You're the one claiming that it is inerrant, not me.
Just note for the readers
It seems that our friend Grace seeker belong to the new trend (the errant-but-still-the-word-of-God view of the Bible) which is being adopted by some Christians today, who are aware that the errant content of the bible can no longer be cleared up or defended ......
though such new moda (the errant-but-still-the-word-of-God view of the Bible) is believed by some christians but it is not the view of both the real biblical inerrantists and the bible itself....
I believe it is inerrant only with regard to matters of faith and practice. It is neither an inerrant historical treatise nor an inerrant science text. It records what men saw, understood, believed, and their interpretations and recollections of events. In some cases those men were indeed in error, and their reported errors are going to be found within the Bbile.
I won't quote muslims who disagree with that,but the christians themselves:
“By this word ( inerrancy) we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 113
‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’
(James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)
“Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.” If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.
If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind
(Gleason Archer ,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24).
Some say that the Bible is inspired in the same sense that great literature is inspired, as the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson and Browning. Such people sometimes say, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." Really they mean that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but that it is a good inspiring book even though it has mistakes. Some say that God gave the general thought and left it to men to write it down so that of necessity there would be some slight errors. Some say that the New Testament is authoritative and true, but the Old Testament is imperfect and is simply a survival of primitive religious thinking. Some so-called scholars, who are not scholars enough to know what the Bible claims for itself nor the evidence that it is true, teach a so-called "progressive revelation" and say that none of the Bible is reliable except the very words of Jesus, and they doubt many of the statements of the gospels. Many good men are deceived by these theorists and quote them. Some people say that the Bible contains the Word of God but that not all of it is the Word of God. If one must find for himself or depend upon some modernistic scholar to say just how much of the Bible is really the Word of God and authoritative, of course no two living men, on that plan, would perfectly agree as to what was true and what was not. Some good men very foolishly say that the Bible is inspired and reliable for religious knowledge but is not necessarily true in scientific matters, or in history
(John R. Rice, Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers, p. 1).
"The Bible is the inerrant... Word of God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc."
(Jerry Falwell,Finding Inner Peace and Strength,Doubleday, 1982, p. 26, ).
, "The Holy Spirit taught the apostles what to say--what to write. We have, therefore, the Word of God. If God had wanted another i dotted or another t crossed, He would have had it done. The writers did not use one word unless God wanted that word used. They put in every word which God wanted them to put into the Bible"
(Alleged Bible Contradictions Explained, George DeHoff p. 23).
It(The Bible) does not err in its revelation, its assertions relative to doctrine, ethics, history, et al. The autographs were absolutely and totally free from error. The Bible gives a faultless record of everything with which it deals (including lies and faults, at times); it chronicles the record of those errors but does not sanction them. It does claim infallibility in all that it does teach, however. Further, when accurately transmitted/translated, the translation is also inspired, the Word of God"
(Biblical Inerrancy: The First Annual Gulf Coast Lectures, Church of Christ, Portland, Texas, 1993, pp. 33-34).
I believe that God moved the men who wrote the Holy Bible so that the very words they wrote and the very thoughts they expressed were given to them by God and miraculously preserved from every possibility of error. I further believe that Holy Scriptures "since they are the Word of God, contain no errors or contradictions, but are in all their parts and words infallible truth, also in those parts that treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters" . I will go even further since Jesus went further. I believe that the Bible is not only verbally inspired, but is also totally accurate in its tense, mood, voice, and case (in the original autographs) because Jesus says so
William Bischoff, a pastor in Bridgeton, Missouri.
"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination."
(Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)
Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts."
(Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)
The verse in Matthew applies to giving people confidence when they stand before tribunals of judgment and other trials. It does not suggest that God is going to dictate anything with regard to those who wrote the scriptures.
Inerrantists will argue that these texts spoke of divine inspiration that would be given to the disciples in situations where they were brought before kings and rulers and said nothing about written inspiration. This will put him in the situation of arguing that God was careful enough to put into the mouths of the disciples the words they should speak, which would be gone and forgotten moments after they had spoken them, but when they were writing books that were intended to guide mankind for thousands of years through the Christian era, they were left pretty much on their own to record "the substance of what had happened" and to give "as many supporting details as they could conveniently remember." Well, why not? Such a position would be no more idiotic than various other scenarios that inerrantist cohorts have resorted to in order to circumvent numerous discrepancies in the Bible.
(Farrell till,Ex christian missionary)
I disagree. Scripture does indeed do these things -- it instructs us in righteousness (i.e. holy living), it does not claim anything beyond that, and it is wrong to for you to ask it to do.
I did ask the bible ,are you wholly the word of God ?and it says ..yes,I'm
ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God
The bible tells it is ALL inspired and you say no it isn't ,just why don't you believe it?!
If Ingersoll was correct in all things you might have a point, but he isn't and you don't.
Ingersoll wasn't correct in all things neither me nor anyone else,but the bible has to be.
John who entered the empty tomb, who was in the upper room when Jesus entered it, and who had breakfast with the resurrected Jesus by the shore of Lake Galille was most definitely present at Jesus crucifixion. He would write both a gospel account of these events and a letter in which he specifically looks back on these events
I would not discuss again anything regarding the authorship of John,cause not only the matter is at best controversal but also if one reads my posts would know that I care for the work not who the writer it might have been.....
If John witnessed the issue why he would contradict another writer who is imagined to have witnessed the same issue? eg;
If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb,as in
(Matthew 28:1,10), why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen as in (John 20:1)?
