Biblical inerrancy? or biblical error see?

[eggnogstick]

Many people argue that the bible is copied 100% accurately from the original texts that no longer exist. Some people go even further and say the bible is infallible. Some people take it to the extreme and say the bible is inerrant. But then again, some people say that none of these things are so, i am one of those people.
I will begin saying why i don't believe any of these things are so, in order that i wrote the beliefs are held in (100% accurate, infallible, inerrant).

1: To believe that the bible is copied 100% accuratly from the original texts, which no longer exist, is placing alot of faith in man, which is going against what the bible teachs, because man is fallen and corrupt! But instead, let us place our faith in them, the early christians, who are the mark of corruption and hypocrisy. The modern bibles out, NIV, NAS, NKJ, KJ, and so on have written at the bottom of almost every page, some scholars believe this about the texts, some believe this. Not only is there dispute between scholars, but also there is a wide variety of meaning that can be drived from the hebrew and the greek , and yes, of course the aramaic.

2: To believe that the bible is infallible, is an extrordinary claim, which in turn logically should be supported by extrordinary evidence, which there seems to be a lack of in the archeaology department these days. To claim the bible is infallible would also mean that there are NO CONTRADICTIONS in any of the bible at all either! All though alot of contradictions can be explained away by certain interpretations, as could any problem, there still seems to be a problem in there meaning and logical conclusion in relation to one another, for a short introduction to some of the problems in the bible, click the following link ttp://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/2002/3/023basic.htm

3: As for the extreme claim, that the bible is inerrant, this would not only mean that there are no mistakes in the bible, but also that everything written in it is true, meaning it is god inspirred! There seems to be a problem with this claim, given the prior claims being the foundation to this one; which both have flaws, but how can one tell which words is god inspirred and which arn't? If one says: 'If they don't contradict one another, then they are god inspired', then i ask, could i add my own words to the bible, if they don't contradict anything that the bible had already said? Would my words be god inspirred? What if the inerrantist says: 'God reveals himself through scripture', then what about all the dispute among christians? Who is to say who is right and who is wrong? Is it subjective? There seems to be no objective methodology for saying what in the bible is inerrant and what isn't.

If you are interested in talking with me then my sn on aim is fishing4stones and my email is runnerup04@yahoo.com

[Julian]

1: To believe that the bible is copied 100% accuratly from the original texts, which no longer exist, is placing alot of faith in man, which is going against what the bible teachs, because man is fallen and corrupt! But instead, let us place our faith in them, the early christians, who are the mark of corruption and hypocrisy. The modern bibles out, NIV, NAS, NKJ, KJ, and so on have written at the bottom of almost every page, some scholars believe this about the texts, some believe this. Not only is there dispute between scholars, but also there is a wide variety of meaning that can be drived from the hebrew and the greek , and yes, of course the aramaic.

I have never heard this claimed before. It is a downright silly idea. We have thousands of handwritten bibles from before the printing press, I can't think of any two that are identical. This claim can be dismissed by simple physical, generally available evidence.

Julian

[Vinnie]

1) inerrancy of the autographs, not copies. Of course some texts evolved over time so there were no "autographs" for some books...

2) infallible text--even if granted is useless since fallible man will translate it, fallible man will read it, fallible man will interpret it and fallible man will decide how to apply it to his fallen situation. The doctrine of infallibility is also rather pointless and silly in light of the large numbers of denominations and mutually exclusive interpretations of countless passages. Further, the doctrine of a single holy spirit guiding the church only INTENSIFIES this problem.

3) there is nothing special about the Christian canon. best way at determining truth from falsehood is common sense.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Biblical inerrancy is an absurd notion. Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Tampering is in fact quite easy. It could easily be accomplished today, and it could easily have been accomplished anytime in the past. Even today, natives living in remote jungle regions could easily be tricked by skeptics. All that skeptics would need to do is make a lot of alterations in the texts and pass them off as being authentic.