Is the Bible Inerrant?-without error?
813879
Any who says "yes" to this supports:\n\nSelling own daughters into slavery\nkilling farmers who grown 2 crops in same field\nkilling women who wear material made of 2 different threads\nkilling children if they badmouth the parents\nNEVER borrowing boney unless free of interest\n\n\nAnd so it goes on, MOST of the above is from Leviticus by the way.\n\nSo ANYONE who has a credit card and fails to pay it off in full each month is going against the bible, ditto anyone with a mortgage.
181762
100? There's a LOT more than that- don't you use the Skeptic's Bible list?\n\nSo- of those listed, how many affect doctrine or the central lessons of the Bible? No denomination I know of bases any doctrine on the age of the varius kings, or the numbers of soldiers.\n\nYeah, you can make the arguement that it somehow destroys the integrity of the Bible... but it really doesn't when two different authors over a period of time disagree on relatively minor issues, especially when the oral history element is facotred in.\n\nThe only REAL issue is that it invalidates the idea of inerrancy of the Bible... but for that to be an issue, you have to believe in a pretty 'stiff' and formal definition of inerrancy- the idea that God's hand moved the pen and protected each translation... which is so obviously untrue that it amazes me anyone believes it.
988142
No. There has been too much lost in the numerous translations. And I would question your statement about the book being in existence for 'thousands' of years. The new testament and the gospels were not instantly assembled upon the death of Jesus of Nazareth. The old testament was passed on by word of mouth long before the books were written.  Compound these necessary flaws with the council of cardinals who decided which books were going to be part of the bible and which books were not, and the church's practice of censoring anything that did not agree with doctrine, and you have a less than perfect product.
941106
The bottom line of Poki's post is "because someone said so". But that isn't true. \n\nThe oldest book on earth, a copy of Isaiah found with the dead sea scrolls, is essentially identical to what we have today. Through the dead sea scrolls we have again proven that the Bible that we have is reliable and accurate and consistent in it's message. There is no scholarly authority or archaeological evidence that proves otherwise. Nada. \n\nSaying the Bible is corrupt is just the same old lie; "Yea, hath God said...?"
453816
Yes.  God is not a book, nor is He confined to a book.\n\nThink about this:\n\nIn the time of Isaiah the prophet, the "Bible" as we know it had not been written fully.  But the Torah did exist, that is, the Books of the Law of Moses.  God spoke to Isaiah things which were not contradictory to the Torah, but yet were not in there either exactly.  \n\nAlso, most of history, most people have actually been illiterate.  And yet, God communicates with all of us, if we listen.
497036
Your concept of the books of the bible are totally wrong.\nThe bible writers were chosen by God and their writings weren't just added together.\nThe library as we know it, now bound together was written over nearly 6 thousand years.\nYou cannot make a holy man of yourself. If not inspired of God, nothing will happen. You would be looked on today as a KOOK and ignored
565370
There is no question over the wording of 98.5 percent of the Bible. Despite the centuries of copying the OT/NT Biblical manuscripts, only 1.5% contain any questions on content/wording (BTW: the NT is 99.5% accurate to original wording). No ancient writings of the entire world approach the accuracy of the Biblical documents. \n\nThat 1.5 percent does not affect any doctrinal beliefs. The vast majority of those variants consist mainly in variations of wording and spelling. \n\nPeople can reject the Bible if they want, but they should at least have the intellectually honesty to admit that it is a very reliable document.
918941
In Protestant (liberal) theology there are several "middle grounds."  There is the notion that the Bible "contains God's word" and also that is can "become God's words."  These are of course nuanced meanings of how Scripture communicates God's message through a supposedly imperfect text.
462012
No the Bible does not contradict itself.  There are those who do not want to believe in what the Bible says, so they will take a verse and read it out of context and then interpret it to mean something it does not.  These people are foolish, and when you actually read and study the Bible you will truly see that God does and will not ever contradict Himself.
372674
Yes there are many mistakes. But also resources to check it out. In the original 1611 version the translators wrote a letter to the reader. Saying how carefully they did their work. But also they said there might be some imperfections. There are some words you can't translate. There are also figures of speach. Plus the translators did not have the benefit of the Masorrah. Deep subject and too complicated to go into here.\n\nThe KJV is the nearest to perfection. We have the benefit of resources, works of scholars, to check it out.
355290
OK,\n1. The Bible is unique in its continuity, circulation, translation, survival, teachings and influence on literature.\n\n2. The bible is trustworthy. The Bibliographical test, the internal evidence test, the external evidence test, and it confirmation by Archeology.\n\nI could go on and on. \nAnd as for the bad stuff that goes on in the world, it is man, not God who chose to do evil things. It is called feel will.
943850
a)\nFollowed closely by "ensuring that the bible is NOT followed"
134963
Personally neither.\n\nOh, for the literal folks it is worth noting that the 1631 version of the English bible said "Though shalt commit adultry." \n\nSo mistakes are made..
1049922
I agree that it is out of date, but I don't think that you can just go and arbitrarily change the content.  And by whose standards would it change?\n\nI think that there are many misinterpretations of the bible over the centuries.\n\nI am going to be ordering one that is supposed to be a direct translation from the orginal Aramaic New Testament to see what the difference is.  It is called The Modern New Testament : Translated from the Original Aramaic Sources by G. Lamsa.\n\nHaving said that, I also think that much of the bible directly speaks to that generation's society and political culture and therefore, not a lot of it has to do with how things are in this day and age, although I feel that Jesus taught us timeless lessons of love and acceptance and faith.  \n\nBut I don't believe that Jesus was the only master and that timeless lessons were taught by Mohammed and Buddha and many other masters as well.
620911
Being an historian I will reserve judgement until I see the evidence personally.  I've NEVER read from a credible source that scientists have stated that the Bible to be one of the most accurate books ever written.\n\n\nShow ME the source and I will decide for myself.
1148729
No. god decided to contradict himself by taking away free will for a bit, so he could get the humans to write his book for him.\nAnd of course, that's ignoring all the inconsistancies in the new testament, like made up prophesies and the evidence to support that the old testament was actually copied from ancient Sumerian stone tablets...\n\n:)\n\nTY, shawny  :D
803337
Probably! To the bible everything is wrong if your not a true believer and follow everyone of there stupid rules!\n\nP.S. don't care if ya'll hate the answer! Because that's what i've learned trying to be friends with christians! See how far it got me?