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.

[marco]

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?

It would seem to me that Jehovah's Witnesses visit the original Scriptures for truth and put aside those that the Church has dabbled with; or which later translators have apparently altered. I imagine the Nicene Creed, with its claims about Trinity, would not meet with the approval of Jehovah's Witnesses who take their message from the guidance given by Jehovah in Scripture, as it was originally framed.


I may be wrong but I guess this is an accurate reading.

[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.

EMPHASIS MINE

Thank you for your post, but I can't seem to see the answer to my question, maybe I didn't express myself well, what I meant to ask is


a) Are you asking me if this is my view (ie was it a question)

b) or telling me what my view is? (ie telling me what I believe) or

c) are you just expressing your belief about my view? (in which case thanks for sharing your belief about me.)


JW

[Tcg]

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?

It would seem to me that Jehovah's Witnesses visit the original Scriptures for truth...

Except of course for the fact that as Kapyong has so clearly displayed, we don't have the original Scriptures. Even if one accepts the claim that they are inerrant, no one has access to them. If they contained truth, that truth is now lost.

[Tcg]

1. God exists and has made his existence obvious.

This is a statement of faith, not of fact.

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.

Certain Jews have claimed this to be the case. Once again, this is not a statement of fact.

3. God has inspired certain of those Jewish people to record his interactions with or revelation to them.

Another claim, not a fact.

4. Those records (writings) describe God as all-powerful, holy (morally perfect), faithful, and unsurpassingly wise.

This reveals the fact that you assume these records as inerrant before you have provided evidence that they are. There is no reason to accept that this report is true given that you haven't yet provided any reason to consider the scripture reliable.

5. The God thus described would reveal himself through writings only if those writings are true and without error.

As I have already displayed, you are assuming the reports about God are true before you have provided evidence that they are.

6. Those writings are inerrant.

This wouldn't follow even if it weren't the fact that every point you've provided up to this point is total flawed.

[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.

EMPHASIS MINE

Thank you for your post, but I can't seem to see the answer to my question, maybe I didn't express myself well, what I meant to ask is


a) Are you asking me if this is my view (ie was it a question)

b) or telling me what my view is? (ie telling me what I believe) or

c) are you just expressing your belief about my view? (in which case thanks for sharing your belief about me.)

None of these apply, really. As I illustrated I was trying to establish a concordance between what I gather are the JW beliefs and what they are in actuality. Even if the Bible is inerrant it is possible that the beliefs or interpretations of its readers are not.

Your original statement on which I presumed to comment was this:

"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?"

Containing as it does two question marks I politely assumed errancy but again there may be an intentional question against present time and one against errors. Or it may be an intentional illustration of 'errare est humanum', relevant to the OP. Go well.

[Don McIntosh]

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.

Thanks for that welcome, Marco, and for your thoughtful remarks.

Let me say that I've never considered myself a disciple of Tertullian, especially not when he makes absurdity a ground for belief. LOL.

And please understand that by "noetic structure" I don't mean the structure of an argument or a scientific experiment. A Christian's (or anyone else's) noetic structure is a "web of beliefs," some of them basic, others derived from accumulated experiences or from the more basic beliefs. In other words almost no one believes a proposition of holds to a particular view of the world simply for no reason at all.

Inerrancy is again perfectly rational given my web of beliefs, but maybe anti-intellectual given yours. The reference to scientists and their theories is only to say that for the scientist advancing a theory on the strength of much research, intellectual labor (and grant money), it takes stronger arguments and evidence to overturn the theory than for someone less vested.

As I see it the existence of God is self-evident, a basic belief (even properly basic) and the starting point for theology. But I will admit that it's extremely difficult to prove the truth of basic beliefs for someone who calls them into question. This is why, for one example, it's seemingly impossible to prove that the external world exists " that we're not brains in a vat, or living in a computer simulation, dreaming rather than awake, etc.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 122 by Kapyong]

The bottom line is, to be an "exactist" -- meaning, if all words and letters aren't EXACTLY THE SAME, then it's all rendered invalid -- is unreasonable. Extremely unreasonable, actually. The fact is, though, that all the copies -- and yes, the number of copies, of which there are well over 5,000 -- is very relevant, and they show that there are no significant differences anywhere between what was in existence two millennia ago and today. You and the others disagree. That's fine; we can agree to disagree.

Grace and peace to you.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 136 by PinSeeker]

and yes, the number of copies, of which there are well over 5,000 -- is very relevant,

Mind telling us just when those manuscripts were penned? Are you trying to imply that all (or a majority) of the 5,000 you mention here came from the 1st century?

[marco]

In other words almost no one believes a proposition of holds to a particular view of the world simply for no reason at all.

But the reason can be as simple as accepting the word of adults, priests, doctors, preachers... I would guess that of the millions of believers in an Abrahamic God, very, very few have analysed the axioms of their belief. Geography and inheritance play prominent parts.

Inerrancy is again perfectly rational given my web of beliefs, but maybe anti-intellectual given yours.

I can understand this. The view that Jesus won't let his Church down leads rationally to limited papal infallibility. A false premise can generate a valid conclusion.

As I see it the existence of God is self-evident, a basic belief (even properly basic) and the starting point for theology.

It may be the starting point of theology but it is not self-evident. It is a deduction from the questionable premise that everything has to have a creator.

[PinSeeker]

Mind telling us just when those manuscripts were penned? Are you trying to imply that all (or a majority) of the 5,000 you mention here came from the 1st century?

No, I'm not. The when is not really relevant. We have copies of the manuscripts and throughout history these copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately. Despite common skeptical claims that the Bible has often been changed through the centuries, the physical evidence tells another story. The New Testament records are incredibly accurate. There are minor differences in manuscripts, called variants, but none of these variants impact or change key Christian beliefs or claims.

You don't believe this. I get it (over and over again). We agree to disagree.

Grace and peace to you, Rik.