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.

[PinSeeker]

Sadly, PinSeeker has once again failed to answer me on that crucial point :

What does having many later copies have to do with the contents being true ?

Actually I did, but not to your satisfaction, obviously. I'll do so again, briefly:

By the preponderance of evidence, we can discern what the original manuscripts actually said. In other words, the amount of evidence (the number of copies) in and of itself doesn't prove or disprove truth; I agree with you on that. But the fact that the overwhelming majority of the vast number of copies support and corroborate each other gives us (or should, anyway) reasonable certainty of the authenticity of the contents of the Bible.

As for your list... LOL... Ahhhh, you're changing the argument. Or trying to, anyway. I can't say I'm surprised.

The number of copies, in and of itself, does not attest to "truth" (those are all fictional works, of course), but it does attest to the fact that what we have now is what we had at the time(s) those works were first written. In other words, the number of copies verifies that they haven't been "changed over time" to any significant degree or thus "corrupted," which was your original charge:

viewtopic.php?t=34308&postdays=0&postor ... &start=110

Thank you for proving my point. Thank you so, so much.

Grace and peace to you, Kapyong.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 160 by PinSeeker]

But the fact that the overwhelming majority of the vast number of copies support and corroborate each other gives us (or should, anyway) reasonable certainty of the authenticity of the contents of the Bible.

Are you going to touch upon Kapyong's point that these copies are mostly fragments, and not entire copies of the Bible, as it seems you are leading readers to think?

but it does attest to the fact that what we have now is what we had at the time(s) those works were first written. In other words, the number of copies verifies that they haven't been "changed over time" to any significant degree or thus "corrupted," which was your original charge:

Gospel Mark, the earliest Gospel to be written as far as scholars have been able to determine, originally ended with no appearance from Jesus post-death. Later copies of Gospel Mark having such an appearance counts as a significant change in my eyes.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

The number of copies, in and of itself, does not attest to "truth" (those are all fictional works, of course), but it does attest to the fact that what we have now is what we had at the time(s) those works were first written. In other words, the number of copies verifies that they haven't been "changed over time" to any significant degree or thus "corrupted," which was your original charge:

I posted a great deal of evidence of changes over the centuries, even into modern times. You ignored nearly all, or waved a few away with silly excuses.

To quote Judge Judy -
"don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining".

I'm sure readers will understand if I don't waste any more time on PinSeeker's false claims and dodging of key facts.

Kapyong

[PinSeeker]

Are you going to touch upon Kapyong's point that these copies are mostly fragments, and not entire copies of the Bible, as it seems you are leading readers to think?

No, because that's not what I'm leading readers to think.

Gospel Mark, the earliest Gospel to be written as far as scholars have been able to determine, originally ended with no appearance from Jesus post-death. Later copies of Gospel Mark having such an appearance counts as a significant change in my eyes.

That's fine with me. There's nothing there that contradicts anything else in the Bible. And it's corroborated elsewhere. So whether you say it's significant or not, and whether you exclude it from the Bible, it's still in the Bible, even if you don't accept those last verses in Mark's Gospel. In other words, you can suit yourself on that -- as if you needed my permission to do that...

Grace and peace to you.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 163 by PinSeeker]

Well, I for one am glad to see, Kap's, Riku's and tcg's arguments are sinking in, even if you deny them. Remember, a vase just needs one hole in it not to hold water.

The same is true of any lie, so all those other religions you say, "don't hold water," you will find like your own. You can read it above.

Hopefully we'll be welcoming you to the former Christian Club.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 163 by PinSeeker]

No, because that's not what I'm leading readers to think.

Okay, so please clarify what you meant when you earlier said in Post 136

The fact is, though, that all the copies -- and yes, the number of copies, of which there are well over 5,000 -- is very relevant, and they show that there are no significant differences anywhere between what was in existence two millennia ago and today.


Since right now you seem to accepting Kapyong's (and my) point that the earliest copies we have are mostly fragments, and that there were changes, such as the addition to the ending of Gospel Mark...surely your point there can no longer relevant? How can "5,000 copies" mean something in terms of significance when those "copies" are just fragments, and not complete copies of the Bible, or its books?

That's fine with me. There's nothing there that contradicts anything else in the Bible.

My mentioning the original ending for Gospel Mark wasn't to do with contradiction (although since it has no post--death appearance from Jesus, that would be a contradiction). My point, as I said, was that we have one Gospel, that originally had no appearance from Jesus after his death, and yet somehow, you don't count it later having such an appearance as a "significant change".
It makes me wonder what sort of scale you are using. If I find a manuscript for J K Rowling's first Harry Potter book, and it ends with Harry and Hermione trapped in the room with the two magic fires, does the later edition continuing on with the conflict with Quirrell and Voldemort count as a significant change?

So whether you say it's significant or not, and whether you exclude it from the Bible, it's still in the Bible, even if you don't accept those last verses in Mark's Gospel.

Does the fact the longer ending with the appearance from Jesus only being added later mean anything to you at all? It seems to me that you're content with it being in the Bible, as if that's the be all and end all of the whole affair.
If there's a Pinseeker family photo album, with photos added in by multiple generations of the Pinseeker family, does it mean anything if say...I just happen to insert a few photos? Do my photos count as Pinseeker family photos?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 163 by PinSeeker]

That's fine with me. There's nothing there that contradicts anything else in the Bible. And it's corroborated elsewhere.

You appear to be saying that if anyone later made up some text and added it to a Gospel, it's alright as long as it's not contradictory. For all we know that happened quite a bit since there are no extant originals to show otherwise.
Where else is the additional material in Mark corroborated?

[PinSeeker]

You appear to be saying that if anyone later made up some text and added it to a Gospel, it's alright as long as it's not contradictory. For all we know that happened quite a bit since there are no extant originals to show otherwise.
Where else is the additional material in Mark corroborated?

No, I'm just saying that if -- if, because it's still a question (and nowhere close to the "vast consensus" that some would have you believe -- the last part of Mark was added at some later date, there should really be no problem with it, because a.) it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible, and b.) it is corroborated in other parts of the Bible.

And from a long time ago to now and from this point forward, we don't have to worry about anyone adding anything (although it is still necessary to watch for any translation errors) because there are literally billions of copies that are not fragments at all, but intact in their entirety. And they all say the same thing. I think I have about 15 copies myself, including the copies owned by other members of my immediate family. A guy named Joseph Smith tried adding to the Bible in about 1100 A.D., you know. Didn't work.

[PinSeeker]

Since right now you seem to accepting Kapyong's (and my) point that the earliest copies we have are mostly fragments...

Yes, I never said I didn't accept that...

...and that there were changes, such as the addition to the ending of Gospel Mark...

Well, I don't concede that there were changes nearly to the level that you and Kapyong want to suggest.

...surely your point there can no longer relevant? How can "5,000 copies" mean something in terms of significance when those "copies" are just fragments, and not complete copies of the Bible, or its books?

You just said the earliest copies we have are mostly fragments. That's true. But, by contrast, what you seem to be saying (an you would be correct) that later copies we have are not fragments, either in the sense that they are not small fragments or that they are not fragments at all. So what real difference does it make if the earliest fragments we have are even very small? Not much, if any at all.

And actually, there is a very large amount of partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament; they're available for inspection right now. Yes, there are about many variants, but about 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Because of the number of copies that we have, the original text can be reconstructed with virtual certainty. By practicing the science -- <GASP> yes, science -- of textual criticism (comparing all the available manuscripts with each other) we do have, for practical purposes, the very Word of God.

I'm not attacking your position at all; you're more than welcome to it. What continues to amaze me is what is seemingly a deep-seated need to attack mine. But hey, everybody's gotta do what they gotta do, right? Wow.

Does the fact the longer ending with the appearance from Jesus only being added later mean anything to you at all?

Sure it does. If that's the case. However, what is added (if it is added) is corroborated, as I said, by other parts of the Bible that there is no speculation about it having been added at all, so it doesn't bother me.

It seems to me that you're content with it being in the Bible, as if that's the be all and end all of the whole affair.

That's pretty much the size of it. Since it's corroborated elsewhere, and contradicts nothing else in the entire Bible, there is no real "affair" of any significance. Plus, we Christians trust not only God's inspiration of the Bible by His Spirit, but also His maintaining of the integrity of the Bible -- by that same Spirit -- through the centuries to now (and going forward). Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, although I acknowledge disagreement between "scholars" and even Bible-believing Christians, there is no real "affair."

If there's a Pinseeker family photo album, with photos added in by multiple generations of the Pinseeker family, does it mean anything if say...I just happen to insert a few photos? Do my photos count as Pinseeker family photos?

If I have a bunch of family photo albums of my own, and they contain photos that are exactly like the ones you added, then sure, they count.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 167 by PinSeeker]

No, I'm just saying that if -- if, because it's still a question (and nowhere close to the "vast consensus" that some would have you believe -- the last part of Mark was added at some later date, there should really be no problem with it, because a.) it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible, and b.) it is corroborated in other parts of the Bible.

Perhaps it hasn't hit home just how damaging the fact that Gospel Mark's ending was added to, is.
Since Christians like to use the analogy of a police report, of talking to multiple eyewitnesses, how is this for the analogy: "Mark" originally gave a testimony that said X. "Luke", "Matthew" and John say Y, and then later, "Mark"'s testimony is altered to include Y.

Of note Pinseeker, and I am guessing that you did not know this yourself, the oldest copies of Mark with the longer ending that we have date themselves to multiple centuries after Jesus. So it's no good of you to say that the longer ending is "corroborated" by the other Gospels, since for all we know, the longer ending was written after the other Gospels and then inserted into Mark, so as to make Mark appear to line up with the others.