I I just feel like I'm gonna take it at face value as far as a creation account until I feel like there's valid evidence to disprove that. Uh and so uh I'm not necessarily convinced uh by say like evolutionary theory and some of those things, uh, you know, at some point uh there has to be an uncaused cause. Okay. And so we can attribute those uh those powers and supernatural abilities to the universe or whatever, you know, whatever naturalistic claim, or we can do that to God. And so to me though, we uh and I think we might have mentioned this a little bit in our last episode, evolution, uh even claiming that, say, God perhaps might have used evolutionary process in these six days or um illustrations or you know, uh allegory for a longer process, I struggle because evolution would seem to introduce death before the the fall of the evolution.

SPEAKER_00 15:13

The fall, yeah, that's an interesting thought. Yeah. And so I struggle with something. Sound like Neanderthals or something. Like if you look at Neanderthals and you take the date at like the scientists' face value, they died before you know the Garden of Eden.

SPEAKER_01 15:24

Yeah, yeah. And so some of that I begin to kind of struggle with, and that's probably the reason why I'm not saying that God couldn't use, you know, some other means that maybe is not specifically described within the creation account. Uh, but in until I see some form of evidence that makes me really doubt that I think I'm just gonna take it at face value. And and one, two, if God can do that, like if if this creation, everything's spoken by the power and authority of his word and comes to life, like everything else in the Bible, like all the miraculous claims, all these things, like if that one's true.

SPEAKER_00 15:58

Yeah, if that one's true, it's kind of everything else is easy. Yeah, yeah.

Noah, Flood Myths, And Carbon Dating

SPEAKER_01 16:00

It's for sure. And so uh anyway, I just think it's it's significant. So I just kind of lean towards that being a little more literal. What about something like Noah's Ark? Um Well, Noah, yeah, I I think it is, you know, and and what's interesting about Noah's Ark, even extra biblically, is you have, I mean, almost every ancient civilization that has some form of story of this catastrophic flood. Not necessarily that everything aligns with the biblical text exactly, but you have this remnants of this same uh story and different kind of recounts of the Peter B. What would you say about the ones that seem to happen earlier, like Epic of Gilgamesh?

SPEAKER_00 16:34

It's written down like Sumerian tablets that are that seem to predate uh Noah.

SPEAKER_01 16:39

Well, yeah, and so I don't know, you know, uh specifically on that case, but but a lot of it, I mean, I just think it's interesting that they seem to align as far as this overall narrative. And then uh I think we get into some of the muddy dating parts too, where it's really, especially with ancient ancient, like that that's talking about like beginning culture, yeah. I think it's really hard for us to find. And then uh I I I have struggles uh as many Christians do, just with our dating process in general, uh, with it being uh completely based on the uh the the breaking down rate of uh deterioration rate of carbon. Yeah, yeah. And and so we're we're holding that throughout the ages that that carbon has the same rate of decay, uh, and we don't know that that's necessarily true. Uh so if you have any outside force acting on upon that, catastrophic things, uh, you know, floods, uh changes of the firmament, I mean a lot of these are biblical things, but if you have any of those things that begin to change uh the earth, you know, the atmosphere environment, it it kind of makes sense that some of those things could be variable through thousands of years. Uh and so uh it could, and I would argue as as a Christian that I think God kind of laughs, you know, when uh we we try to pinpoint some of that stuff, and he's like, no, that's that's not a consistent way to know.

Ancient Archaeology And People Outside Eden

SPEAKER_00 17:59

Yeah, because the dating is interesting. I mean, you have things like like Gobekli Tepe, that's like they they seem to have dated that back to like 11,000 years ago in Turkey, where they built this like it's like one of the first structures ever. Yeah. And like it's like a and then it goes like in the ground and stuff. Yeah. And that's more one of the more recent ones where they're like, okay, it's like 10 or 11,000 years ago. Then you have all the ancient Near East stuff that that you know directly influences possible, well, I don't want to say influence, but possibly influences, you know, some of the beginning Old Testament stuff, possibly even mentions of Yahweh outside of the Bible, like maybe like tied to Canaan or you know, things like that. And like dating, and then you have like Egypt, like how far how early was Samaria in Egypt before, and like how does that jive with like Adam and stuff like that? And then like it seems like there's more people when Adam's there, or else we doesn't it almost kind of seem like that when Adam comes out of Eve, doesn't it? I mean, not Eve, but the Garden of Eden. Yeah, it seems like there's actually more people there.

SPEAKER_01 18:52

That's a point of contention, and I think that's one of those things that you uh you kind of noted and wanted to talk about a little bit. Okay. Um, I I think maybe a question or something that you mentioned to me. But yeah, I mean, when you come in through through the Genesis account, the fall of man, they're leaving, they're having kids, they're marrying, they're building cities. It's like, okay, well, who are all these people so fast that you're building the city for? And uh, and there's a a lot of a lot of views when you start exploring some of those topics that could be interesting because there could be someone outside of Eden, and that could have been just Adam and Eve specific um experience, and then there could be stuff outside of there.

SPEAKER_00 19:24

Absolutely. And then they just get kicked out of the garden, and now they're in there with the rest of the rest of the people that God could have created or whatever, Tom.

SPEAKER_01 19:30

Well, absolutely could be, and and that's not a traditional Christian view for sure, but um That's what I'm here for. But no, but I agree, and there's a lot of Christians that that adhere to that though, and and read, you know, uh a bunch of the accounts in Genesis and Genesis six and the giants and all of the crazy stuff that we're trying to understand, and just honestly, there's not a ton of information given in scripture specifically, and so it's even like the Numa Leash is like a really old one, like an ancient Near East one, and it has a bird and like a Genesis story kind of sort of.

SPEAKER_00 20:00

It's not I won't say it's one to one, I wouldn't do that, but I'm saying like you know, it starts with water, like you know how in Genesis they like, yeah, like divide the water and stuff like that. But it also starts with that. And and I don't know, once you like you say, once you get way far back like that, yeah, it gets it's it's I mean, how could we how could we never? We couldn't know.

SPEAKER_01 20:18

I know. I we we I struggle just uh having faith in some of our history and stuff, much less than thousands and thousands of people.

SPEAKER_00 20:24

Yeah, it's World War II half the time.

SPEAKER_01 20:25

So yeah, yeah, I I get you. So uh and I think we live in an age of skepticism, so it makes sense.

Interpretation, Bias, And The Next Part

SPEAKER_00 20:30

Oh yeah, for sure. So inerrancy, we it's it's like you think you you're pretty pretty literal, but willing to, would you say you're willing to bend on it at times, or or do you think you're you're pretty sh- I mean, I I definitely think it's something that I would I would I would try to stand for.

Ratings, Patreon, And Closing

SPEAKER_01 20:48

I mean, certainly I'm not willing to bend necessarily on the inerrancy of scripture. I think a lot of the misunderstandings, supposed contradictions in scripture are often often found in in faulty interpretations and things that need to dive a little deeper, uh, perhaps explore the context and some of those things to kind of reconcile some of it. I mean, after all, we're reading a book written 2,000 years ago, different culture, eastern culture, Jewish text, different languages that have been translated to us that we're trying to process. And as much as we try to do that in truth and without bias, we we still have biases and read it with modern eyes. Exactly. And even when I try to do that my very best, you know, it's it's still hard. And so we have to recognize some of that that sometimes there's just cultural differences and things that it just doesn't make sense. So okay.

SPEAKER_00 21:34

Thanks so much for watching the show. I hope you enjoyed part one of me and Cole's interview. There will be several parts put out of this. And the next time you see me and Cole sitting down, we're gonna bring up some specific examples and put inerrancy to the test. It's gonna be a lot of fun. Like always, like, share, subscribe if you're watching on YouTube, if you're watching on Spotify or Apple Podcasts, give us a five star rating. All that stuff really helps. If you enjoy this show and you want to get ahead, go to the Patreon. I'm always ahead on the Patreon. Thank you so much. Love you. And I will see you Tuesday.