Well folks, I might have just found the most heretical thing ever said from behind a pulpit…

Meet Episcopal “Priestess” Flourish Klink who just said Jesus was trans and God is non-binary.

Take a look here if you can stomach it:

At least based readers on X immediately slapped this with a Community Note.

The NY Post called it “outlandish”:

ADVERTISEMENT

Eric Metaxas did not hold back, calling her mentally ill:

Others claimed she is not Christian to begin with:

So, is that the worst one you have ever heard?

Top of the list?

How does it compare to these?

Pure Heresy and Idolatry From Protestant Preacher

WATCH: Butch-Cut Female Methodist Pastor Declares “The Bible Is Riddled With Errors, No Better Than Aesop’s Fables”

I guess we’re slaying some dragons today in terms of heretical teaching….

I just got done exposing the Catholic heresy of Purgatory (that article below in case you missed it) but now I have to deal with the Methodists.

Exposing The Absolutely HERETICAL Teaching Of “Purgatory”

Because this is just straight up nasty teaching.

According to Protestia, the video below shows Methodist Pastor Katie Gilbert, smugly and arrogantly claiming that the Bible is full of mistakes, errors and contradictions.

At least, that is, when she’s not plugging her own book from the pulpit.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wow.

Watch here:

And honestly, don’t these two look EXACTLY how you’d expect them to look?

I can’t even describe what it is exactly about them, but this is exactly what I would expect someone who has this take to look like.

FULL TRANSCRIPT:

Now, if you noticed in our sermon title for today, which, like I said, is taken from a chapter in the book, this week we are going to admit that we love you, Bible, just not like that.

Over the years, we have worked to make sure that we aren’t worshiping the Bible or putting the Bible on a pedestal over and above the teachings and example of Jesus.

As we talk about in Manna and Mercy—I told y’all that I would be making some shameless plugs—we hope you can come and join us for that retreat. But in Manna and Mercy, we talk about this idea that we are called to worship God and not the Bible.

Now, the book that we call the Bible is a complicated and fascinating collection of different types of literature, jam-packed with stories and imagery, some of which we might never be able to fully make complete sense of.

As you heard Matt read in Proverbs chapter 26, there are contradictions just verse after verse, right there next to each other. And that’s only scratching the surface.

In Deuteronomy 20:17, God says to annihilate your enemies. Then we have Jesus come along and, in Matthew 5:44, tell us to love our enemies.

In Deuteronomy 23:3, we learn that Moabites were barred from worship in the temple, only to discover later that Ruth—who, for reference, is David’s grandmother and therefore an ancestor of Jesus—was actually a Moabite.

ADVERTISEMENT

In Deuteronomy 23:1, we learn that eunuchs were restricted from the temple, only to then, in Acts 8, find Philip baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch.

I could go on, but I think you probably get the point. The Bible is full of contradictions.

And that’s to be expected from a text that was written by a variety of different authors, living at different historical periods of time, writing for different reasons, and in different languages and genres of text.

There is simply no way to reconcile all of these differences to find one coherent, literal, and linear progression throughout our text.

Even beyond those contradictions within the text, we have to consider those historical inaccuracies as well.

Kevin will get to dive into this more later when we talk about the cosmos, but modern science has shown us that the world was not created in a mere seven days.

In addition, there’s no archaeological evidence of a mass exodus of slaves out of Egypt, nor is there anything that supports the destruction of Jericho following the biblical timeline for such an event.

There’s no conquests of Joshua, and if you try to track down all the kings and leaders mentioned in the Old Testament—which, good on you if you want to—you’ll find a big old spider web of uncertainties and historical inaccuracies.

Because, you see, the biblical authors weren’t concerned with these kinds of accuracies. These tales weren’t intended to be factual accounts of their world. In fact, many of them are quite the opposite.

ADVERTISEMENT

I like to think of them as the stories that I grew up on: Aesop’s fables.

These tales weren’t factual accounts of our world. But they were a part of an ancient oral tradition, some dating all the way back to the Egyptians, and they were passed down over time, eventually written down by the Greeks and the Romans.

And Aesop’s fables were intended to teach a truth or land a moral of the story.

You might recall stories like Tortoise and the Hare: slow and steady wins the race. Or The Boy Who Cries Wolf: no one will believe a liar, even when the time comes for him or her to speak the truth. Or The Lion and the Mouse, that teaches even the weakest can be of help to the strongest.

These stories were written to share not facts, but truth.

And something similar is at play when we consider the biblical authors.

And now, because I don’t want to leave you with bad teaching, let’s end with some rock-solid teaching.

Let’s go to Dr. Michael S. Heiser.

Here’s how Dr. Michael S. Heiser would “educate” this “Pastor”….Heiser makes her look like a mental-midget grasshopper in comparison to his real brain:

The Bible Is Not the Book Its Critics—or Many Christians—Think It Is

The first problem in most discussions about alleged biblical contradictions is that people begin with the wrong Bible.

Not the wrong translation.

The wrong concept of what the Bible is.

A critic approaches Scripture expecting something resembling a twenty-first-century history textbook, scientific monograph, courtroom transcript, chronological biography, or stenographic record. A fundamentalist often makes essentially the same mistake, except that he insists the Bible miraculously conforms to all those modern expectations.

Then the two sides fight over whether the Bible succeeds at being something it never claimed to be.

That is the first category error.

The Bible is an ancient collection of literary works written through human beings living in particular cultures, speaking ancient languages, using ancient literary conventions, thinking within an ancient worldview, and addressing ancient audiences. God chose those people and that cultural world as the means through which revelation would be communicated.

If you ignore that fact, you are not interpreting the Bible conservatively.

You are misinterpreting it.

Heiser repeatedly objected to judging Scripture by standards of truth and error alien to its original usage and purpose. He specifically approved that principle in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy while criticizing formulations that seemed to pull Scripture toward modern categories it was never intended to satisfy.

1. Inspiration Does Not Mean Divine Dictation

Start here, because almost everything else follows from it.

The Bible says Scripture is theopneustos—“God-breathed”—in 2 Timothy 3:16. But that tells you the ultimate source and status of Scripture. It does not provide a mechanical theory explaining how every word arrived on the page.

Heiser argued that inspiration ordinarily worked through providence rather than continuous dictation.

The human writers were real authors.

They had vocabularies.

They had educational backgrounds.

They had personalities.

They had literary preferences.

They had sources.

They edited material.

They arranged material.

They selected material.

They occasionally quoted other writings.

They lived inside an ancient Near Eastern or Greco-Roman intellectual environment.

And all of that is visible in the text.

There are occasional passages where God explicitly dictates words, but those cases are unusual. If every biblical sentence had been dictated directly by God, those explicit dictation episodes would hardly need to be identified as such.

Heiser therefore distinguished between the immediate authors of Scripture—the humans—and its ultimate source, God.

That distinction matters enormously.

God did not erase the writers’ humanity in order to produce Scripture.

He used it.

That means inspiration should not be imagined as God turning Isaiah, Moses, Luke, Paul, or John into word-processing terminals.

Heiser compared inspiration to providence. Christians believe God can accomplish his purposes through ordinary human decisions without overriding human agency at every instant. He thought Scripture should be understood similarly: God superintended a human process toward an intended product.

2. Ask What Scripture Was Intended to Accomplish

This was central to Heiser’s approach.

People tend to begin with:

“What things must the Bible be incapable of containing if it came from God?”

Heiser wanted to begin somewhere else:

What does Scripture itself say God gave Scripture to accomplish?

Immediately after saying Scripture is God-breathed, 2 Timothy 3:16–17 tells you its purpose: teaching, correction, reproof, training in righteousness, and equipping God’s people for good works.

That matters.

It means Scripture identifies the purposes for which God gave it.

It does not say:

“All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching astronomy, plate tectonics, genetics, modern historiography, meteorology, or the precise physical structure of the cosmos.”

Heiser consequently argued that inerrancy has to be connected to what Scripture actually purports to teach, not every cultural assumption or rhetorical device appearing in the discourse.

That does not mean:

“Anything embarrassing doesn’t count.”

It means language has intent.

We use this principle constantly.

Suppose someone says:

“The sun came up at 6:15 this morning.”

Nobody screams:

“Scientific error! The sun didn’t come up. The earth rotated!”

Why?

Because we understand what the statement is doing.

It is observational language.

The speaker is not presenting a lecture in heliocentric astronomy.

Heiser’s point was that biblical language deserves the same elementary interpretive fairness.

3. Stop Imposing Modern Scientific Categories on Ancient Texts

The biblical writers possessed an ancient cosmology.

Heiser did not evade this.

He emphasized it.

Ancient Israelites described the world using concepts common to the intellectual environment of the ancient Near East. Their descriptions of the heavens and earth are not disguised astrophysics.

And Heiser explicitly rejected attempts to turn them into modern astrophysics.

He even made the provocative observation that the ancient biblical cosmology, understood as physical science, is demonstrably not our cosmology: spacecraft do not collide with a solid heavenly dome, nor do satellites orbit beneath one.

But—and this is the crucial distinction—he did not conclude:

“Therefore the Bible has failed.”

Why?

Because the biblical writers were not teaching astronomy.

Their ancient picture of the world was the conceptual furniture through which they communicated claims about God, creation, humanity, rebellion, divine sovereignty, sacred space, and redemption.

God accommodated revelation to human understanding.

And of course he did.

Every divine communication to finite humanity is accommodation.

If God communicated everything he knows about the universe in categories adequate to omniscience, nobody in 1000 BC could understand it.

Neither could anybody in 2026.

Heiser therefore regarded divine accommodation not as an embarrassment but as an inevitable consequence of revelation.

God speaks to people in terms people can understand.

4. The Bible Must Be Read as Ancient Literature

This eliminates a large class of alleged contradictions.

Ancient historians did not operate according to twenty-first-century documentary conventions.

They could:

arrange material thematically instead of chronologically,

compress events,

expand events,

omit material,

select different details,

paraphrase speeches,

summarize speeches,

use conventional numerical patterns,

use hyperbole,

structure genealogies symbolically,

combine sources,

rework earlier material for a new rhetorical purpose,

and present the same event differently depending upon the author’s theological objective.

None of those things automatically constitutes deception.

Modern writers do many of them too.

A contradiction exists only when two propositions are genuinely mutually exclusive and when both texts intend to assert those mutually exclusive propositions in the same sense.

That last qualification gets ignored constantly.

5. Different Accounts Are Not Automatically Contradictions

Suppose one Gospel mentions one angel at the tomb and another mentions two.

If the first text says:

“There was exactly one angel present, and no others,”

while the second says:

“There were exactly two,”

you have a contradiction.

But if the first author simply mentions one angel—the one who speaks—and another reports two, there is no formal contradiction.

One account is less complete.

That is not the same thing as being false.

This sounds elementary, because it is.

But enormous numbers of internet “Bible contradictions” depend upon treating difference as synonymous with contradiction.

They are not synonymous.

Neither are omission and denial.

Neither are paraphrase and falsification.

Neither are different perspectives and contradiction.

6. The Gospels Are Ancient Biographies, Not Video Recordings

If Matthew and Luke arrange the same material differently, the first question should not be:

“Which one screwed it up?”

The first question should be:

“What is each author doing with the material?”

Ancient biographical writing permitted topical arrangement.

It permitted selection.

It permitted condensation.

It permitted paraphrase.

The Gospel writers were theologians as well as narrators. Their arrangement of material communicates meaning.

The assumption that all four Gospels ought to read like four independently synchronized police body cameras is historically absurd.

Even modern witnesses describing the same event rarely produce identical reports.

In fact, perfectly identical independent reports would raise another problem: dependence or collusion.

The variations among the Gospels are exactly what one expects when different authors select and arrange shared historical traditions for different audiences and theological purposes.

7. Matthew’s Genealogy Is an Excellent Example

Matthew structures Jesus’ genealogy around groups of fourteen.

But Matthew omits individuals known from the Old Testament genealogical record.

Is Matthew ignorant?

Probably not.

The arrangement is deliberate.

Heiser pointed out that virtually every New Testament scholar recognizes Matthew’s genealogy as intentionally selective. One attractive explanation connects the number fourteen with David, whose Hebrew name דוד has the numerical values 4 + 6 + 4 = 14.

Matthew is introducing Jesus as the Davidic Messiah.

The genealogy is doing theology through literary structure.

The critic who says:

“Matthew skipped names; therefore Matthew made a mistake,”

has missed what Matthew is doing.

Ancient genealogies did not necessarily function as exhaustive modern ancestry databases.

“Begat” or equivalent genealogical language can describe descent across generations.

Selective genealogy was an accepted literary convention.

Once you understand the genre, the alleged error changes categories.

8. Numerical Problems Must Be Read Literarily Too

Heiser was particularly interested in the enormous numbers found in portions of the Old Testament.

Some traditional readings produce populations that appear difficult to reconcile with archaeology, geography, logistics, and the ancient world.

One reaction is to spend enormous effort trying to prove every number must represent a modern statistical census count.

Heiser thought that assumption itself needed examination.

Ancient texts frequently used numbers rhetorically, symbolically, schematically, or hyperbolically.

He pointed readers toward scholarship arguing that some large Old Testament numbers exhibit literary or mathematical artificiality.

If the number functions rhetorically, treating it as a modern census statistic is not defending Scripture.

It is misreading it.

The modern reader asks:

“Is that the exact head count?”

The ancient author may be communicating:

“This was an overwhelmingly enormous force.”

Those are different communicative intentions.

Hyperbole is not error.

If I say:

“Everybody in town was there,”

you do not disprove me by finding three residents who stayed home.

You first ask what kind of statement I intended.

The Bible deserves the same semantic intelligence we use everywhere else.

9. Psalm 105 and the Exodus Plagues

Psalm 105 recounts the plagues of Egypt differently from Exodus.

Some are omitted.

The sequence is not identical.

A simplistic approach says:

“Gotcha. Somebody forgot the order.”

Heiser used precisely this kind of example to argue that literary design must be investigated before declaring an error.

A psalm is not a police report.

The psalmist is re-presenting Israel’s history poetically and theologically.

Selection and rearrangement can serve literary purposes.

If an author deliberately reshapes known material to create a poetic structure, that is not the same thing as trying and failing to remember what happened.

Heiser’s principle was simple:

When a coherent literary explanation exists, literary artistry should not be mislabeled factual error.

10. Genesis 1 and Genesis 2

Another favorite alleged contradiction:

Genesis 1 has one sequence.

Genesis 2 supposedly has another.

Therefore, contradiction.

Again, slow down.

You first have to establish that both chapters are trying to provide the same kind of chronological account.

That is precisely what must be demonstrated rather than assumed.

Genesis 2 narrows the narrative dramatically, focusing on the human pair, the garden, sacred space, vocation, marriage, and the circumstances surrounding humanity.

Heiser discussed the apparent vegetation difficulty between Genesis 1 and 2 and explored whether Genesis 2 is describing a localized subsequent creative activity associated particularly with Eden rather than retelling the entire creation sequence as a competing chronology.

The broader point is methodological:

Don’t manufacture contradictions by flattening distinct literary units into the same genre and purpose.

11. Samuel and Chronicles: Sometimes the Problem Is Real

Here Heiser becomes especially useful because he did not pretend difficult texts weren’t difficult.

Consider David’s census.

2 Samuel 24 says Yahweh’s anger burned against Israel and that David was incited to conduct the census.

1 Chronicles 21 says a satan—an adversary—stood against Israel and incited David.

Heiser himself called the accounts, as they stand, explicitly contradictory regarding the immediate instigator.

That is worth emphasizing.

He did not say:

“There are never any passages that appear contradictory.”

He examined the Hebrew.

The Hebrew term satan is fundamentally a common noun meaning “adversary.” In much of the Old Testament it is not yet functioning as the personal proper name “Satan” in the later Christian sense.

Consequently, the interpretive possibilities are more complicated than an English reader assumes from seeing a capital S.

Heiser’s broader lesson is exactly the one critics routinely skip:

Before declaring that two texts contradict each other, examine the original language, semantic range, textual history, theology, and literary relationship between the passages.

Sometimes there is a resolution.

Sometimes several resolutions are possible.

Sometimes the evidence is insufficient to decide.

But “I can think of no resolution” is not logically equivalent to “no resolution exists.”

12. Historical Discrepancies Require Epistemic Humility

This point is often ignored.

To demonstrate a genuine historical error, you need adequate historical information.

But ancient history is reconstructed from fragmentary sources.

Often we have only a tiny fraction of the evidence that once existed.

So when an ancient inscription, Josephus, or another historian appears to disagree with Scripture, one cannot simply announce:

“The Bible loses.”

Why assume the surviving nonbiblical writer is necessarily correct?

Heiser raised precisely this methodological issue when discussing purported discrepancies involving Acts and Josephus.

Josephus was not omniscient.

Luke was not omniscient.

Modern historians are not omniscient.

If two ancient sources differ, historical criticism must determine what can actually be known.

A contradiction between sources may exist.

But identifying which account is wrong may be impossible.

And sometimes two apparently conflicting reports concern different people or events sharing similar names.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.