@MegaChurchMouse @JollyStine @CatherineMcNiel @William_E_Wolfe I see. So you won

@MegaChurchMouse @JollyStine @CatherineMcNiel @William_E_Wolfe I see. So you won’t commit even hypothetically? Sounds like bias to me.

@snarkytwinkie @TheMuppetPastor Sounds kinda biased. No wonder why feminists ge

@snarkytwinkie @TheMuppetPastor Sounds kinda biased. No wonder why feminists get all bothered.

@EtAbundatGratia @JayMuratore @MikeWingerii It is eisegesis or confirmation bias to read into Gen 3:16 that she desires to rule her husband. Gen 4:7 is a different context. Sin is not a person, but metaphorically, if sin wants Cain perhaps like a w...

@EtAbundatGratia @JayMuratore @MikeWingerii It is eisegesis or confirmation bias to read into Gen 3:16 that she desires to rule her husband. Gen 4:7 is a different context. Sin is not a person, but

@antemodernist @JakobFel @BenZeisloft @smashbaals Well, it could also be that the bias of the rest of the translators is involved. The fact is that nature doesn’t teach us there is a difference between male and female head hair. And Paul says there...

@antemodernist @JakobFel @BenZeisloft @smashbaals Well, it could also be that the bias of the rest of the translators is involved. The fact is that nature doesn’t teach us there is a difference betwe

@Fair_and_Biased @Strangeland_Elf The answer is in 1 Cor 6:3⎯ "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" Paul praised the Corinthians for holding firmly to the traditions just as he handed them down to them (1 C...

@Fair_and_Biased @Strangeland_Elf The answer is in 1 Cor 6:3⎯ "Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" Paul praised the Corinthians for holding firmly to the t

@DST_QA The 1924 Montgomery Translation did. Translators are affected by bias and have blind spots too. Further, we have Paul explicitly responding to their letter (see 1 Cor 7:1). And if it was not a quote here, it would contradict other parts of ...

@DST_QA The 1924 Montgomery Translation did. Translators are affected by bias and have blind spots too. Further, we have Paul explicitly responding to their letter (see 1 Cor 7:1). And if it was not

@MikeWingerii Your bias may not be to want male power, but you may simply have a bias nonetheless which is preventing you from seeing a Biblically faithful egalitarian solution. It may in fact be hiding in amongst all the other chaff you place aroun...

@MikeWingerii Your bias may not be to want male power, but you may simply have a bias nonetheless which is preventing you from seeing a Biblically faithful egalitarian solution. It may in fact be hid

@MikeWingerii @116nathanwalker 3/ Belleville’s article showing the bias in the l

@MikeWingerii @116nathanwalker 3/ Belleville’s article showing the bias in the lexical evidence and a strong case for a negative application of authentein is very strong. So can a man authentein anot

Luke 24:1-26

Sections: cross_references, debate_points, exegesis, greek_analysis

1 Timothy 5:14

Sections: exegesis, greek_analysis

Acts 1:16-26

Sections: cross_references, debate_points, exegesis, greek_analysis

1 Timothy 5:21

Sections: exegesis

κλῆρος (klēros)

lot, allotment, portion

οἰκοδεσποτεῖν (oikodespotein)

to rule the household, to be master of the house

Self-assessment recommendation: ask yourself what view you WANT to have, to identify your own biases before studying.

Preparing to study the topic honestly

Quote from Discovering Biblical Equality: complementarianism is 'by definition a system of permanently unequal power distribution' that creates conditions under which abuse flourishes.

Mistake #5: Academic version of the abuse argument

Mike's conclusion: no female apostles in the official high-leadership sense

Mike summarizes the positive data section.

Bias against women's teaching comes from women too, not just men

Mike points out that the attitude that women cannot correct men is held by some women as well.

Mike's personal journey: wanted to become egalitarian but became more strongly complementarian

Mike shares his personal bias check and research journey.

Greek/lexical argument introduced: kephale means 'source' in Greek, not authority — the 'battle of the lexicons'

Mike introduces the fourth and largest egalitarian argument — the Greek lexical claim.

Teaching through 1 Peter 3:1-7 - wives told to be subject to husbands

Mike reads and begins teaching through the first main passage.

Craig Keener acknowledges 'nature' normally means the opposite of custom

Mike shows that even egalitarians concede the normal meaning.

Mike's personal bias toward egalitarianism and honest methodology

Mike admits he approached this study hoping to find the Bible supports egalitarianism, influenced by feminist culture and evangelistic motivations.

J.M. Ross quote: we must accept unanimous manuscript testimony

Mike quotes Ross on the obligation to accept what all manuscripts attest.

The interpolation view is reckless and threatens all of scripture

Mike gives his overall assessment of the interpolation view.

Cultural pushback: eldership is not a bucket list item or self-fulfillment role

Mike addresses the Western cultural tendency to view pastoral ministry as a personal entitlement.

Mike's personal disappointment with egalitarian arguments

Mike shares his personal experience studying both sides of the debate.

Mike illustrates psychosomatic confirmation bias using an anecdote about elastic wristbands supposedly improving equilibrium — a classic placebo/expectancy effect.

Explaining why subjects often report feeling better without real healing occurring.

Scoliosis diagnosis via back-twisting is medically invalid — a 'pop' is not confirmation of healing, and Todd White has cultivated a deliberately low threshold for confirming healings.

Medical and methodological critique of the scoliosis healing video.

People forget wrong guesses and remember right ones — the psychological principle behind why cold-reading / divine guessing appears more accurate than it is.

Explanation of the cognitive bias that makes Todd White's guessing seem supernatural.

Reason 4: We see 'fulfillment' everywhere — vague general events matching vague prophetic categories creates false confirmation

Fourth reason people fall for false predictions.

Reason 6: People want it — desire for Jesus's return creates confirmation bias favoring predictions

Sixth reason people fall for false predictions.

Response to 'you can't use the Bible': the Bible is actually 66 documents by multiple authors over hundreds of years and is treated as historical documents by secular historians

Common objection addressed — that the resurrection case is circular because it relies on the Bible

The 'they're just Christians' dismissal commits the genetic fallacy — disqualifying scholars by association with their conclusions

Response to Richard Carrier's dismissal of pro-resurrection scholars as biased Christians

Why unbelievers reject the resurrection: sin, pride, bias, desires — caution against over-generalizing

Q&A — response to George Cook's question about why unbelievers are 'blind'

Summary and closing: Aaron Ra's video is full of factual errors; encourage fact-checking

Mike wraps up Part 1 of his response (Part 2 planned for the following week)

Winger notes that skeptical scholars frequently assume biblical characters or events are fabricated while treating other ancient sources as valid by default. He characterizes this as an unjustified bias rather than sound historical methodology.

Aune's quote is cited to make the point that ancient biographers had obvious biases (encomium) yet were still 'firmly rooted in historical fact rather than literary fiction.' The Gospel writers' theological agenda does not disqualify them as historical sources; their choice of biographical conventions shows concern for what actually happened.

Even Bart Ehrman — a non-Christian scholar whose goal is to undermine Christianity — dates John to 90–95 AD, not 170 AD

Mike offers a source skeptics can't dismiss as biased

Preterism: all/most Bible prophecy fulfilled by 70 AD — initially appealing but breaks down under scrutiny.

Lindy Z asks about preterism.

Problem 3: The slogan results in rejecting any claim you want — confirmation bias

Third of five critiques of the slogan.

The slogan formalized as a syllogism — and why it fails at premise 4

Mike reconstructs the argument in syllogistic form, attributed to critics of Sagan's argument ("argumentum Sagani").

David Hume's confirmation bias: he used the prior improbability of miracles to refuse even examining the evidence

Mike connects Hume's philosophical approach to the confirmation bias critique (Problem 3).

Practical illustration: reliable coworker Jeff missing work — evidence overcomes prior probability

Mike uses an everyday scenario to illustrate how evidence should override prior probability.

Closing: five diagnostic questions viewers can use in conversation to expose the slogan as confirmation bias

Mike wraps the livestream with practical application.

Biblical worldview should transcend culture wars rather than being shaped by either conservative or liberal culture

Opening monologue before Q&A begins

Footnotes are the most reliable method for tracking primary sources and objective evidence in apologetics research

Response to question about finding primary sources in a sea of biased online content

Objection that scholars affirm historicity only because they signed faith statements is refuted by citing atheist/agnostic scholars who agree

Responding to the claim that Christian bias explains scholarly consensus on historicity

Methodological principle: dismissing miracle claims in historical sources reflects worldview bias, not following the evidence

Responding to the claim that miracle claims in historical sources can be safely dismissed

Q&A: Is the God of Islam the same as the God of Christianity?

Viewer question from Kaeleen van Konan