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.

[PinSeeker]

Well, I for one am glad to see, Kap's, Riku's and tcg's arguments are sinking in, even if you deny them.

LOL! Sinking in where? With the folks we knew would lap it up like thirsty dogs anyway? LOL! Yeah, again, it calls to mind 2 Timothy 4:3, which says, "...the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires..." It's been happening since then, and will continue to the return of You-Know-Who.

Hopefully we'll be welcoming you to the former Christian Club.

LOL! IIIIIIIIIIIII-yuh... wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[PinSeeker]

So it's no good of you to say that the longer ending is "corroborated" by the other Gospels, since for all we know, the longer ending was written after the other Gospels and then inserted into Mark, so as to make Mark appear to line up with the others.

But that's just mere (and foolish) speculation, Riko. Feel free to comfort yourself (and grasp at straws) the best you can; it's of no concern to me. Grace and peace to you, man.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 168 by PinSeeker]

If I have a bunch of family photo albums of my own, and they contain photos that are exactly like the ones you added, then sure, they count.

So let me get this straight. There's a Pinseeker family photo album (or albums as the case would be), containing photos of members of your family over multiple generations, in this hypothetical. There would be a story being told almost.
Then along come I. I am not a member of your family, and I insert photos of my own choosing.
Now the story that the album tells has been altered, to include details that I want told.
And...you are saying that my photos count as Pinseeker family photos...even though I have told you that in this hypothetical, these photos are from a person not a member of your family?

Plus, we Christians trust not only God's inspiration of the Bible by His Spirit, but also His maintaining of the integrity of the Bible -- by that same Spirit -- through the centuries to now (and going forward). Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, although I acknowledge disagreement between "scholars" and even Bible-believing Christians, there is no real "affair."

How is this faith justified when we're talking about an addition to a work that previously did not have these details?
Gospel Mark did not originally have any appearances of Jesus after his death. As far as we people today can tell, the author of Gospel Mark did not have anything that was corroborated. It's an addition.

[rikuoamero]

So it's no good of you to say that the longer ending is "corroborated" by the other Gospels, since for all we know, the longer ending was written after the other Gospels and then inserted into Mark, so as to make Mark appear to line up with the others.

But that's just mere (and foolish) speculation, Riko. Feel free to comfort yourself (and grasp at straws) the best you can; it's of no concern to me. Grace and peace to you, man.

Nope. Off the top of my head, the other three Gospels are dated towards the end of the first century, with John being within the first two decades of the second.
The oldest mention (at least that I know of) for the longer ending (verse 9 onwards of Mark Chapter 16) is from Irenaeus in about the year 180.
This leaves open the possibility that the longer ending was conceived of and written after the other Gospels were written.
I am not saying that this is indeed the case, but I am saying that it is one possibility that I have to take into account when performing my historical investigation.

The facts of the matter are that Gospel Mark (or at least the earliest copies that we do have) was published without a post-death appearance by Jesus.
Then later on, Gospels Matthew, Luke and John get published.
Then in about 180 AD, Irenaeus talks about Gospel Mark with a longer ending.
At some point in that time-span, Gospel Mark gets added to.

[PinSeeker]

So let me get this straight. There's a Pinseeker family photo album (or albums as the case would be), containing photos of members of your family over multiple generations, in this hypothetical. There would be a story being told almost. Then along come I. I am not a member of your family, and I insert photos of my own choosing.
Now the story that the album tells has been altered, to include details that I want told.

Was I not clear, Rik? I was very clear. I said, if the photos you inserted were exactly like photos I already possessed and knew were authentic, then I would have no problem. I would actually say, "Thank you very much. I'm glad to have additional family photos."

How is this faith justified when we're talking about an addition to a work that previously did not have these details?

Faith, Rik -- and I have said this several times before -- is assurance and proof given by God Himself. You can dismiss it if you want; I would expect nothing else from you.

Gospel Mark did not originally have any appearances of Jesus after his death. As far as we people today can tell, the author of Gospel Mark did not have anything that was corroborated. It's an addition.

You're more than welcome to your opinion; I respect it, no matter how wrong I think it is. Can you not reciprocate, Rik? Is that just impossible for you? Wow.

[PinSeeker]

So it's no good of you to say that the longer ending is "corroborated" by the other Gospels, since for all we know, the longer ending was written after the other Gospels and then inserted into Mark, so as to make Mark appear to line up with the others.

But that's just mere (and foolish) speculation, Riko. Feel free to comfort yourself (and grasp at straws) the best you can; it's of no concern to me. Grace and peace to you, man.

Nope. Off the top of my head, the other three Gospels are dated towards the end of the first century, with John being within the first two decades of the second.

That's not what I was talking about. You are absolutely speculating by suggesting that the longer ending was written SO THAT it would "appear" to line up with the others. Drop it, man. Drop it. Holy moly.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 175 by PinSeeker]

You are absolutely speculating by suggesting that the longer ending was written SO THAT it would "appear" to line up with the others.

Yes I am speculating. I am thinking up plausible scenarios to explain a data point. It's what researchers do.
Is there any evidence that would disqualify this speculation from being sound? Note I am not talking about proving something false, merely asking is there anything at all that would indicate it is unsound off the bat.

Drop it, man. Drop it. Holy moly.

Why should I? Because you say so? Because this possibility being raised means that the Christian beliefs you hold at present are not as air-tight as you thought they were?

I will drop it if I can find, or am shown, something that would indicate it was not written to appear to line up with the other Gospels: for example, a copy of Gospel Mark complete with longer ending dating from before the other three Gospels.

[PinSeeker]

Fine, man, don't drop it. I'm out. Play with yourself all you want. Grace and peace to you.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 167 by PinSeeker]

No, I'm just saying that if -- if, because it's still a question (and nowhere close to the "vast consensus" that some would have you believe -- the last part of Mark was added at some later date, there should really be no problem with it, because a.) it doesn't contradict anything else in the Bible, and b.) it is corroborated in other parts of the Bible..

If it is a forgery then there really is a problem with it being associated with the inspired word of God. It would appear that the current ending is not the only one to have surfaced. Why the need to forge a story that purports to be the truth? If the other Gospels post-date Mark, then they can't really be used to corroborate anything as they could easily have based their accounts on the content of Mark.
The Strange Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... ifference/

A guy named Joseph Smith tried adding to the Bible in about 1100 A.D., you know. Didn't work.

Do you mean Joseph Smith Jr. (1805 " 1844) who began a revision or translation of the King James Version of the Bible in June 1830? Why accept the anonymously written Mark with its forged ending while dismissing the word of the prophet Joseph Smith?

[PinSeeker]

Heh, heh, heh... "The prophet Joseph Smith." Sure. You mean the heretic Joseph Smith. Yeah, that guy. He was as well as paligamist, womanizer, American elitist (similar to Hitler and his "superior race" in that respect), and a bunch of other "really cool" things. Who dreamed up some story about Jesus coming to the western hemisphere in about 600 B.C. But that's why; because he was a heretic.

Yeah, I made a typo on the dates -- I meant 1800 A.D. rather than 1100 A.D. It was late and I was sleepy. Sue me. LOL!

Like I said, you guys are more than welcome to your opinions. Apparently, I'm not welcome to mine. Which is quite the curious double standard, no?

Grace and peace to you all.