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]

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.

If getting mad at a driver who cuts in, a dangerous practice, is sinful, then so is Jesus getting mad at a fig tree not bearing fruit. His anger and destructive tirade in the temple is far worse than cursing an inconsiderate driver. Jesus had no right to do what he did. But then he didn't worry about breaking the law when he sent two disciples to steal a donkey and a colt just so he could ride into Jerusalem. Jesus is clearly far from the sinless individual he is claimed to be, or your concept of sin is seriously flawed.

[Clownboat]

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.

For my own sake? Perhaps it would do you well to leave the scare tactics to the terrorists. An all powerful god could have its message relayed without a need to resort to such tactics.

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 following you, just remembering what I read.
Either way, thank you for admitting that the message about how to get to heaven is not clear, thus why there is disagreement between you, 1213, the pope and others.

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.

Straw man. Notice I did not say that this god concept 'needed' them.

He institutes the sacrificial system to teach the Israelites about salvation and to point to the True Sacrifice to come.

This is just how you have decided to interpret all the sacrifices. My point stands, this god concept like most back in those days had blood sacrifices attached to it. In Judges, we have Jephthah sacrificing his virgin daughter to said god concept.

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

I fully understand that you're firm in your faith and I have no delusions about changing your mind. I debate here to sharpen my thinking and to appeal to the readers.

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):

Special pleading!
When Christians justify belief with faith, a god is the giver.
When a Muslim or any other religious person justifies their belief with faith, there is no giver.

This probably has no impact at all on you noting this fact, however, I trust that the readers will notice what is being employed.

<snipped scriptures which are not an authority here>

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?

It shows the opposite. I submit that there is likely not a single Christian on this planet that has not come to their belief via another human.

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.

There is faith. What we have not evidenced is whether any religion can claim that their brand of faith is given by a god.

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.

No need as the Bible is not an authority here.

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?

Nope. Clearly I was referring to how reading the Bible caused me to start questioning my faith. Your mileage may vary, or to say it another way, 'to each their own'.

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.

Once again, demonstrably wrong:
"(5:54) O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him"
"(3:31) Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins."

The point stands, we need Christians and Muslims to stop indoctrinating such a horrid belief into their children before the violence and bloodshed can stop.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

We do not have any ORIGINAL fragments of biblical manuscripts.

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

NONE of your previously mentioned manuscripts were ORIGINALS.
You failed to cite a single manuscript that is ORIGINAL.
Your claim is false.

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.

So, NOT an ORIGINAL then, but centuries later.
Are you trying to play games with us ?

You have failed to cite one single ORIGINAL manuscript of the bible.
Are you sure you know what the word 'original' means?
It means the VERY FIRST ORIGINAL COPY.
Please confiirm that you understand that meaning.

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?

Ah, so you admit it is NOT ORIGINAL.
Your claim is false.

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,

Finally !
You admitted you were wrong.

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.

Twice wrong -
* that is NOT what 'original' means,
* there are many huge differences between all the old manuscripts.

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.

In fact there are many large differences.

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.

So what ?

The number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents. Consider -

• the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD
  - does this mean that the Iliad was more true than the NT until about
  1000AD, but from the middle ages on, the NT became MORE TRUE than the
  Iliad?
• the works of 10thC. Yen-Shou of Hangchow - about 400,000 copies
  exist, about 400 times as many copies as NT copies at that time - does
  this make the work over 400 times MORE TRUE than the NT?
• the Book of Mormon - there are millions of copies of this work, many
  dating maybe a FEW YEARS after the original - would this make the Book
  of Mormon much MORE TRUE than the NT?
• the Lord of the Rings - there are many millions of copies of this
  work, (including the original manuscript AFAIK), dating from very soon
  after its writing - does this makes the Lord of the Rings of vastly
  more true than the NT?

No.
It should be obvious that the NUMBER of copies attesting to a work gives no support to the truth of the contents - yet apologists like PinSeeker repeatedly bring this point up as if it proves something.

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

You failed to understand the issue, you have confused two UNRELATED things :

1. whether we have an original copy
2. whether the contents are true.

We have the ORIGINAL copies of the Book of Mormon - so according to YOU that means the Book of Mormon is completely true.

We have the ORIGINAL copies of the Lord of the Rings - so according to YOU that means the Lord of the Rings is completely true.

Which is obviously complete nonsense.
Even if we did have the actual original copy of the Gospel of Mark - that does NOT mean the contents must be true.

Please confirm that you understand that key difference.

which, you're right, are unfortunately not with us anymore.

Well, I'm glad you finally realised your claim was false.
Can you inform us whether :

1. you didn't know that before, and simply spoke out of ignorance
or
2. you did know that, and lied about it deliberately ?


Kapyong

[polonius]

PinSeeker wrote:

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

RESPONSE:

But we are not. We are talking about something written by men which was periodically added to or deleted from.

Take the shorted ending of Mark c 70 AD and the longer ending added in the early second century.

Or Johns story of the woman taken in adultery added in the 4th century.

etc.

[marco]

PinSeeker wrote:

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

RESPONSE:

But we are not. We are talking about something written by men which was periodically added to or deleted from.

Take the shorted ending of Mark c 70 AD and the longer ending added in the early second century.

Or Johns story of the woman taken in adultery added in the 4th century.

etc.

Of course the god that breathed on the manuscripts could have been a minor deity, not quite conversant with grammatical usage and ambiguities. Perhaps across the centuries he's made umpteen attempts to say what he wants to say, but maybe has a stutter. Who knows? Best not breathe too critically on the gods, for whom they would destroy, they apparently first make mad.

If the Bible is the inerrant word of God, God help us when we get to heaven. We'll have a lot of tidying up to do.

[PinSeeker]

Okay, I'm going to cut this down, either because of inanities or because we keep retreading the same ground (I wonder why?):

...thank you for admitting that the message about how to get to heaven is not clear, thus why there is disagreement between you, 1213, the pope and others.

Ohhhh. I said no such thing. I said I don't disagree with what 1213 said, but that he just doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I'd venture to say that he'd probably say the same thing.

As for the Pope, he said something stupid to appease folks like you, and he'd probably take it back in private; at least I hope he would, because it's totally antithetical to what the Bible says -- which every person who actually knows the Bible would agree. But I don't care if he does or not; that's his issue to deal with.

Notice I did not say that this god concept 'needed' them.

Um, Clownboat, you said (and I quote), "Not to mention all the required animal sacrifices your god concept also needed at one time, much like the other gods of the day." Sure looks to me like you said He (or, my "god concept") needed something. Those were your exact words.

In Judges, we have Jephthah sacrificing his virgin daughter to said god concept.

Um, Clownboat, God didn't command Jephthah to do any such thing, or even require it. Jephthah -- unfortunately -- made a vow to God that he would offer the next thing to come through the doors of his house to Him as a burnt offering. It was his own fault for making such a vow to the Lord, but he couldn't go back on it and thus prove himself unfaithful. He shouldn't have made the vow in the first place. It was his own fault.

When Christians justify belief with faith, a god is the giver.

No, again -- how many times is this again? -- God is the Giver of faith, through which Christians believe, because God has justified him/her despite his/her sin by the atonement of Christ for that sin.

When a Muslim or any other religious person justifies their belief with faith, there is no giver.

Again, even a Muslim would tell you that he/she justifies himself/herself through works. Even their faith is a work (not given by Allah).

It shows the opposite. I submit that there is likely not a single Christian on this planet that has not come to their belief via another human.

Um, Clownboat, this is not the opposite of what I said, but rather exactly what I said. To carry this out just a little further, Christians come to believe via the Holy Spirit's working faith and belief in them, which He may do through, or because of, something another person said. But you're right, that no Christian on this planet now or ever before has come to belief via another human; that's exactly what I said.

What we have not evidenced is whether any religion can claim that their brand of faith is given by a god.

Well, any religion other than Christianity. Right, because there is none (besides Christianity) in which they claim that God gives them faith to believe.

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.

No need as the Bible is not an authority here.

LOL!!! You said the Bible says "to each their own" (which is abjectly wrong), Clownboat, not me. Ah, I guess you're implicitly admitting your mistake. LOL!!!

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?

Nope. Clearly I was referring to how reading the Bible caused me to start questioning my faith. Your mileage may vary, or to say it another way, 'to each their own'.

Oh, so YOU'RE saying "to each their own," IIIIII see. Well, humanly speaking, I would say the same thing. LOL!!!

Actually, Clownboat, no Muslim will tell you that Allah loves him/her.

Once again, demonstrably wrong:
"(5:54) O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion - Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him"
"(3:31) Say, [O Muhammad], "If you should love Allah, then follow me, [so] Allah will love you and forgive you your sins."

No, not wrong; those verses are saying that God's love is conditional, meaning depending on what they do to earn it. Which means that they can never be sure that Allah loves them, because they can never be sure they have done enough to deserve it. Thank you for proving my point.

Quit, Clownboat. Please. Quit. Better to keep silence and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt, right? Not that I think you're an idiot, because I don't. But quit. For your own sake.

[PinSeeker]

PinSeeker wrote:

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

RESPONSE:

But we are not.

Well that's just your opinion. You can say what I said is my opinion, too, and you're be right, but I have something objective that backs me up (something that you don't believe; I know), and you don't.

We are talking about something written by men which was periodically added to or deleted from. Take the shorted ending of Mark c 70 AD and the longer ending added in the early second century. Or Johns story of the woman taken in adultery added in the 4th century.

Sure, there are arguments that go both ways on that. Neither side can say definitively they are correct. However, there is nothing there that contradicts anything else in the Bible. The closest similarity we can draw is with the story of Jesus with the woman at the well in John 4. In both cases, He does not condemn, but chastises, forgives, encourages to belief, and commands to "sin no more" (implicitly and/or explicitly). So it really makes no difference who is right or who is wrong. Except, I guess, to "exactists."

[marco]

Um, Clownboat, God didn't command Jephthah to do any such thing, or even require it. Jephthah -- unfortunately -- made a vow to God that he would offer the next thing to come through the doors of his house to Him as a burnt offering. It was his own fault for making such a vow to the Lord, but he couldn't go back on it and thus prove himself unfaithful. He shouldn't have made the vow in the first place. It was his own fault.

There are kinder interpretations of a seemingly silly story that don't involve the death of the hapless daughter. A parallel myth is the tale of Midas. The criticism is with the inclusion of this nonsense in a holy book and the suggestion that human sacrifice to God is acceptable, if it's been promised. The idiot story of Abraham being told to murder his boy Isaac also sets a Biblical bad example. We can gather from these stories that there is much in the Bible that is nonsensical. If we have the time and the energy we can remove some of the nonsense by claiming metaphor.

Better to keep silence and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt, right?

The adage has universal application but let's avoid ad hominem arguments. There is enough to criticise in the Bible without straying towards criticism of contributors. Go well.

[PinSeeker]

Um, Clownboat, God didn't command Jephthah to do any such thing, or even require it. Jephthah -- unfortunately -- made a vow to God that he would offer the next thing to come through the doors of his house to Him as a burnt offering. It was his own fault for making such a vow to the Lord, but he couldn't go back on it and thus prove himself unfaithful. He shouldn't have made the vow in the first place. It was his own fault.

There are kinder interpretations of a seemingly silly story that don't involve the death of the hapless daughter. A parallel myth is the tale of Midas. The criticism is with the inclusion of this nonsense in a holy book and the suggestion that human sacrifice to God is acceptable, if it's been promised. The idiot story of Abraham being told to murder his boy Isaac also sets a Biblical bad example. We can gather from these stories that there is much in the Bible that is nonsensical. If we have the time and the energy we can remove some of the nonsense by claiming metaphor.

Better to keep silence and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt, right?

The adage has universal application but let's avoid ad hominem arguments. There is enough to criticise in the Bible without straying towards criticism of contributors. Go well.

Thank you for your input. Grace and peace to you.

[Walterbl]

The bible is inerrant because it contains no errors. Is as simple as that.

The idiot story of Abraham being told to murder his boy Isaac also sets a Biblical bad example. We can gather from these stories that there is much in the Bible that is nonsensical.

And yet he didn't murder him. It was a story about God wanting to test Abraham to see if he has willing to sacrifice what was most precious to him.

The number of copies has nothing to do with the truth of the contents

The higher the number of consistent copies we have, the more certainty we can have that such copies are correct. And the discrepancies among them are not large, they are very insignificant considering the difficulty of hand copying ancient docments.

the Iliad - over 600 manuscripts, more than the NT until after 1000AD

The earliest full manuscript from the Iliad is dated to the 10th century A.D. The manuscript fragments from the Iliad come form second and third century A.D. When you consider that Homer wrote the Iliad in the 800 B.C, you can see that there is a very lenghty gap between the original and the manuscripts. Almost 1000 years.

By contrast, the gospels have been dated to less than a generation after the events took place, which makes them much more historicaly reliable.