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]

No there aren't.

Yes, there are.

If YOU think there are, please name the exact manuscripts and their provenance.

Sure thing.

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.

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.

[PinSeeker]

Please, I beg you... stop projecting your feelings and musings on to others.

Just tellin' it like it is, Clownboat. If you don't accept it -- which you dont; I get it -- that's fine with me.

Consider this, you believe in a god that can create the universe with words, but when it comes to relaying a message of salvation, he gets overpowered due to humans. This does not ring true.

He's not "overpowered" in any way. The message is clear to all. Both in the Bible, and in all that has been made (creation itself). People, in their own sin, sometimes get this or that wrong, or they deny it in part or altogether. That's not God's fault.

Matt 6:14-15 Jesus is claimed to have said: For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you, but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

In Matthew 6, Clownboat, Jesus is "allegedly" talking to folks who already believe.

Matt 12:37 Jesus is claimed to have said: for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

In this part of Matthew 12, Clownboat, Jesus is "allegedly" not talking about salvation, per se, but only making the point that words reveal character. In other words, if you have believed, then your words will reveal it, and by the same token, if you haven't really believed, your words will reveal that also.

Matt 19:29 Jesus is claimed to have said: And every one who has left houses or brothers or sisters for father or mother or children or lands, for my name's sake, will receive a hundredfold, and inherit eternal life.

Yes, again, He's "allegedly" drawing a distinction between those who have believed and thus received salvation and those who haven't.

So all these things are secondary, Clownboat. Not secondary in the sense that it's less important, but secondary in the sense that all this naturally follows after (and possibly not immediately after) one believes in Christ and rests on Him alone for his/her salvation.

Then there is also the Pope: Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven.

The pope may be a good guy, but he's not God. He's a man, and he says some stupid, non-Biblical stuff. This is most assuredly one of them. It directly contradicts Jesus's own "alleged" statement, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me." (John 14:6)

My instinctive reaction is to move out of the way. I try not to judge them because for all I know, they just had a bee fly into their face. What matters is everyone's safety, not whether this person is a jerk or the victim of a bee.

Total avoidance of the question (which I sort of expected). Yes, there is a survival instinct, but one the trouble is past, you get angry, at least a little bit. This is your sinful nature rearing its ugly head. Like I said, it's a very small example; I'm sure if you think about it, you will see that your initial reaction to, um, unpleasant things, is to get really mad about it, or react in some very negative way. That's because of the sin in you. There's other things, like being tempted to do something you know you shouldn't. You may abstain, but you REEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY want to do it. You may actually do it. Either way, that's because of the sin in you.

See how Goliath grew in height as time passed for one example.

The measurement of a cubit is not precise, since a cubit was based on the distance from a person’s elbow to the tip of a finger. Thus, the length of a cubit would vary somewhat, according to the one doing the measuring and the length of his arm. Scholars generally agree that the height found in the Greek text is older and more original. At any rate, this is really beside the point. We don't know exactly how tall Goliath was, but no matter; we know from God’s Word that he was a formidable opponent, that he was not only tall (at least a foot taller than David, and possibly several feet taller), he was also strong. That's the point of the Biblical passage. Don't get excited about a contradiction; there is none.

The Bible contains myths that did not happen.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

There is no information about Christ outside of the Bible.

There doesn't need to be. God has said all that needs to be said.

Therefore, your faith is in the book.

No, my faith is in God (again, because He made it so), and therefore I believe what he said, which is contained in that book.

...an all powerful god failed to accurately deliver his message.

Nope. Fallible men. Because of sin. Which is due to choice.

Then there is still the fact that the message has changed over the years.

Quite false.

Again, you faith is not in question. We know you have faith.

But you don't know what Biblical faith is. Do some research. I'll give you the result, because I feel sure you won't look into it. Here it is: You might as well say, "You (meaning I) have assurance," or, "You (meaning I) have proof." Which is given by God Himself.

Note, I'm not comparing how they both wrote things (because they didn't). I'm comparing how they took existing god concepts and created a new religion.

But it's an apples to oranges comparison, Clownboat. Mohammed said he received a revelation from Allah, and he was the author of the Qu'ran. Abraham was merely a small part of a much, much, much larger story, the first in a long line of Biblical "heroes." I agree with you that Mohammed took existing god concepts (the Christian God as revealed in the Bible) and created a new religion. That's exactly what I was saying before. He "remade" God into what he wanted Him to be. And then, starting with Abraham, he reversed things already in the Bible for centuries to suit himself, thereby creating a new religion. Thus, Islam. Thank you for echoing that. Abraham was merely a character who only appeared in the latter half of the first book of the Bible, Genesis.

Like I said, cult speak. You belong to a cult by definition.

That's interesting. No, a cult refers to a religious group that is 1) exclusive (as in , "We're the only ones with the truth; everyone else is wrong; and if you leave our group your salvation is in danger," 2) Secretive (as in, certain teachings are not available to outsiders or they're presented only to certain members, sometimes after taking vows of confidentiality, and 3) authoritarian (in that a human leader expects total loyalty and unquestioned obedience.) You could apply number one to Christians, but not number two or number three. Really, you can't even apply number one to Christianity, because the only exclusivity Christians claim is the exclusivity Christ claimed for Himself.
Christianity is not a cult.

I don't recognize this sin concept.

Yeah, I get that. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

I reject your concept that I am sick until you can show that I'm sick.

I did. Both in the last post and this one. More on this in a moment.

Okay wait, I'm confused. I said there are some things that are unknowable, that are just unanswerable questions. We can't know the mind of God on such questions, which applies to me, too. And you say I'm "pretending to know the mind of a god here and now"? How do you come up with that?

From your words:
- But no human gets it all right, despite even the best of intentions. That's our fault, not His.
- one day, He'll set it all back to the way it should be.
- I wish that were true. For your sake. But it's not.
(From you last post only. Could go back further, but I feel justified at this point).

- Yes, no human gets it all right. Surely you agree with that.
- Yes, someday, God will set it all back to the way it should be, because He has said He will, and I believe Him.
- Yes, I wish you were not sick (sinful) like I am, but alas, you are not. I believe we are all sinners, because God has told us that we are, and that we are in need of His salvation, that we need Jesus. And I believe Him.

I'm scratching my head, Clownboat. I said, some questions that you, or I, or anybody might ask are just unanswerable, and therefore, the answer unknowable in this life. I do know certain things, because God has said them. They are in the Bible for all to see. But some questions we may ask, there just is no answer that we can discern, like "Why is this this way," or Why is that that way," because God just doesn't tell us. These things we have to just accept those things -- or not; that's your choice. I/we only know the mind of God as far as He has revealed it in His Word. This is all I have said. But yet you say, I am "pretending to know the mind of a god here and now." No, not by any stretch of the imagination. Good grief.

Okay, back to the "sickness" thing. I will say this. You're the one who said "sick," not me. I really don't like the "sick and in need of therapy" kind of language. It's going around in a lot of Christian circles, and it's just not Biblical. Sin is not a "disease." It's just the human condition. We are all sinful, and by our own choice. And we are all in need of redemption, and thus salvation. It's not a "sickness," it's a need to be rescued... from ourselves. Thus our need for a Redeemer, that being God Himself, in the person of Jesus Christ. Get in the lifeboat, Clownboat. Don't stay in your own boat (see what I did there?) and sink. Grab on. There's room.

Grace and peace to you, Clownboat.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 61 by PinSeeker]

That's because of the sin in you.

Sin is an invented religious concept. It is not a thing and it has no agency. It is just an arbitrary label put on actions that allegedly offend God. To say that people are sinful actually serves to dehumanise them. People who willingly accept such a notion become subservient to religious leaders who are able to use the concept to manipulate them to their own ends. Religion is largely about power and control. Get people to willingly participate in absurd rituals and you own them.

[PinSeeker]

Sin is an invented religious concept.

In a way, I wish you were right. One day, there will be no more sin. That will be a great day. But no, it's the human condition.

I'll ask you the same question as Clownboat here. What's your first reaction, brunumb, when somebody cuts you off in traffic? Is it:

1. "My goodness, I love that guy. He must be in a hurry. Bless his soul."

Or is it:

2. "Blankety blank blank, that blankety blank, blankety blankety blank, blankety blanker!!!" Blank you, you blankety blanker!!!"

Or is it somewhere in between, in which case it might as well be #2 above? And it's not just the fact that we react the way we do to things, or doing certain things. It's the heart issue that causes us to do those things. That's sin.

Cased closed. We all sin. We're all guilty.

[Tcg]

Sin is an invented religious concept.

In a way, I wish you were right. One day, there will be no more sin.

That day is today and every day which has proceeded today. Sin is the imaginary concept of displeasing an imaginary God.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 63 by PinSeeker]

What's your first reaction, brunumb, when somebody cuts you off in traffic? Is it:

1. "My goodness, I love that guy. He must be in a hurry. Bless his soul."

Or is it:

2. "Blankety blank blank, that blankety blank, blankety blankety blank, blankety blanker!!!" Blank you, you blankety blanker!!!"

So let's say someone cut you off in traffic, Pin, and you said Number 2 there. Then let's say you told a friend this.
Would your friend describe this as you being sinful...or you being angry?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 63 by PinSeeker]

In a way, I wish you were right. One day, there will be no more sin. That will be a great day. But no, it's the human condition.

If sin is the human condition, then sin will be no more when we lose our humanity. Is that when people become robots, automatically worshiping their God without free will do do or think anything that might offend him? You are welcome to that.

The notion of sin is a very simplistic argument for why people do unacceptable things. If we are flawed in any way it because we evolved with those flaws. It has nothing to do with some invisible stain we inherited because a pair of fictional characters listened to a talking snake and ate a piece of magical fruit.

[PinSeeker]

Funny how no one wants to answer the question. No one wants to admit what his/her base instinct is. I understand. It's ugly. It's offensive. It's offending. It's terrible. It's all those things and more.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 67 by PinSeeker]

Funny how no one wants to answer the question. No one wants to admit what his/her base instinct is. I understand. It's ugly. It's offensive. It's offending. It's terrible. It's all those things and more.

Nope. It's just a ridiculous question. If you want to paint humans as evil, sinful beings, then that is up to you. The reality is that there is no such thing as sin. It's just a 'religious disease' concocted to sell gullible marks an alleged cure based on worshiping an imaginary being and handing over ten percent of your income to his self-appointed representatives. Probably the real 'oldest profession' and of equal status.

[PinSeeker]

If you want to paint humans as evil, sinful beings, then that is up to you.

Well I don't really "want" to, per se. I don't like to think of myself as sinful. But it's true. It just is what it is.

The reality is that there is no such thing as sin.

Do people not do wrong and/or unjust things to each other, brunumb? Either or both inwardly and outwardly? At least from time to time? Yes, they do. Of course they do. To not think so, I'm sure you would agree, is absurd. And that's sin. And sin against others is also sin against God, as all people are a part of God's creation. Now, that's only part of the story... the other part, which is much larger, is sin directly against God Himself... but it is more than sufficient to expose your foolish denial. Case closed (again).