The bible is the inerrant words of God

I have delayed in posting this until I had seen a good number of creationists on board to level the playing field.By what means does one make the statement "The Bible is the inerrant word of God"?
By what independant menas of verification do you justify that statement?You cannot use the Bible as a source for the inerrancy of itself so therefore how do creationists make this into a valid arguement?

Generally, inerrancy refers only to the original handwritten pages or scroll comprising each of the books of either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament, before their subsequent numerous copies, canonization, and distribution. How many "inerrant" original documents exist today?On the otherhand "infallible" when applied to any version of the Bible means that the scripture is completely trustworthy and does not deceive the reader.So down which road does this thread unravel?[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-29-2003]

Therefore, inerrancy is a presupposition about a set of documents that have never been seen, documents which correspond to, or differ from, known variants to a degree totally unknown and unknowable by those who claim inerrancy.

Abshalom writes:

quote:

---

How many "inerrant" original documents exist today?

---

With regard to the Bible? None. We don't have a single original. We only have copies.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Thank you Rrhain.And that's my point. If you examine the copies extant today you will find they are all errant to some point no matter how insignificant that point may be. The errancy may simply be limited to a few Hebrew characters between the various versions of Torah, to widely diverse Greek, Latin, English, etc., translations of the remainder of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. Man is not infallible no matter how carefully the translaters and scribes attempted to copy the original and subsequent works.[This message has been edited by Abshalom, 12-29-2003]

How is this something other than sophomoric babble? Having no access to some purported original, you have zero basis for asserting, much less quantifying, variances from that original. Given your definition of 'errancy', you've rendered it wholly undetectable.

Ridgid rules are imposed on the scribe to safeguard the (inerrant) integrity of sacred text of Torah. The safeguard requirements derive from the biblical statement "Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it" (Deut. 4:12 and 12:32). The specifics of the rules are available from several online Jewish sites.In spite of the ridgid rules for transcribing Torah, there are 9 letter variations among the Ashkenazi, Shepardi, and Yemenite versions of Torah. That is pretty tight considering the variations of other holy scripture available in Greek, Latin, and English.Webster's dictionary defines "inerrant" as "free from error." Despite the very tight control exercised to avoid errancy (instance of erring), the three versions of Torah cited above still are at variance (not in total agreement) with one another.Versions of the Christian Bible are at variance to a much greater degree than the three versions of Torah cited above.My original intention was simply to point out that "inerrant" is absolute and that "infallible" might more appropriately describe the state of attainment sought for scriptural texts by believers; and that for non-believers to insist upon "inerrant" as a standard is excessive.Sorry for being a simpleton, C.A.Peace.

You know I have never encountered a clear cut and objective definition of "inerrant" when it is used as an adjective describing the Bible.This word (inerrant) has been hijacked by idiotic christian fundementalists to now have a reportive meaning tantamount to "hillbilly".I contend the true meaning of this word (whatever it is) to not be salvageable.

WILLOWTREEAllow me to rephrase that so we may have a clear definition."Concerning the words of God the Bible is without error."Now I have seen this posted many times verbatim and implied many more.The transcription of the letters that make up a language used in the bible may very well be copied exactly.However the sentence as I rephrased it to include the definition of inerrant clearly shows that the impression is that the words of God are without error as presented in the Bible.I would assume that this being the case we would be incapable of finding words of God ever contradicting themselves.
Yet we do find this to be the case.

Rubbish. These 'ridgid rules', the Masorah, were not developed until centuries after the authorship of the Torah. It may serve to maintain the consistency of some 'final recension', but it says absolutely nothing of the earlier textual transmission. Furthermore, analysys of the DSS has clearly demonstrated a plurality of text, including proto-Massoretic, Samaritan, and those approximating the Septuagint Vorlage. That is absolutely and demonstrably absurd. Many, many more than this are clearly documented and discussed in Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible alone. You simply don't know what you're talking about, and the ignorance is blatantly obvious.

Hi CA,Although I am an admirer of many of your posts do you think you could introduce a teensy weensy amount of civility into your posts?Things such as do not lend themselves well to constructive debate and is in breach of forum rule 3.I am sure you are intellignet enough to be a little more tactful with your choice of words.Cheers.AdminBrian.

Gladly. In return, a favor - what in the statement:

• You simply don't know what you're talking about, and the ignorance is blatantly obvious.

would you deem inaccurate or exaggerated, i.e., other than a statement of fact? Neither does unencumbered ignorance. Constructive debate seems more likely among those who, minimally, know what they don't know. You are, of course, correct. My apologies.

Thank you for defining the all important term here. Are you saying that for this debate that you are defining "inerrant" as the claim of scripture to be God's word AND it not to be inerrant IF a contradiction is contended/found ?Please expand a little further for me so we are on the same page.

WTThe phrase The bible is the innerant word of God is the way I have seen it appear in these forums. I then recieved a post from you which contained this item. I subsequently rephrased to substitute the definition of inerrant into the sentence and with the new phrase becoming I am assuming this to be the way the people who use the original phrase intended it. I am of the impression that the Bible is solely that.The words of God seems to be what the point of Bible study is all about correct?
Now if the word of God is inerrant as recorded by the bible it seems illogical that with the attributes ascribed to God that contradictions would be impossible{God is a flawless proofreader} and therefore if any contradictions occur the statement "Concerning the words of God the Bible is without error."
cannot be correct in any way.

---

...people today are so accustomed to pretentious nonsense that they see nothing amiss in reading without understanding, and many of them at length discover that they can without difficulty write in like manner themselves and win applause for it. And so it perpetuates itself.
G. A. Wells, 1991

If you are stipulating "inerrant" to mean (for purposes of this debate) contradictions then I accept this defintion.Then this also means that we/debaters are assuming the claim of the Bible to be the word of God, that this book contains/is His word.The next logical issue is which version of the Bible are we going to use. May I propose that any and all versions be the object of debate here, if not then pick one, either way it doesn't matter to me.I also want to state that I completely agree with your logical deduction that if the Bible is the word of God then there should be no contradictions, that this is His book and it reflects what He wants known even though He chose to communicate His word through error prone vessels of humanity.You ended your post by indicating that IF one solitary contradiction is identified then this becomes the basis to conclude that the entire book "cannot be correct in any way". This is classic "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" extremism. But I have agreed to abide by this stringent standard. Seems like the current standard in culture is the old three strikes and your out but I guess we are dealing with God and His claim of perfection.By the way, if God "lucks out" and what appears to be contradictions turn out to not be, then how many times until we conclude that the Book called the Bible is His inerrant Word ?In fairness to accepting your 1 strike rule (if true) then I think it is fair to set a number for God that when met we (persons arguing for Him) can declare victory.How about 10 times ?You as originator of this topic and your philosophical partners pick 10 contradictions. This will provide a boundary for the debate and a clear cut goal for both sides. If you like this proposal of mine then I would suggest that you as the creator of this topic post these agreed upon assumptions and goals so anyone entering the fray down the line cannot sidetrack the debate.I wouldn't mind if this post, in addition to yours, if you agree with everything I said to be officially cited by you as part of the "rules" of this debate.What do you say ?