Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?

[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?

[PinSeeker]

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.

[Divine Insight]

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?

I don't have time to look up the verses right now, but I know that it states in the Bible that not one word shall be altered. And Jesus also stated (according to Matthew) that not one jot or one tittle of the law shall pass until heaven and earth pass.

Jots and tittles refer to the written scriptures. And so this is Jesus proclaiming that not one word of the Scriptures is errant. How could it be when he just said that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass?

Therefore according to Jesus (according to Matthew), at least the Old Testament must necessarily be inerrant, otherwise, Jesus was clueless about what he was saying.

So there are valid argument that the Bible itself proclaims, and demands inerrant scriptures. Of course, if that's true then this religion is in huge trouble since there are many different versions of the Bible that are clearly not identical in terms of every jot and tittle.

So, yes the Biblical canon contains claims of inerrancy, but that claim alone does not make it so.

[William]

And then there is the argument as to what exactly Jesus was saying in relation to that 'not one jot' stuff.

Also, Jesus claimed to be The Word Of GOD, so that would mean that he can't have regarded scripture to being The Word of GOD, and the only scripture which existed while he was on the planet in relation to the Biblical GOD was the Hebrew/Jewish ones.

So unless he was claiming to be the scripture itself - the Torah and what-have-you, then clearly he didn't regard those things as altogether 'The Word of GOD'.

Indeed, in the story of creation we have 'The Word of GOD' as being that which created the universe, so that would mean that all things in the universe were a product of The Word of GOD, not just certain religious holy writ.

The individual of course can decide for themselves whether the physical universe is actually inerrant.

[Divine Insight]

And then there is the argument as to what exactly Jesus was saying in relation to that 'not one jot' stuff.

Any theists who claim that there needs to be an argument over what Jesus was saying has already conceded that Jesus was not a clear speaker and there is much ambiguity surrounding the rumors of what he might have said.

So that's already a losing theological apology.

[Willum]

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.

It says it is good for teaching, not that it is inerrant.

I do not think this is sufficient.
Rather I think it is an acknowledgement that things, such as imperfect metaphor must be used.

So, basically, no one has ever had any reason to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible(s).

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]
I am afraid, not being able to find the verses myself, I am forced to wait on them.
Respectfully yours,

[William]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Any theists who claim that there needs to be an argument over what Jesus was saying has already conceded that Jesus was not a clear speaker and there is much ambiguity surrounding the rumors of what he might have said.

So that's already a losing theological apology.

Well we only have to work with what is made available to us, and what we otherwise come across in our searching, if indeed we care to bother.

♦ How I Deal With Apparent Contradictions in Relation to Biblical Beliefs

and

♦ Is The Bible Really The Word Of GOD?

Which include sub headings such as;

[font=Comic Sans MS]☆ Is the bible really 'The Word of GOD'?
☆ Cherry-picking the bits that suit the individual - the word of GOD is good.
☆ I understand the bible as a political tool...
☆ Everything in the Bible is true?
☆ Biblical references are not necessarily GOD inspired Scripture. Sort the wheat from the chaff.
☆ The Holy Idol - Having an image of a god which speaks to you.[/font]

As can be evidenced in the above links and sub-topics the reader can note that I am one who has stated often enough that I do not believe that the bible is The Word of GOD, and furthermore I also have argued that it has been tampered with for political reasons, and thus some things attributed to having been spoken of by Jesus require discernment from the individual in order to sort the chaff from the wheat.

While I appreciate that someone holding a purely secular position on the matter would not care to explore that possibility, I can also conclude in that the only comeback available to those fortified in such position, is to exclaim in the manner that you have.

As such, the exclamation is regarded by me as chaff which needs to be separated from wheat.

Certainly I am not apologizing for the Bible, and at present feel no requirement to explain myself any more than what my previous words already explain, which is to say, there is nothing more for me to add to what I have already written because your argument has already been addressed, as the reader who would bother to make the effort to investigate, will soon enough realize.

Certainly my theist position in relation to Jesus is not one I have had to question in regard to those things I regard as wheat, because those things align with my predominant position which currently is Panentheism, which of course covers a great deal more than many other theist beliefs.

Which is to say, it is a similar process you used in order to come to a conclusion that Jesus was a Buddhist - although you haven't declared that for some time, and perhaps have abandoned that position altogether now? If so, no doubt you have your reasons - perhaps it was getting in the way of your preferred position of material secularism? I haven't ever felt the need to abandon the Panentheist position and approach, and do not foresee a time when I will ever have to.

Certainly arguments from scientism have failed to convert me.

[Tcg]

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)

Given the date this epistle was written, it can't possible be referring to the Bible. The Bible hadn't yet been compiled.

The author also can't possible be claiming this about the letter he is writing.

This is clearly a claim about the Hebrew scriptures. Some group of writings that became, perhaps plus or minus a few books, what is now often referred to as the Old Testament.

[Tcg]

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?

I don't have time to look up the verses right now, but I know that it states in the Bible that not one word shall be altered. And Jesus also stated (according to Matthew) that not one jot or one tittle of the law shall pass until heaven and earth pass.

Jots and tittles refer to the written scriptures. And so this is Jesus proclaiming that not one word of the Scriptures is errant. How could it be when he just said that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass from law until heaven and earth pass?

Therefore according to Jesus (according to Matthew), at least the Old Testament must necessarily be inerrant, otherwise, Jesus was clueless about what he was saying.

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.

So there are valid argument that the Bible itself proclaims, and demands inerrant scriptures. Of course, if that's true then this religion is in huge trouble since there are many different versions of the Bible that are clearly not identical in terms of every jot and tittle.

So, yes the Biblical canon contains claims of inerrancy, but that claim alone does not make it so.

The Bible makes claims that some sections of the Bible are inerrant. Christianity, or at least some of it's adherents, clearly make this claim about the whole Bible so the religion itself certainly is in trouble.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I have no problem accepting this position. But I don't see where it helps.

You'd still then be stuck with demanding that the first 5 books of the O.T. are inerrant down to every jot and tittle. That's enough to destroy the religion right here. The first 5 books of the O.T. probably contain the most absurd and horrific laws anyway.

So either Jesus had no clue what he was talking about, or Matthew has incorrectly reported words that Jesus never spoke. Either way it doesn't help this religion.

Besides, this is only one of many examples. Jesus is also quoted as proclaiming that God feeds the birds. We know that isn't true. So we already have sufficient evidence that either Jesus had no clue what he was talking about, or the Gospels can't be trusted to correctly report what Jesus might have actually said anyway.

It's basically a hopeless endeavor to try to apologize for this religion based on scripture. I didn't reject this religion for no good reason.

The best any "faith-based believer" can truly do is reject the idea that the Bible is inerrant, including and perhaps especially the New Testament claims of what Jesus might have said, and just invent their own idea of what they would prefer to believe that Jesus stood for.

Many Christians actually do this. They create their own Jesus. One that is totally compatible with their ideas of truth, justice, and morality. And then they have faith that this invented Jesus they have created actually exists.

I can certainly understand that mindset. Even I was tempted to go off on that ridiculous tangent at one point. But I came to my senses and was able to see that such a path is indeed a path of delusion. Not necessarily a destructive or unproductive path of delusion, but certainly a path of delusion none the less.

I mean, after all, if a person has an extremely high standard of morality and believes that some God they invented by choosing to create the type of God they could worship, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The only problem is that it's still a delusion. The person would actually be better off just recognizing that their moral standards are indeed their own.

This is especially true if they are going to suggest that others who don't agree with their moral standards are in violation of the commandments of some God. <--- This is when things start to get nasty.

We are far better off owning our own moral values and accepting full responsibility for having chosen them instead of pretending that some God endorses our moral values.