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.

[Tcg]

The bible is inerrant because it contains no errors. Is as simple as that.

It is simple to make an unsupported assertion as you just have. It may even be simple to accept this assertion based on faith. It is quite another to support this claim reasonably.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 119 by Walterbl]

It was a story about God wanting to test Abraham to see if he has willing to sacrifice what was most precious to him.

Does the story of Abraham and Isaac have a message for the people? Maybe.

"Listen up people. God told Abraham to kill his son. Even though it would have been the hardest thing on earth for him to do, Abraham obeyed and was prepared to do whatever God asked of him. As we priests are God's spokesmen here on earth, you should also do whatever we ask you to do in his name, no matter how hard you might find it. Now, we are getting hungry and God says you should bring us lunch."

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

The evidence is overwhelming that the text is the same today as it was nearly 2000 years ago. You probably won't believe that, but it's true. Plus, through the many, many copies (and even translations) we do have, if all taken together, through preponderance of all the evidence, we can very safely conclude that it is identical to the original manuscripts. Again, I know you won't accept that, but no matter.

That is not true at all - the evidence shows the exact opposite.

Here are some examples of how the manuscripts have been changed over time :


Mark 16:9-20
The Resurrection Appearances

Most of the earliest witnesses have G.Mark ending at 16:8 - with the empty tomb scene, but no resurrection appearances etc.

G.Mark ends at 16:8 in the very important early MSS Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and also in others such as : Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, and the two oldest Georgian translations and many Armenian manuscripts.

In later versions however, there are several DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark after 16:8 -

• the longer ending (16:9-20 in many Bibles)
• the shorter ending (also found in some study bibles)
• another minor variant of a few verses

In other words -
there are at least FOUR different ways that G.Mark ends in various manuscripts.
(Many modern Bibles now indicate this with brackets or a marginal note - go check yours.)

Origen and Clement of Alexandria (early 3rd C.) and Victor of Antioch quote and discuss G.Mark WITHOUT mentioning the appendix. Eusebius (early 4th C.) mentions that most MSS do not have the appendix. Jerome also specifically notes the passage can not be found in most Greek MSS of his time (4th C.) This means Eusebius and Jerome KNEW of the appendix, but noted that it was NOT part of the Bible at that time.

Thus, this is clear and present evidence that the post-resurrection stories were NOT original, but added later, around the 4th-5th century or so.

This helps to explain why the stories in G.Luke and G.Matthew and G.John are so wildly different - they did not have G.Mark to follow, so each made-up a different story. (Scholars agree G.Luke and G.Matt were largely copied from G.Mark.)

The events on Easter Sunday, as described in the four Gospels can NOT be reconciled. It is NOT possible to include all the events from all four Gospels in a coherent sequence - go try it. Not one person has ever succeeded.

Luke 3:22
The words of God at the Baptism

Early MSS and quotes have the same as the Psalm :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"

But later versions have changed it to :
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"

Here we see Christian scribes have CHANGED the very words of God, or the alleged words of God. And we know the reason - it supports the view called Adoptionism - later called a heresy.

In other words, Christian writers had no compunction about changing the supposed words of God himself, at a crucial time in the story. Clearly this does not represent anything real or historical.

1 John 5:7
The Trinity

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. "

This passage is not found in ANY early Greek MSS, and was therefore not included in the original Textus Receptus of Erasmus in the 16th Century. Erasmus said "I will not include the Comma unless I see a Greek MSS which includes it". Sure enough, a newly written Greek MSS suddenly "appeared" with this passage, so Erasmus ADDED it to the 2nd edition - how dishonest and errant can you get !
More details on the 'Comma Johanneum' :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

The Lord's Prayer
Version 1 - Matthew :
Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread,
and forgive us the wrong we have done
as we forgive those who wrong us.
Subject us not to the trial
but deliver us from the evil one.

Version 2 - Luke :
Father,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come.
Give us each day our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins,
for we too forgive all who do us wrong;
and subject us not to the trial.

Didache version :
Our Father, Who are in heaven, hallowed be Your name;
Your kingdom come;
Your will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth;
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one;
For Yours is the power and the glory for ever and ever.

Modern version :
Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory. for ever and ever. Amen

Tertullian :
Our Father, Who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name;
Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth;
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our debt, as we also forgive our debtors;
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.

Early and important MSS (Aleph, B, D, Z, 205, 547) as well as some fathers (Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian) have :
"And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil"

Other MSS have :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen"

And a few MSS have another version :
"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, of the father, the son, and the holy spirit for ever. Amen"

A few MSS exclude the words "the power" or "the glory" or "the kingdom". The last sentence of the Modern version is clearly a later addition.

The Lord's Prayer is one of the more variant parts of the whole NT.
This prayer was supposedly taught by Jesus himself.
But early Christians could not agree what the prayer said !

Mark 1:1
Jesus Christ [Son of God]

Early MSS do not have "son of God". It has been added later.

John 9:35
Son of Man/God

Early MSS have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out, and having found him he said, Do you believe in the Son of man?"

Later versions have :
"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?"

Acts 8:37
JC is the Son of God

"And Phillip said, if thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God"

This passage is missing from all the early MSS.

In other words, the MSS show a consistent pattern of "Son of Man" being changed into "Son of God".

Mark 1:2
As written in [Isaiah]

The early MSS have :
"As it is written in Isaiah the prophet..."

But most later versions have :
"As it is written in the prophets..."

Probably because the quote is NOT really from Isaiah (its composited from Isaiah, Malachai, and Exodus) - the eariest MSS were wrong, so later versions fixed this error by using just "prophets".

Here we see later scribes fixing up an earlier mistake.

Colossians 1:14
Redemption by blood

All early MSS have the shorter :
"in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins"

But later copies have added "through his blood" :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins"

This is an important proof-text for the doctrine of redemption by Chist's blood - but its a later addition.

So what does all this show ?

1. The NT was often changed during its history.

2. The changes included some of the most important parts of Christian doctrine :

• the resurrection,
• the alleged words of GOD at the Jordan!
• the Lord's Prayer,
• the Trinity,
• redemption by blood,
  etc.

3. The reason the NT was changed was often arguments over doctrine - i.e. different Christian sects fiddled the books to support their sect.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all

Anyone interested in biblical manuscripts (MSS) and how they changed over the centuries, may like this page I made :

http://kapyong.net/ChapterAndVerse.html

Lots of interesting pictures (but no ads, spam, popups, scripts etc.)
Example : P75 from around 200 AD :

(The earliest form of Gospel manuscript. This is about as far back as our MSS go.)
Can you see
""I

?

The main theme is the gradual division into (initially words and sentences), then chapters and verses...

Kapyong

[marco]

The idiot story of Abraham being told to murder his boy Isaac also sets a Biblical bad example. We can gather from these stories that there is much in the Bible that is nonsensical.

And yet he didn't murder him. It was a story about God wanting to test Abraham to see if he has willing to sacrifice what was most precious to him.

Yes, the evil isn't in an act of murder but in the COMMAND to murder, whether or not the deed was done. When we are willing to do evil for our God, we should reappraise our God.


The Bible gives the impressions of what may or may not have taken place. The lineage of Christ traced back to Adam is a bit of fantasy. There are several versions of who saw what when Christ's tomb was visited. And the holy men rising from Middle Eastern graves in the first century AD is a piece of biographical enthusiasm. There may well be much truth in the Bible but let us not say it is entirely factual. It isn't.

[Don McIntosh]

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.

Great questions.

I do believe Scripture to be inerrant in the original autographs. But that's what I would call a theological inference rather than a demonstrable point of fact. There's really no way I could sit down and reconcile all the seeming inconsistencies or puzzling statements that surface in Scripture to the satisfaction of a an agnostic observer. And yes, an argument that the Bible is inerrant because it's the Word of an infallible God does seem circular on its face.

As I see it inerrancy is a perfectly rational position to hold given a certain set of epistemic operating assumptions. J.P. Moreland calls this set of assumptions a person's "noetic structure" and compares a Christian holding to belief in inerrancy with a scientist holding to belief in a given theory. In both cases the believer is aware of various anomalies, but feels those are minimal in light of the total evidence and his total experience, and is therefore confident the anomalies are explicable in principle.

For a Christian theist like me:

1. God exists and has made his existence obvious.
2. God has interacted with or revealed himself to a certain people, the Jewish people, from the Patriarchs and Moses, to the prophets, to the apostles.
3. God has inspired certain of those Jewish people to record his interactions with or revelation to them.
4. Those records (writings) describe God as all-powerful, holy (morally perfect), faithful, and unsurpassingly wise.
5. The God thus described would reveal himself through writings only if those writings are true and without error.
6. Those writings are inerrant.

The conclusion of inerrancy seems to follow from the premises. I'm sure the argument could be cleaned up here or there, but that's the basic idea.

[marco]

As I see it inerrancy is a perfectly rational position to hold given a certain set of epistemic operating assumptions. J.P. Moreland calls this set of assumptions a person's "noetic structure" and compares a Christian holding to belief in inerrancy with a scientist holding to belief in a given theory. In both cases the believer is aware of various anomalies, but feels those are minimal in light of the total evidence and his total experience, and is therefore confident the anomalies are explicable in principle.

A warm welcome to the forum, Don.

Noetic, indeed. This is rather like Tertullian's "I believe because it is absurd." I don't see anything intellectual in believing the Bible to be inerrant and it is certainly not on a par with a scientist accepting a theory.


A theory is developed through rigorous intellectual exercise based on observation and experience. It is always open for the scientist, in the light of new material, to discard or amend a theory. The situation with the Bible is that the believer believes and from that conclusions are drawn. Augustine put it succinctly: Crede ut intellegas - believe that you may understand. That sounds like a definition of circularity.


Your tenets are fair enough, forming your credo, based on faith. There is no need for embellishment; faith explains what centuries of search cannot reveal. I used to have a copy.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do believe Scripture to be inerrant in the original autographs.

So would it be fair to say you believe the "bible" WAS inerrant originally but that that is no longer the case and that the bible at this present time? contains errors?

[marco]

I do believe Scripture to be inerrant in the original autographs.

So would it be fair to say you believe the "bible" WAS inerrant originally but that that is no longer the case and that the bible at this present time? contains errors?

Which is surely your own view. All was originally well but then folk like the translators of the KJV missed out commas or translated god as God or misunderstood kingdom or.... The odd thing is that the inspiring Spirit just stopped inspiring; had he continued to do his job, we'd all be reading from the same page.

[JehovahsWitness]

I do believe Scripture to be inerrant in the original autographs.

So would it be fair to say you believe the "bible" WAS inerrant originally but that that is no longer the case and that the bible at this present time contains errors?

Which is surely your own view. {snip}

Are you asking me if this is my view or telling me what my view is?

Or are you just expressing your belief about my view?