Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #1

Post by Willum »

Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?
That is it really:

If the Bible does not say it is perfect, how can an argument be made for its being inerrant?

Isn't that argument over?

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #21

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
PinSeeker wrote: Among other, less explicit places:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3?16-17)

Grace and peace to you, Willum.
More nonsense from PinSeeker :(

Christians love to quote this passage as if it proves the Bible is inspired, but there are several serious problems with this passage :

2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous

The meaning of 2 Tim 3:16 is ambiguous in the Greek because the "is" is not found in Greek.

Here is Young's literal translation, which hedges it's bets by including "is" not found in the original :

16 every Writing ('is') God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that ('is') in righteousness,

Here is the literal translation without the fudged "is" :

16 every Writing God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that in righteousness,

Here is what essay on bible.org says about the variant translation :
"Such a translation is possible, but not required. Actually either translation can claim to be accurate. Both translations have to supply the word is since it does not appear in the original."
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=695


Some Bible versions do have the variant :

(2 Tim 3:16 REB) All inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 Lamsa) All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 NEB) Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, or for reformation of manners and discipline in right living,

(2 Tim 3:16 ASV) Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness.

(2 Tim 3:16 YLT) every Writing [is] God-breathed, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for setting aright, for instruction that [is] in righteousness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Darby) Every scripture [is] divinely inspired, and profitable for teaching, for conviction, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 WYC) For all scripture inspired of God is profitable to teach, to reprove, to chastise, [for] to learn in rightwiseness,

(2 Tim 3:16 Douay-Rheims) All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

(2 Tim 3:16 Webster's) All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

(2 Tim 3:16 Inspired Version) And all scripture given by inspiration of God, is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;

(2 Tim 3:16 Brown and Comfort Interlinear) ALL SCRIPTURE [IS] GOD-BREATHED AND USEFUL FOR TEACHING, FOR REPROOF, FOR CORRECTION FOR TRAINING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS,

GNT's note at 2 Timothy 3:16 that gives "Every scripture inspired by God is also useful" as a valid translation (and one that implies that not all scripture is inspired).

Note that apologists never quote this version of the translation, because it doesn't say what they want it to.


New Testament didn't exist when Timothy was written

It is basic Christian history that the NT did not exist when Timothy was written. Timothy was written in early-mid 2nd century (mid 1st according to Christian stories though) But the NT did not exist as a collection until 4th century.

Timothy could not possibly have been cailling ITSELF "scripture" as it was being written, could it ?


Timothy is a forged letter

It is a well known consensus of NT scholars that the Pastorals were forged letters, not by Paul. You can read some details here as to why :
http://earlychristianwritings.com/2timothy.html
An excerpt follows :

2 Timothy is one of the three epistles known collectively as the pastorals (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus). They were not included in Marcion's canon of ten epistles assembled c. 140 CE. Against Wallace, there is no certain quotation of these epistles before Irenaeus c. 170 CE.

Norman Perrin summarises four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

Vocabulary. While statistics are not always as meaningful as they may seem, of 848 words (excluding proper names) found in the Pastorals, 306 are not in the remainder of the Pauline corpus, even including the deutero-Pauline 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, and Ephesians. Of these 306 words, 175 do not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, while 211 are part of the general vocabulary of Christian writers of the second century. Indeed, the vocabulary of the Pastorals is closer to that of popular Hellenistic philosophy than it is to the vocabulary of Paul or the deutero-Pauline letters. Furthermore, the Pastorals use Pauline words ina non-Pauline sense: dikaios in Paul means "righteous" and here means "upright"; pistis, "faith, " has become "the body of Christian faith"; and so on.

Literary . Paul writes a characteristically dynamic Greek, with dramatic arguments, emotional outbursts, and the introduction of real or imaginary opponents and partners in dialogue. The Pastorals are in a quiet meditative , far more characteristic of Hebrews or 1 Peter, or even of literary Hellenistic Greek in general, than of the Corinthian correspondence or of Romans, to say nothing of Galatians.

The situation of the apostle implied in the letters. Paul's situation as envisaged in the Pastorals can in no way be fitted into any reconstruction of Paul's life and work as we know it from the other letters or can deduce it from the Acts of the Apostles. If Paul wrote these letters, then he must have been released from his first Roman imprisonment and have traveled in the West. But such meager tradition as we have seems to be more a deduction of what must have happened from his plans as detailed in Romans than a reflection of known historical reality.

The letters as reflecting the characteristics of emergent Catholocism. The arguments presented above are forceful, but a last consideration is overwhelming, namely that, together with 2 Peter, the Pastorals are of all the texts in the New Testament the most distinctive representatives of the emphases of emergent Catholocism. The apostle Paul could no more have written the Pastorals than the apostle Peter could have written 2 Peter.



Kapyong

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #22

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
PinSeeker wrote: 1. As I have been saying (and I know you guys don't accept it, but it's true), nothing -- nothing -- has been changed.
We have all seen the evidence that MANY CHANGES have been made (e.g. G.Mark 16:9-20 which even the Tekton site that PinSeeker cited admits is a later addition.)

The facts are clear -
the Bible has been changed and editted very many times.

But PinSeeker preaches the opposite.

Let's recap some of PinSeeker's greatest hits :

1. PinSeeker claimed we had fragments of original bible manuscripts.

When I showed he was wrong, he claimed we were both right !
(Black = white, the sun rises in darkness.)

2. PinSeeker claimed there were no changes to the NT.

When I showed many examples of such changes, fully accepted and understood by scholars, he simply waved them away with stupid apologetics or ignored them.
(Black = white, the sun rises in darkness.)

3. PinSeeker claimed the Easter Sunday accounts had been reconciled.

When I pointed out that it hadn't, he insisted it had and cited Tekton (which does NOT even TRY to answer the challenge.)
(Black = white, the sun rises in darkness.)

4. PinSeeker insisted that Tekton answered the challenge.

When I pointed out it didn't, he ignored me and repeated his false claim.
(Black = white, the sun rises in darkness.)

PinSeeker's claim are demonstrably false, but he doesn't seem to care when he is shown wrong - apparently he believes it's OK to repeat false claims and insist he is right. As if insistently preaching apologetics at us is convincing.

Anyway,
by now readers should be fully aware of the level of facts, truth and credibility in PinSeeker's posts.

Zero.


Kapyong

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #23

Post by Mithrae »

Tcg wrote:I assume you are referring to Mt. 5:18. It is my understanding that when Jesus mention the law, he is referring to the Torah, the first five books of the O.T. also known as the Pentateuch. In verse 17 he mentions the "Law and the Prophets". So clearly by using the term "Law" he is referring to only one section of the Old Testament.
Probably not even that. As you note in verse 17 he comments on "the law and the prophets," the divisions of the Hebrew scripture, but in verse 19 he talks about obedience to "these commands" - the requirements and prohibitions contained within those written collections. So does 'the law' in the verse between those two refer to the books, or the commands?

The rest of Matthew 5 is all about bringing those commands to their fullness:
- the book says don't murder, but Jesus' command is don't even be wrathful,
- the book says don't commit adultery, but Jesus' command is don't even indulge lustful thoughts of another woman,
- the book says to respect a wife's rights when divorcing her, but Jesus' command is to not put her aside at all... and so on.

The passage is pretty clearly denying the perfection of the written Pentateuch, or at least its completeness. By implication, when Jesus said that no jot or tittle would pass from 'the law,' in Matthew's interpretation Jesus may have been talking not even about the commandments as written, but about the moral essence of those commandments: God's perfect law which the books of Moses and the prophets attempted to distill and convey.

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #24

Post by PinSeeker »

Kapyong wrote:
More nonsense from PinSeeker :(
I'll take Young's literal translation there, omitting the word "is." Sure. It says exactly the same thing. All Scripture; God-breathed; profitable for teaching, reproof, etc.

What's funny to me is (see what I did there? lol)... What's funny to me is, in texts where it suit's the narrative you want it to, you add "is" back in, like this one:

"All scripture written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness"

This translation, because of the re-insertion of the word "is" after "Holy Spirit," makes it look like not all Scripture is of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But that is obviously a mistranslation, for the very reason that you, Kapyong, are trying to wield against me. Keep going if you want, but you're proving yourself self-contradictory (and not nearly the first time).

Want a second opinion? Here you go (emphasis added):

1. πᾶσα (NFS) is an adjective that modifies the noun γ�αφὴ (NFS), giving "All scripture", i.e. The Tanakh, in whatever form Paul had it.

2. θεόπνευστος (NFS) is an adjective, but it is not being used to modify γ�αφὴ. It stands, rather, in place as a noun, i.e. "a God-breathed thing". If someone were to argue that it was modifying γ�αφὴ then they would have "All God-breathed scripture", suggesting that Paul was drawing a distinction here between "scripture" that was God-breathed, and "scripture" that wasn't. But such an idea is nonsense.

It is interesting to note that in coining the word θεόπνευστος (if, in fact, he did), Paul is depicting Scripture in the same way Adam is depicted in Genesis: an inanimate collection of atoms into which God breathed His living breath. The writer of Hebrews uses the verb ζάω (to live) as a noun in Hebrews 4:12 to depict the word of God as a "living thing".

3. ὠφέλιμος (NFS) is an adjective, but it is not being used to modify γ�αφὴ either, but stands in place as a noun. Again, to suggest that it modifies γ�αφὴ would give "profitable scripture", suggesting that Paul is making a distinction here between "scripture" that is profitable and other "scripture" that is not. No, ὠφέλιμος, here, is simply "a profitable thing".

LINK: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... -exclusive

Grace and peace, Kapyong. :D
Last edited by PinSeeker on Fri Jul 27, 2018 3:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #25

Post by PinSeeker »

It's a very curious thing to me why atheists are so vehement and vitriolic in their denials of Scripture. I mean, it's not surprising in the least. Some are much more up front about it, for sure. I'm not sure which is worse: being up front about it or just letting it boil beneath the skin. Either way, it reeks of a guilty conscience, and they're just killing themselves, and probably don't realize either of these things. But it is quite curious just the same.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #26

Post by Elijah John »

PinSeeker wrote: It's a very curious thing to me why atheists are so vehement and vitriolic in their denials of Scripture. I mean, it's not surprising in the least. Some are much more up front about it, for sure. I'm not sure which is worse: being up front about it or just letting it boil beneath the skin. Either way, it reeks of a guilty conscience, and they're just killing themselves, and probably don't realize either of these things. But it is quite curious just the same.
:warning: Moderator Warning


This post is full of blanket statments, as well as preaching. Please refrain from such judgemental attacks against your opponents.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #27

Post by Divine Insight »

PinSeeker wrote: It's a very curious thing to me why atheists are so vehement and vitriolic in their denials of Scripture.
They aren't. It just appears this way to you because you don't like the facts they point out.

Not only this but you have apparently fallen into the trap of believing that your somehow at war with a group of people you have labeled as "atheists".

But what is really true is that we are all humans living on planet earth.

Most of the people you are quick to label as "atheists" were actually brought up being taught that Christianity is true and that Jesus is the Son of a God who will damn to hell anyone who doesn't believe and acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God who supposedly gave his life to pay for the undeserved amnesty of anyone who's willing to believe these things.

There are countless problems with this religion. Not to mention the obvious fact that offering undeserving sinners free amnesty if they merely believe that Jesus was the Son of God doesn't even remotely constitute justice or any sense of righteousness.

Moreover, have you given any thought to what's going to happen to these evil sinners who do not deserve salvation when they get to heaven? Clearly if they are evil sinners who had to be given free amnesty through Jesus then they didn't earn their way into heave due to their righteousness. Therefore when they get to heaven God would need to turn them into blind obedient robots who are no longer permitted to think for themselves or have any sort of free will. After all, they have already shown that they aren't righteous and cannot be trusted with free will.

So this is a major problem for this religion. If God is just going to turn undeserving sinners into obedient robots who have no free will he could have done that one day one with Adam and Eve.

So this religion doesn't make any sense no matter what's in the scriptures.

This isn't the opinion of an "angry atheist". To the contrary, this is the honest and sincere realization of a person who is at least as righteous as the most righteous Christian.

And far more importantly PinSeeker, these observations aren't even truly aimed at you. To the contrary, I challenge this invisible angry God who is out to damn the objects of his own creation to justify himself and demonstrate that the things I have shown to be true are not true.

So all I do is ask believers to look at this religion clearly without constantly trying to defend it when there is no defense for it. Instead of getting defensive about it answer the important questions.

What sense does it make for unrighteous people to be given free amnesty just because they believe in Jesus?

What did Jesus himself even say according to these scriptures?

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven

How did Christendom get the idea that unrighteous people can simply ask Jesus for forgiveness and get a free pass into heaven? According to Jesus they need to actually be righteous, not be unrighteous and just ask for free amnesty.

He also said,

Matthew 25:46 And these (the unrighteous) shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

So again, according to Jesus only righteous people go to life eternal. The unrighteous go to everlasting punishment.

There's nothing here about unrighteous people being granted free amnesty just because they have asked Jesus to forgive them.

So the whole shebang of Christendom is based on absolute absurdities that aren't even claimed in the scriptures. Unless of course there are other places in the scriptures that totally contradict the above verses. There probably are, but that only demonstrates how obviously flawed and errant these ancient rumors are.

Keep in mind that you were boasting that the Bible is inerrant. That's simply impossible. That's not even an argument that could be made. The best you can do is claim that there are places within the Bible that some verses claim it to be inerrant. But clearly those verses cannot be true.

If you think anything I've said in this post is angry, vehement or vitriolic, it can only be because you find the truth about the Bible to be extremely distasteful. Apparently you find anything that shows the Bible to be false to be "angry, vehement and vitriolic". That's just how you perceive anything that doesn't support your wish that the Bible could be true.

It's not the people you talk to who are angry, vehement and vitriolic. You just see the truth that they are trying to share with you as being angry, vehement and vitriolic because you don't want to accept the fact that the Bible cannot be true.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Kapyong
Banned
Banned
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:39 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #28

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
PinSeeker wrote: It's a very curious thing to me why atheists are so vehement and vitriolic in their denials of Scripture.
Wrong.
Again.

I am not an atheist.

You just can't get anything right can you ?

Kapyong

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #29

Post by PinSeeker »

Kapyong wrote: Gday all,
PinSeeker wrote: It's a very curious thing to me why atheists are so vehement and vitriolic in their denials of Scripture.
Wrong.
Again.

I am not an atheist.

You just can't get anything right can you ?

Kapyong
Well, not in your eyes. But that's actually a good thing. A REALLY good thing.

So what would you call yourself, Kappy? An agnostic? Because if so, there's really no difference between that and an atheist. There is no neutral; an unbeliever is an unbeliever, according to Jesus: "He who is not with Me is against Me..." (Matthew 12:30).

User avatar
PinSeeker
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2920
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 1:07 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

Post #30

Post by PinSeeker »

Divine Insight wrote:
PinSeeker wrote: It's a very curious thing to me why atheists are so vehement and vitriolic in their denials of Scripture.
They aren't.
Yes, they are. Screaming louder doesn't make wrongs right.

Post Reply