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.

[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.)

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.

Okay, your "gatherings" /opinions/conclusions...okay as long as we are clear you are expressing YOUR "gatherings" and are not presuming to know mine, we're good. All I can say about your "gatherings" is..., thanks for sharing. Of course if you ever want to know what I believe as a result of my gatherings feel free to ask. You never know, I might even answer.

Have an excellent day,
JW

Ps If you want to know the official beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses we do have a website, if you look at my avatar you'll know what it is.

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

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.

Back on page 13 I showed numerous SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and CHANGES to the manuscripts over the centuries.

You ignored them all.

I also showed that the NUMBER of later COPIES has nothing to do with the truth of the contents.

You ignored that too.

I showed that there are NO ORIGINAL fragments of MSS.

You partially admitted that - but insisted you were still somehow correct.

You posts have been shown to be ignorant and dishonest. You are simply preaching faithful beliefs and ignoring the facts that show you wrong.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

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?

Most of them are from many CENTURIES after the alleged events :

• NO copies from 1st century,
• a few tiny fragments from 2nd century (e.g. P52, P90),
• a few UNCOMPLETE copies from late 2nd / early 3rd (e.g. P75, P46),
• several fairly complete copies in 3rd / 4th century.
• the rest are CENTURIES later with many differences.

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.

Wrong.
The actual MSS show there have been MANY SIGNIFICANT changes - as I showed back on page 13, which PinSeeker ignored totally.

In fact - EVERY SINGLE NT MSS is different from every other !

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.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

Here again is the evidence that PinSeeker IGNORES :

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 !

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 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,
• whether Jesus is Son of Man or Son of God,
• 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.

Readers are encouraged to compare these facts with PinSeeker's claims.


Kapyong

[Kapyong]

Gday all,

Further evidence showing PinSeeker is wrong about NT MSS accuracy can be found in the many corruptions and changes in the New International Version.

Here is a very long list of these NIV errors :
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... mment-3086

The NIV is probably the WORST TRANSLATION available.

Here are some examples of NIV corruption of the NT manuscripts :

Matthew 21:7 " It is clear in the Greek that Jesus disciples bring a donkey and a colt, and after they put their cloaks on them, Jesus sits on both animals. (When the Greek text says Jesus sat on them, the masculine must refer to the animals, and not to the neuter cloaks.) Scholars recognize that this departure from Marks text was made in order to adhere more literally to the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. The 1984 NIV translated this verse correctly, but the 2005 TNIV and 2011 NIV have altered it so Jesus sits on the cloaks rather than the two animals: They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. At best, this is a misleading paraphrase.

Matthew 27:11 " In the Greek text, Jesus prevaricates when asked by Pilate if he is the king of the Jews, answering you say so. The NIV (up until the 2005 TNIV edition) replaced this with a boldly affirmative response: Yes, it is as you say. (Likewise in Luke 23:3 " see below.) The 2011 revision has mostly fixed this error, but for some reason puts Jesus answer in the past tense: You have said so.

Mark 15:42 " The NRSV correctly reads When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath. This is an error, because the Jewish day starts in the evening, so it would already have been Sabbath. The NIV masks this error by altering the translation to read So as evening approached.

Luke 2:2 note [a] " The NIV offers an alternate reading in a footnote: this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Grammatically speaking, before is not a possible reading of the Greek text. However, the notion of an earlier, historically unattested census is sometimes proposed by apologists in order to harmonize the date of Jesus birth in Luke (6-7 CE under Quirinius) with Matthews account (under King Herod prior to 4 BCE). The mistranslation offered by the NIV as an alternate reading is almost certainly intended to support such a view.

In short -
there are a HUGE number of examples of the NT manuscripts being changed and corrupted over the centuries (examples previously) and this corruption continues to this very day with the NIV which includes a large number of deliberate corruptions intended to overcome errors or hide outdated dogmas etc.


Kapyong

[PinSeeker]

Gday all,

Further evidence showing PinSeeker is wrong about NT MSS accuracy can be found in the many corruptions and changes in the New International Version.

And further evidence that Kapyong is grasping at straws... flailing away, as it were:

1. There are absolutely some translations that are better than others, meaning truer to the original (or even original copies) of the manuscripts. Christians will readily admit that, but it doesn't negatively affect accuracy at all.

2. Also, there are different types of translations -- word for word, thought for thought, and paraphrase. None is necessarily better than the either of the others. In any case, though, the evidence is still overwhelming that the Word has not been corrupted in any way.

Okay, carry on, friends. Grace and peace to you all.

[Clownboat]

...thank you for admitting that the message about how to get to heaven is not clear, thus why there is disagreement between you, 1213, the pope and others.

Ohhhh. I said no such thing. I said I don't disagree with what 1213 said, but that he just doesn't get to the heart of the matter. I'd venture to say that he'd probably say the same thing.

As for the Pope, he said something stupid to appease folks like you, and he'd probably take it back in private; at least I hope he would, because it's totally antithetical to what the Bible says -- which every person who actually knows the Bible would agree. But I don't care if he does or not; that's his issue to deal with.

Readers, please decide for yourself if you feel the message in the Bible about getting to heaven is clear or not after reading this exchange.

In Judges, we have Jephthah sacrificing his virgin daughter to said god concept.

Um, Clownboat, God didn't command Jephthah to do any such thing, or even require it. Jephthah -- unfortunately -- made a vow to God that he would offer the next thing to come through the doors of his house to Him as a burnt offering. It was his own fault for making such a vow to the Lord, but he couldn't go back on it and thus prove himself unfaithful. He shouldn't have made the vow in the first place. It was his own fault.

I didn't say the god commanded it.
No matter, the virgin was sacrificed to him just the same. The god could have stopped it like he did in the story of Abraham, but that sweet, sweet virgin blood was probably just to tempting.
Or it's just a myth. That would explain a lot too.

When Christians justify belief with faith, a god is the giver.

No, again -- how many times is this again? -- God is the Giver of faith, through which Christians believe, because God has justified him/her despite his/her sin by the atonement of Christ for that sin.

You're just attempting to justify the special pleading. It's still taking place though.

When a Muslim or any other religious person justifies their belief with faith, there is no giver.

Again, even a Muslim would tell you that he/she justifies himself/herself through works. Even their faith is a work (not given by Allah).

See Muslim or any other religious person.
The claim is the same. When you use faith, it is justified. When any other religion uses faith, it's not justified because of whatever song and dance makes you feel justified in using said special pleading.

Um, Clownboat, this is not the opposite of what I said, but rather exactly what I said. To carry this out just a little further, Christians come to believe via the Holy Spirit's working faith and belief in them, which He may do through, or because of, something another person said. But you're right, that no Christian on this planet now or ever before has come to belief via another human; that's exactly what I said.

Please evidence this Holy Spirit, this working of faith and belief.
Keep in mind, I still have the ability to speak in tongues as I was a drunk in the holy ghost, street evangelizing Christian for 2 decades.
One would think I would familiar with it. Perhaps it's possible that this holy spirit is just the mechanism used to justify why Christian faith is true and all others are false?

Well, any religion other than Christianity. Right, because there is none (besides Christianity) in which they claim that God gives them faith to believe.

Apparently I'm just not as impressed with empty, un-evidenced claims as you are.
Then there is also the fact that a god concept is not needed in order to have faith. See flat Earthers.

LOL!!! You said the Bible says "to each their own" (which is abjectly wrong), Clownboat, not me. Ah, I guess you're implicitly admitting your mistake. LOL!!!

My words were: "Ironically for me, it was reading the Bible from cover to cover that started the questioning of my faith. To each their own as they say, but neither of us can know who is right, but it wont stop you from pretending. Woohoo for faith!"

No, not wrong; those verses are saying that God's love is conditional, meaning depending on what they do to earn it. Which means that they can never be sure that Allah loves them, because they can never be sure they have done enough to deserve it. Thank you for proving my point.

Meet the conditions, and you can know Allah loves you. Why this escapes you is your problem, not mine.
Indeed, Allah loves those who are constantly repentant and loves those who purify themselves.(Quran 2:222)

Do not stand [for prayer] within it " ever. A mosque founded on righteousness from the first day is more worthy for you to stand in. Within it are men who love to purify themselves; and Allah loves those who purify themselves. (Quran 9:108)
http://aboutislam.net/counseling/ask-ab ... llah-love/

Quit, Clownboat. Please. Quit. Better to keep silence and be thought an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt, right? Not that I think you're an idiot, because I don't. But quit. For your own sake.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 145 by Clownboat]

<chuckles> Grace and peace to you, Clownboat. Grace and peace.

[PinSeeker]

The NIV is probably the WORST TRANSLATION available.

No, not the worst, but it has a few problems. It's surely not my favorite. I prefer the NASB, myself. I like the ESV, too, actually, but still like the NASB more.

Here are some examples of NIV corruption of the NT manuscripts:

Yes, let's take a look. By all means.

Matthew 21:7 " It is clear in the Greek that Jesus disciples bring a donkey and a colt, and after they put their cloaks on them, Jesus sits on both animals. (When the Greek text says Jesus sat on them, the masculine must refer to the animals, and not to the neuter cloaks.) Scholars recognize that this departure from Marks text was made in order to adhere more literally to the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. The 1984 NIV translated this verse correctly, but the 2005 TNIV and 2011 NIV have altered it so Jesus sits on the cloaks rather than the two animals: They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. At best, this is a misleading paraphrase.

Matthew alone mentions two animals. The young colt's mother moving alongside would be the best way to calm it during the noisy entrance into Jerusalem. The cloaks (plural) were placed on the two animals, and He sat on the cloaks (them). I agree on the ambiguity, but that's really only a result of the English (a "dirty" or sometimes ambiguous language, to be sure) translation, not any intent to "mislead" or any "corruption." Getting tripped up on this totally misses the biblical significance of His entrance into Jerusalem on a donkey anyway, which is signalling His status as the Messiah (the Prince of Peace), coming in humility, and bringing peace.

Matthew 27:11 " In the Greek text, Jesus prevaricates when asked by Pilate if he is the king of the Jews, answering you say so. The NIV (up until the 2005 TNIV edition) replaced this with a boldly affirmative response: Yes, it is as you say. (Likewise in Luke 23:3 " see below.) The 2011 revision has mostly fixed this error, but for some reason puts Jesus answer in the past tense: You have said so.

Another translational difference, but still beside the point and lacking any real semblance of significance.

Mark 15:42 " The NRSV correctly reads When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath. This is an error, because the Jewish day starts in the evening, so it would already have been Sabbath. The NIV masks this error by altering the translation to read So as evening approached.

This is not an "error" in any sense. There is a slight complication that has to be dealt with here by the Jews in burying Jesus. According to the Law, specifically Deuteronomy 21:23, burial of a corpse has to take place on the day of death, which takes priority over Passover. So the Jews had to suspend the beginning of Passover -- therefore it was still technically the Day of Preparation (even though evening had already come) and the day before Passover, at which time all work must have ceased. Again, a simple misunderstanding of how Jewish observance of Passover was mandated. Again, no "misleading" or "corruption."

Luke 2:2 note [a] " The NIV offers an alternate reading in a footnote: this census took place before Quirinius was governor of Syria. Grammatically speaking, before is not a possible reading of the Greek text. However, the notion of an earlier, historically unattested census is sometimes proposed by apologists in order to harmonize the date of Jesus birth in Luke (6-7 CE under Quirinius) with Matthews account (under King Herod prior to 4 BCE). The mistranslation offered by the NIV as an alternate reading is almost certainly intended to support such a view.

This one is worth addressing. Because the timeline is not clear in the NIV (or even "muddied," possibly) is no reason to label it as any kind of "misleading" or "corrupted" account. The year cannot be determined with complete certainty, but there are several possibilities which correspond well to Luke's carefully researched investigation (Luke 1:3-4) and to the historical and geographical accuracy evidence throughout Luke and Acts. At any rate, the exact timeline is totally beside the point, which is that this census is what necessitated Joseph's and Mary's return to Bethlehem, as they were both of the House of David and thus had to return to the City of David to be counted. And Bethlehem is where Jesus was born, which fulfilled OT prophecy.

Grace and peace.

[PinSeeker]

Back on page 13 I showed numerous SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and CHANGES to the manuscripts over the centuries.

Well, you showed what you and other atheists THINK are significant differences and changes. Which means you stated your opinion. I respect that, but still, it is just an opinion.

You ignored them all.

Not really, I just didn't want to get into a long (unfruitful) back and forth. I'll address them briefly in the next post.

I also showed that the NUMBER of later COPIES has nothing to do with the truth of the contents.

Well, you backed up -- or at least tried to back up -- your opinion that the number of copies have nothing to do with the truth of the contents. My opinion is that they do. Again, we agree to disagree.

You ignored that too.

No, I didn't.

I showed that there are NO ORIGINAL fragments of MSS. You partially admitted that - but insisted you were still somehow correct.

I am correct. In your opinion, I am not. You can likewise state (and no doubt will) that my assertion that I am correct is an opinion. That's cool; no worries, mate. Again, we agree to disagree.

Your posts have been shown to be ignorant and dishonest.

In your opinion (which is absolutely incorrect). Again, we agree to disagree.

In my opinion, your posts have shown you to be gullible and blindly accepting of arguments against Scripture that have been made for centuries. And ignorant (if not dishonest, but I can't be sure of that) on your own part, at least to some degree. You can likewise discount that as my opinion, and I'm sure you will; that bothers me not.

You are simply preaching faithful beliefs and ignoring the facts that show you wrong.

Absolutely not. Even so, that is yet another opinion, and I can say exactly the same thing as you (and do).

Grace and peace to you, Kapyong.

[Don McIntosh]

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.

This sounds like what atheist John Loftus has called "The Outsider Test of Faith," the idea being that religious beliefs are the product of culture rather than of reason. It's a point worth making, I guess, but it seems overstated and possibly self-defeating. I mean, there aren't many Christians in the Arab-majority countries, it's true, but there aren't many atheists either.

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.

That's arguable. According to Christians like John Calvin and Alvin Plantinga (and me), the awareness of God's presence can be directly experienced by the "sensus divinitatis" (C.S. Lewis called it the Numinous), so that the existence of God is self-evident. But we can simply disregard that experience, or assign some elaborate evolutionary explanation for it, if we so choose, and (dis)believe whatever we want to (dis)believe. That's why I mentioned the seeming impossibility of proving the truth of an axiom or a self-evident proposition. Presumably there is no logical means to prove the validity of logic to a skeptic of logic, for example. And for most of us, even most atheists I think, there was a time at least when the existence of God was a given.