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?

[Tcg]

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.

I don't see that at all. However, the more important issue is of course why you think this relates to the OP in any way.

The title is this: "Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?"

Why have you abandoned this discussion to focus on a claim that not only doesn't match what other readers perceive, but also has no relevance to the OP?

I trust I don't have to explain that ad hominem arguments are invalid logically.

[Kapyong]

Why have you abandoned this discussion to focus on a claim that not only doesn't match what other readers perceive, but also has no relevance to the OP?

Because he lost the argument.

Again.

[William]

I think that the idea that what Paul wrote about scripture affirms that the bible can be regarded as inerrant is a false premise as it disregards the fact that in Paul's time, the bible as it is today in all its varying forms, did not exist.

Indeed, there are known scripts - such as the gospel of Thomas - which were excluded from the bible but which there is no reason why these cannot be regarded as 'inspired' by you-know-who.

Excluding such writ from being equally recognized as 'inspired by you-know-who' tends toward the possibility of missing out on that knowledge, which is not wholesome.

[PinSeeker]

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.

I don't see that at all. However, the more important issue is of course why you think this relates to the OP in any way.

The title is this: "Where in the Bible does it claim to be inerrant?"

Why have you abandoned this discussion to focus on a claim that not only doesn't match what other readers perceive, but also has no relevance to the OP?

I trust I don't have to explain that ad hominem arguments are invalid logically.

Nah, this is just a little extra-curricular "discussion-after-the-discussion" kind of thing. Which I didn't start, by the way.

And I would not say "invalid logically," but rather pointless just the same.

I answered the OP way back on page 1. I think it was page 1... Anyway, my first post in this thread. So I didn't "abandon" it, but rather finished it; there's no need retread already-trod ground. But, screamers keep screaming, and whiners keep whining, and the blind keep groping at stuff, and... you get the idea. And they're quite petty and downright mean in doing it. Which doesn't bother me, but is, like I said, a curious thing to observe; it reeks of a guilty conscience, even if they don't realize it themselves.

And, like I said to Kapyong, him thinking I "lost the argument" is a really, really good thing. Basically means God loves me. On a far, FAR lesser scale, it's kind of like when Jesus "lost" when He was crucified.

[PinSeeker]

I think that the idea that what Paul wrote about scripture affirms that the bible can be regarded as inerrant is a false premise as it disregards the fact that in Paul's time, the bible as it is today in all its varying forms, did not exist.

Well, the New Testament didn't. But the Old? Oh yeah. Did. Absolutely did.

Indeed, there are known scripts - such as the gospel of Thomas - which were excluded from the bible but which there is no reason why these cannot be regarded as 'inspired' by you-know-who.

Actually, the gospel of Thomas is not really a "gospel" at all. It's just a list of 114 supposed "sayings" of Jesus. There are no events described, no narrative, no nothing, other than 114 disconnected "sayings." In it's preamble, it affirms this of itself. And it is clearly Gnostic in nature. Gnosticism, as you may or may not know, was a prominent heretical movement of the 2nd-century and preached that esoteric knowledge (gnosis) enabled the redemption of the human spirit. Which, if that sounds very similar to what's going on today, that's because it is. As the Bible says, there's nothing new under the sun. Today, it's not really an organized movement, and people don't really even realize they're part of it, but it's very prevalent, even right here on this forum. it might be called neo-Gnosticism, or new age Gnosticism, but it's really the same thing. "SCIENCE!" And "REASON!" And "KNOWLEDGE!", or "EDUCATION!" I mean, science and reason and knowledge and education are good things in and of themselves and have their places, of course, but people elevate science and human reason/knowledge/education to a Godly status, and that's not good at all. But such is life in this fallen world we live in.

Excluding such writ from being equally recognized as 'inspired by you-know-who' tends toward the possibility of missing out on that knowledge, which is not wholesome.

Yes, knowledge. "KNOWLEDGE!" You see what I mean? Ah, probably not, I guess.

[Tcg]

Nah, this is just a little extra-curricular "discussion-after-the-discussion" kind of thing.

That's the first I've heard that ad hominem arguments aren't ad hominem arguments if you use them after losing an argument.

Which I didn't start, by the way.

I see. Your use of a logical fallacy is not your fault.

But, screamers keep screaming, and whiners keep whining, and the blind keep groping at stuff, and... you get the idea. And they're quite petty and downright mean in doing it. Which doesn't bother me, but is, like I said, a curious thing to observe; it reeks of a guilty conscience, even if they don't realize it themselves.

You seem to be the only one who views it this way. Irrelevant to this thread in any case.

And, like I said to Kapyong, him thinking I "lost the argument" is a really, really good thing. Basically means God loves me. On a far, FAR lesser scale, it's kind of like when Jesus "lost" when He was crucified.

That's another odd claim. The fact that you lost means that God loves you?

[PinSeeker]

Missed me! Missed me again! Missed me again! Missed me again!



Grace and peace to you, TCG. And to Kapyong, if he's still here.

[Tcg]

Missed me! Missed me again! Missed me again! Missed me again!

What does this mean? What do you think I missed?

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by PinSeeker]

Point being, when it comes to new knowledge however humans obtain it, one can apply it to ideas of GOD in inspirational ways which no one can say 'is or isn't 'from you-know-who' as above all things, GOD is the most mystical anyway. By far the hardest to work out.
Relying solely upon script from ancient cultures which saw things very differently because their knowledge was far less than ours now, is not exactly the brightest thing to do as far as intelligence goes.

It may well be that indeed 'you-know-who' is the same yesterday today and forever, but we are not, and should wisely assume that it is us who have to grow into that knowledge not the other way around.

One cannot grow if one is to assume only those things spoken of in ancient times count as 'inspired' by 'you-know-who' about 'you-know-who', and certainly not just from one culture alone having 'the word' on who 'you-know-who' actually is.

It is information and there is plenty of that out there for those who care to go seeking.

[William]

[Replying to post 35 by PinSeeker]

[font=Serif]"the term 'gospel' is used as a label for any written text that is primarily focused on recounting the teachings and/or activities of Jesus during his adult life"[/font]
[font=Serif]Andrew E. Bernhard, Other Early Christian Gospels: A Critical Edition of the Surviving Greek Manuscripts, Library of New Testament Studies 315 (London-New York: T & T Clark, 2006), p. 2.[/font]

In that light, this is why The Gospel of Thomas is referred to as a "Gospel." even that it might only contain 'sayings'.