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?

[Divine Insight]

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. [/quote]

I agree. The Biblical canon is filled with self-contradictory claims.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

No, DI, it says "nothing shall be added." Not, "nothing shall be changed." That's at the very end of Revelation:

"I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19)

Three things to say:

1. As I have been saying (and I know you guys don't accept it, but it's true), nothing -- nothing -- has been changed.

2. No one is to add anything to what is written, which would include the Book of Mormon, which was written about 1000 years later because of another purported revelation of Christ. Most Mormons are good people (I know and love quite a few), but adding to the Bible is what qualifies Mormonism as a cult.

3. Someone might say, "Well, okay, but this just says don't add to the book of Revelation. Well, that's true, but Revelation is really a synopsis of all history, from beginning to end, only a small bit of which hasn't happened yet (Jesus's return). So yes, it's saying don't add to Revelation, but it's also saying don't add to this entire book (the Bible as a whole). It is the last book of the Bible, you know.

[PinSeeker]

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.

I agree. The Biblical canon is filled with self-contradictory claims.

Newp. The Bible claims it is all inerrant. All of it. And there are no self-contradictory claims (and no contradictions). None.

But you're welcome to your opinions.

Grace and peace to you all.

[Tcg]

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.

I agree. The Biblical canon is filled with self-contradictory claims.

Newp. The Bible claims it is all inerrant. All of it.

If this is true, you'd be able to support this claim. You haven't.

But you're welcome to your opinions.

I stated facts about the Bible, not an opinion. Facts you have yet to even attempt to address.

[Tcg]

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.

I was clarifying what Jesus is reported to have claimed. His claim clearly did not address the Bible as a whole.

Nothing that I said should be taken as a support of the Christian doctrine that the Bible is inerrant. I am pointing out the fact that the Bible itself doesn't claim that it as a whole is inerrant.

It not only isn't inerrent, but it doesn't claim for itself that it is.

[Divine Insight]

I was clarifying what Jesus is reported to have claimed. His claim clearly did not address the Bible as a whole.

Nothing that I said should be taken as a support of the Christian doctrine that the Bible is inerrant. I am pointing out the fact that the Bible itself doesn't claim that it as a whole is inerrant.

It not only isn't inerrent, but it doesn't claim for itself that it is.

I understand. But you did point out that Jesus' claim that not one jot or one tittle of the law shall pass, would at least apply to the Torah or first 5 books of the Bible. So at least that much of it would need to be inerrant. And all I'm saying is that even that is extremely problematic.

I do agree with PinSeeker, however, that there are other places in the Bible that imply inerrancy to the entire canon. I certainly do not agree with PiinSeeker that the entire canon can be argued to be inerrant. We know that Jesus claiming that God feeds the birds is at the very least a false claim. So if the Bible isn't in error that Jesus made that claim, then the whole religion falls apart anyway.

I also agree with you that there are places in the Bible where some of the authors have stated that lies and falsehoods will be written and included in the scriptures by unscrupulous people. So I agree that even the Bible canon as a whole is inconsistent in its own claims.

So everyone wins a Tootsie Roll.

The Bible contains enough self-contradictory claims to support what everyone is saying.

Except PinSeeker seems to want to claim that the Bible truly is inerrant and that can't be made to fly. I'll agree with PinSeeker that there are places in the Bible where it claims to be inerrant. But I most certainly won't agree with PinSeeker that such a claim could be shown to be true. To the contrary, it can be easily disproved.

Like I say, Jesus having claimed that God feeds the birds already tells us that the Bible cannot be true in every claim it makes. So we already know it's not inerrant. That much isn't in question.

[Tcg]

I do agree with PinSeeker, however, that there are other places in the Bible that imply inerrancy to the entire canon.

Given that what constitutes the "entire canon" is still not settled after all these centuries, that's quite a claim. How could authors writing before the canon is settled, which would include all of them, determine that it is all inerrant?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by PinSeeker]

I am afraid the conversation has swept past your objections.
Tcg noted that the passage that you referred to, that I still don't believe can be even justified as implying inerrancy, could be referring to the NT.

Let's face it. The Bible doe not claim itself perfect.

Neither can anyone else.

Another silly assumption down the tube. How many before one dismisses the Bible out of hand?

[Tcg]

[Replying to post 13 by PinSeeker]

I am afraid the conversation has swept past your objections.
Tcg noted that the passage that you referred to, that I still don't believe can be even justified as implying inerrancy, could be referring to the NT.

Actually, I noted that it could not be referring to the NT. Perhaps that is what you intended.

[Divine Insight]

I do agree with PinSeeker, however, that there are other places in the Bible that imply inerrancy to the entire canon.

Given that what constitutes the "entire canon" is still not settled after all these centuries, that's quite a claim. How could authors writing before the canon is settled, which would include all of them, determine that it is all inerrant?

I'm with you 100% on this one!

But think about this. If we are theists who want to claim that the Bible is inerrant, we certainly can't be arguing that we aren't even sure what belongs in the Biblical Canon.

When I consider the strength (or weakness) of an apology for Christianity, I must do this through the eyes of a theist. Could I make this apology stick? Asking this question is the easiest way to see how it will succeed (or fail).

And the answer to the apology that I can't even be sure what belongs in the Biblical canon most certainly can't be used to support of a claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God. How could we claim that it's inerrant if we are going to simultaneously claim that we can't even be sure what it's supposed to contain?

Typically people who argue for an inerrant Bible also hold that God himself has protected, and preserved the entire canon. For example the Christian Gospels are supposed to be the "Inspired Word of God". Written, of course, by authors chosen by God to convey his inerrant message.

Paul certainly claims to have been chosen by Jesus.

So the idea is that the Canon itself was not chosen by mere mortal men. Sure, mortal men were "chosen by God" to put together the canon. But it was God's direction and inspiration that supposedly told them what to include and what to reject.

That's the idea.

So any apologist who is going to argue for an inerrant Bible is pretty much stuck with also arguing for an inerrant canon. He or she can hardly argue that the canon itself might not be reliable. The inerrancy of the content of the entire canon is pretty much an assumed premise by those who argue for Biblical inerrancy. So that argument already includes the idea that the Biblical canon only contains what God wants it to contain. Nothing more, and nothing less.

That's part of the whole inerrancy theology.

So the question you pose is a question that those who support the inerrancy argument need to address.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Jesus didn't know that God doesn't feed the birds?

The fact that the Gospels contains clearly false claims even being attributed to Jesus is pretty profound if you ask me.

That should settle the question of inerrancy right there. Apparently even Jesus didn't know what he was talking about.