Is Bible inerrant

Quote from yip1997:

I am looking for whatever reasons you believe it it or you believe it isn't. Your reasons don't have to agree with mine.

I am trying to be "objective" to help myself facing the "belief" that I once "believed".

You place the words 'objective' and 'believed' in quotes. Why?
 
Quote from giles117:

According to his statement, I am completely irrationally content with my life. LOL.

Don't be offended, but even though I'll rush to the defense of Christianity when its logic is attacked by atheists, I'm just an agnostic who likes to argue. I especially like to argue with atheists because they believe they have sole proprietorship over reason - which they don't.
 
Quote from Hansel H:

Don't be offended, but even though I'll rush to the defense of Christianity when its logic is attacked by atheists, I'm just an agnostic who likes to argue. I especially like to argue with atheists because they believe they have sole proprietorship over reason - which they don't.

How can I get offended?? The very book we debate teaches me to not be offended. Fighting for what I believe is right is a far cry form wearing thin skin and becoming easily offended by what people say, think or do.
 
The definition of inerrant is....

1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.

Definition 1 doesn't fit because the bible is not a living book. It does not grow and change. It is what it is....

Does it contain errors???

I am sure there may be some misquotes. After all, prior to it becoming a written collection of documents, It was handed down verbally. So as a previous respondent said, there may be some interpretational errors based on who told the story, their opinions. personal status, etc...

Does that mean the stories in it are MISREPRESENTED?? No.

If 50 people see the same event and each gave their own account, you could easily extrapolate from those 50 viewpoints what really occurred.

This is the Bible as we know it. A multiplicity of accounts extrapolated.

Luke (The Author of Acts and Luke) for one went about gathering information of events from various persons. He was able, with a high degree of accuracy, to recreate the original events quite well.

Without flaw?? Doubt it. Perfect, Nope. But a very honest and useful resource, Yes.
 
Quote from Hansel H:

You place the words 'objective' and 'believed' in quotes. Why?

Quoted because I don't believe that i can be completely objective for this type of questions even though I try.

I quoted "believed" because I am not sure what I believed or if I indeed believed.
 
Quote from yip1997:

I didn't say "No". It can also be inspired by Nature. I just want a confirmation, not a fight.

Not trying to pick a fight with you, Yip. My question isn't confrontational. I just wonder why you might change your mind given that the Biblical explanation is as good as anything else around.
 
Quote from giles117:

How can I get offended?? The very book we debate teaches me to not be offended. Fighting for what I believe is right is a far cry form wearing thin skin and becoming easily offended by what people say, think or do.

I was responding to Giles, but I hope you also won't be offended by anything I post since it's not my intention to offend. You seem sincere and at times I may seem flippant but be assured that even though I'm not what you could call a believer I too am very concerned about the issues you raise.
 
Quote from giles117:

The definition of inerrant is....

1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors.
...............................

Without flaw?? Doubt it. Perfect, Nope. But a very honest and useful resource, Yes.

Well said.
 
Quote from Hansel H:

Not trying to pick a fight with you, Yip. My question isn't confrontational. I just wonder why you might change your mind given that the Biblical explanation is as good as anything else around.

Biblical explanation for what? My mind keeps changing as I am alive. Did you ever change your mind?
 
Back
Top