Is the Bible the inerrant Word of God?

[Elijah John]

For those who claim that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God" why do you believe this?

Seems to me the arguments to support this belief are usually circular. As in "The Bible is inerrant because it is the Word of God". And evidence that the Bible is the Word of God?" Because the Bible is without error or contradiction", i.e. inerrant.

Consider this OP a challenge. Give the skeptic a better argument to convince them that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God than the usual circular argument.

Why do you believe and why should the skeptic believe that the Bible is the "inerrant Word of God"?

Break out of the circle.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 95 by PinSeeker]

Clownboat wrote:
You are not an authority on Christianity...
Pinseeker wrote:
I don't claim to be. But the issue is not authority, the issue is Biblical correctness.

Commonalities aside, all the different denominations claim to have their own correct understanding of the Bible. Each one speaks from their own correct understanding. If the Bible was clear, there would be only one correct understanding and only one denomination.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 73 by PinSeeker]

I showed, Clownboat, your sinful reaction to even ordinary, trivial situations like being cut off in traffic. You don't agree that your actions speak louder than mere words?

And Jesus showed his sinful nature by cursing a fig tree and killing it because of the ordinary situation of it not bearing fruit out of season.

More anger from Jesus demonstrating his sinful nature when he attacked people in the temple because he didn't like what they were legally doing.

Yes, actions speak louder than words.

[PinSeeker]

And Jesus showed his sinful nature by cursing a fig tree and killing it because of the ordinary situation of it not bearing fruit out of season.

Yes, yes. He's sinful because He got mad at a tree. LOL!

More anger from Jesus demonstrating his sinful nature when he attacked people in the temple because he didn't like what they were legally doing. Yes, actions speak louder than words.

Well, he "attacked" the tables they were trading on. Have you ever taken a stand acknowledging and upholding someone's honor, brunumb? Because that's not sinful. It's actually admirable.

[marco]

Yes, yes. He's sinful because He got mad at a tree. LOL!

You're right - it is more stupidity than sinfulness but a demonstration of unjustified anger is in fact a flaw. He may have had some justification with the buyers and sellers, but he lost his temper - which isn't particularly commendable in the situation, given what he witnessed was common practice.

[PinSeeker]

Yes, yes. He's sinful because He got mad at a tree. LOL!

You're right - it is more stupidity than sinfulness...

Right. On the part of brunumb. And you too, I'm gathering. ::D

No offense intended, though.

Dude. He used the tree as a metaphor for what people were or were not doing, and showing what would happen to them because of not bearing "fruit," or the fruit of the Spirit... they would -- of their own accord -- wither and ultimately die.

Holy moly. "He got mad at a tree." LOL!

[marco]

He used the tree as a metaphor for what people were or were not doing, and showing what would happen to them because of not bearing "fruit," or the fruit of the Spirit... they would -- of their own accord -- wither and ultimately die.

Holy moly. "He got mad at a tree." LOL!

Who is HE?

I'm familiar with the attempted redemption through metaphor. It isn't offered as a parable but as an account of an event. Rather than attribute stupidity to Christ exegetes extract sense by suggesting metaphorical language and invent a scenario several light years removed from the context. Ho hum.

You may indeed accept this is metaphoric. I don't. You may recall the account in Matthew of holy men throwing off the soil from their graves and walking about. Metaphor too, no doubt.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

PinSeeker clamed we have "fragments of original manuscripts of the bible".

We do not.

The Aleppo Codex (920 AD) and Leningrad Codex (1008 AD) were the oldest Hebrew language manuscripts of the Tanakh, or the Old Testament. In 1947 AD the finding of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran pushed the manuscript history of the Tanakh back 1000 years from the two earliest complete codices. Before this discovery, the earliest extant manuscripts of the Old Testament were in Greek in manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Out of the roughly 800 manuscripts found at Qumran, 220 are from the Tanakh. Every book of the Tanakh is represented except for the Book of Esther; however, most are fragmentary. Notably, there are two scrolls of the Book of Isaiah, one complete and one around 75% complete. These manuscripts generally date between 150 AD to 70 AD.

None of those are originals.
150-70 AD for Isaiah ?
A book written many centuries earlier ?
I'm not sure that you know what the word 'original' means

BTW - those two copies of Isaiah you mentioned have a HUGE number of DIFFERENCES between them - did you know that ?

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts.

None of which are originals.
Why do you think the number of LATER COPIES means anything ?

We have huge numbers of copies of the Book of Mormon (traceable right back to the original) - so what ?
We have huge numbers of copies of the Quran - so what ?

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity. Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century.

None of which are originals.
The quantity of later copies has nothing to do with being true - do you think it does ?

All biblical scholars agree that we HAVE NO ORIGINAL manuscripts what-so-ever.

Your claim that we have fragments of original manuscripts is false.

Please retract your false claim and apologise


Kapyong

[Clownboat]

In your opinion.

Show that sin is real and I will admit that I was mistaken about sin being a religious made up sickness that justifies the medicines that is the religion. Please note, this pertains to other religions as well, not just Christianity.
Until you do that, this sin concept you just swear is real, is just something you have a religious opinion about.

...the fact that we have 10's of thousands of denomination of Christianity is explained by it not having a clear message.

In your opinion.

Please show the flaw in this opinion of mine, because it logically follows that an unclear message would result in many differing opinions.

Just look at how you disagree with 1213 in another thread about how one gets to heaven. Obviously the message is not clear.

Actually, Christianity has never required human sacrifice.

Was Jesus not a human that was sacrificed to a god? Do you not know your own religion?
Not to mention all the required animal sacrifices your god concept also needed at one time, much like the other gods of the day. Ironic, no?

There are no religions that ever practiced human sacrifices that I know of. Animal sacrifices, but not human sacrifices. Ancient civizations, sure, but that's a non-sequitur, really.

Here is a list of 25 cultures that did. Now you know.
https://www.livescience.com/59514-cultu ... ifice.html

Sure, but that's the only "flavor" of Christianity there is.

False. See the largest denomination of Christianity out there and note how even atheists can go to their heaven.

Well, yeah, if they believe in Jesus. The pope said something stupid. He may be an "authority" in the eyes of certain folks, but if he said something antithetical to what the Bible says -- which he did -- then, "authority" or not, he's wrong about that thing. And he's rightfully getting a lot of criticism for it, even from Catholics.

You failed to deflect the point at hand that the message in the Bible is not clear. Since you and the Pope and you and 1213 all disagree on what it takes to get to heaven, you don't get to pretend that the message is clear. The evidence shows that it is not. You have faith though, and your faith allows you to believe in this false claim that the message is clear.

You are not an authority on Christianity...

I don't claim to be.

Readers, see his claims he makes about the Pope and others just above. Do you agree that he doesn't act like he is an authority on Christianity?

Not doing that. But I can say what makes a Christian a Christian, because the Bible -- which is the Word of God, who is the Authority -- is very clear on that.

I'm not some ignorant child, please respect me at least a little bit.
I have told you this before, you cannot list something that most denominations do agree about and then ignore the things that they are not in agreement about, due to the message obviously not being clear enough. Like the message about what it takes to get eternal life.
You're sticking your head in the sand about getting to heaven, and then pulling it out for just a second so you can comment about something they do agree on. This kind of logic might work on a child, but it would do you well to offer more respect to your fellow debaters on this site.

Back to human sacrifice to appease the gods.

Oh, Lord. smh God sacrificed Himself on man's behalf,

Nice try, but I'm not an unthinking child.
Tell me, was Jesus a human or not?

I don't claim any special knowledge at all. It's plain for all to see in the Bible.

Really. you don't?!?
- The pope said something stupid.
- if he said something antithetical to what the Bible says -- which he did
- I can say what makes a Christian a Christian
- because the Bible -- which is the Word of God
This is only from the last post by the way. If this is not claims about having special knowledge, then I don't know what would be.

Not necessary. They'll find out in the fullness of time. Catholics believe and say a lot of good things. But thinking we should have one guy here on earth over the entire church is not one of them.

Is this coming from the authority of PinSeeker? If not, on whose authority do you make such a statement?

Again, it's not really the "bad things" themselves that are sin, it's the heart -- the nature -- that prompts you to do those things.

Odd, just a few lines up you said:
"I don't claim any special knowledge at all."

I'll accept that, but you're still not answering the question. What is Biblical faith, and Who is it's giver (author and protector)?

Evidence of things hoped for. As far as who is the giver, there is no giver of faith. You would agree that if I believe in Big Foot or Allah, due to faith, that there is no giver.
Same goes for your faith, unless of course you are using special pleading.
When I use faith, it's justified.
When a Muslim uses faith, it's not justified.

Sure. His Holy Spirit, who worked in me through the words of others and my experiences. Faith comes by hearing. So through others relating Christ to me, and also reading the Bible, which in a figurative sense (or literal if you read out loud to yourself) is also hearing.

I hear you, I was also indoctrinated into belief in just the same manner as you. I heard about it Monday through Friday at school and also at church on Wednesdays and twice on Sundays. I heard and heard and heard. I'm blessed for being set free from my beliefs with all the self indoctrination I was doing.
Ironically for me, it was reading the Bible from cover to cover that started the questioning of my faith. To each their own as they say, but neither of us can know who is right, but it wont stop you from pretending. Woohoo for faith!

Well, no, Abraham didn't distort what he had been given, he just discarded it altogether.

More claimed knowledge that you just cannot have. This once again is nothing more than faith at work, yet you don't respect it when a Muslim does it.

Why would getting angry, a very real human emotion be 'sinful'?

<snipped preaching>

Ohhhhhhh, but I guess I'm "preaching" again... <eyeroll>

Yes, yes you are.

Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much, as to send them to a heaven, yet hates the other so much as to send them to a hell, will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed. - Debating Christianity forum member whom I wish I could remember said this.

[PinSeeker]

We do not.

Yes we do. You're welcome to your opinion, but we do. Actually, we're both right. Read on.

None of those are originals. 150-70 AD for Isaiah ?

Actually, no. I think you misread. The Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran date to about 1000 years earlier than the Aleppo Codex. They actually contain more than just the book of Isaiah, which dates to around 250 BC. The events described in Isaiah took place around 400-500 BC.

A book written many centuries earlier?

If we're talking about something God-breathed, or inspired, the passage of time really makes no difference, does it?

I'm not sure that you know what the word 'original' means.

I agree that they're not true originals in the true sense of the word, but they are originals in the sense that there are absolutely no differences of any real significance. If you think there are, then demonstrate, and let's talk about it.

BTW - those two copies of Isaiah you mentioned have a HUGE number of DIFFERENCES between them - did you know that?

Yes, I knew that. But if they say the same thing, but not exactly the same words (which they do), or if there is some minor copy discrepancy like missing a letter of a word, then what's the real difference? Answer: there is none.

The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts. There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament. If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity. Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century.

None of which are originals. All biblical scholars agree that we HAVE NO ORIGINAL manuscripts what-so-ever. The quantity of later copies has nothing to do with being true - do you think it does?

Absolutely, I do. Since all those 5600-plus copies say essentially the exact same thing, we can have confidence in they are all true to the true original manuscripts, which, you're right, are unfortunately not with us anymore.

Your claim that we have fragments of original manuscripts is false. Please retract your false claim and apologise

Well, from a certain point of view, that's true. But from a more reasonable point of view, it's not. I apologize for any misunderstanding I might have caused by not spelling out every little detail.

[PinSeeker]

Show that sin is real and I will admit that I was mistaken about sin being a religious made up sickness that justifies the medicines that is the religion.

I did. Start admitting. Please. If only to yourself. For your own sake.

Just look at how you disagree with 1213 in another thread about how one gets to heaven. Obviously the message is not clear.

What, are you following me around now? I don't disagree with what 1213 said, really, he just doesn't get to the heart of the matter.

Not to mention all the required animal sacrifices your god concept also needed at one time, much like the other gods of the day. Ironic, no?

LOL! He didn't "need" anything, Clownboat. He institutes the sacrificial system to teach the Israelites about salvation and to point to the True Sacrifice to come. This is what makes the faith of the Israelites the same as the faith Christians have today. The only difference is, they were looking forward in time to Christ and His atonement for salvation, while we are looking back at Christ and His atonement for salvation.

Readers, see his claims he makes about the Pope and others just above. Do you agree that he doesn't act like he is an authority on Christianity?

Yes, let's appeal to the readers. LOL!!!

I'll accept that, but you're still not answering the question. What is Biblical faith, and Who is it's giver (author and protector)?

Evidence of things hoped for.

Why thank you, Clownboat. Good for you.

As far as who is the giver, there is no giver of faith.

Ohhhhh, but there is a Giver of Biblical, salvific faith (evidence of things hoped for):

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God..." (Ephesians 2:8)

"...Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith..." (Hebrews 12:2)

I was also indoctrinated into belief in just the same manner as you...

Well that just shows that no mere human can cause you to believe, right?

Ironically for me, it was reading the Bible from cover to cover that started the questioning of my faith. To each their own as they say, but neither of us can know who is right, but it wont stop you from pretending. Woohoo for faith!

Well yeah, halleluia for God-given faith. But wait, I don't know of anything in the Bible that says "to each their own"; maybe you can point out exactly what you're referring to. What I think you may be referring to is, "Each of us has gone astray, each to his own way." Is that right? Or are you referring to something else?

Only when Christians and Muslims stop telling their children that there is a god that loves them so much, as to send them to a heaven, yet hates the other so much as to send them to a hell, will we ever stop the violence and bloodshed.

Actually, Clownboat, no Muslim will tell you that Allah loves him/her. They call him "merciful," but stop way short of saying he loves them. And only one of the two commands its adherents to love even their enemies. And conversely, the other one commands its adherents to kill unbelievers wherever they may be found. I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.