2xhelix

1.God cannot err.
2.The Bible is the Word of God.
3.Thus the Bible is inerrant


1. If a thiestic deity exists, then this statement by default is true.

2. From KJV

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16

also

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
1 Thessalonians 2:13

Also in many other passages, the Bible is shown to be the Word of God.

3. By combining 1 and 2, we can see that the Bible is inerrant as long as a deity does exist.

Dolphin

Hmmm, deities in other relgions have been reported to err, and this has not affected their God hood. No, you would have to show more in order to prove that if god exists then he is infaliable.

<strong> And we should accept this as correct because....?

<strong> NO, in many other passages the bible is claimed to be the word of God. Most other relgions make this claim too you know.


<strong> Of course assumeing you show 1 and 2, you havn't, you would then have to show that God exists.

CX

There is only one problem with this. At the time the words in the NT were written, the autographs existed and there was no need to translate them into another written language. At this point we do not have the autographs, we have copious late copies which contradict eachother and for most westerners to read the texts they have to be translated from Koine Greek (which is no longer extant) to English or some other romance language. Consequently, what is it that should be considered inerrant? Most of the Xians I know say "the original writings".

Furthermore there are implicit assumptions in your premises that are not stated nor corroborated. You assume that "inspired word" means dictated. I see no reason to conclude this. There is no passage in the NT, as far as I know, from which one could conclude that there are no scribal errors in the manuscripts (we know there are) nor any error or bias in translation.

Lastly "thiestic deity" [sic] is not just bad spelling it's also redundant. But there is another implicit assumption that is not supported namely that the Xian god is the only possible god what if the Brahman of Hindu religion is the real god? What if the god of gnostic theology is the real god and the Hebrew god is actually evil and bent on confusing mankind and keeping it from a relationship with the true god (this is what Marcion thought)?

It seems clear to me that, based on the critique above, this argument is fallacious or at the very least does not accomplish what it set out to do. In the end though I'm not sure why anyone would try to apply logical proof to any matter of faith. Neither god nor doctines regarding sacred texts are amenable to such proof. Of course this raises the issue of who do we support a belief in either. I submit that we cannot and so faith is a matter of personal choice not based on reason. Which is, no doubt, why I am an unbeliever.

2xhelix

Dolphin

From Dictionary.com

de·i·ty (d-t, d-)
n. pl. de·i·ties
A god or goddess.
The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.

and

god (gd)
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.

By definition alone, if god exsists, he is infaliable.


The difference between other religions and Christianity, is that in Christianity, God speaks to the people. In contrast to the Qu'ran, Allah speaks only to Muhammad.

So if it were revealed to you that a god does exist, would you accept it to be the Christian God?

Jack the Bodiless

1. God cannot err.
2. I, Jack the Bodiless, am God's prophet.
3. Thus, I am inerrant.

Supporting evidence:
Shall I continue? Or is the utter futility of this argument now obvious?

2xhelix

CowboyX

You are correct in saying that only the original manual scripts are inerrant. Scrible errors are present, but compared to Dead Sea scrolls, they are still 99.5% accurate.

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth…
1 Corinthians 2:13

And Moses wrote all the words of the LORD...
Exodus 24:4

Thus speaketh the LORD God of Israel, saying, Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book.
Jeremiah 30:2


You must present your position more clearly. If you claim that there is a god, but you do not know to which religion that god is, then I would provide you with examples of why Christianity is the one true religion.

2xhelix

Jack the Bodiless
LOL, that's pretty funny

However, that does not show anything.
First, you have to show you are indeed a prophet of God.
Next, you do not show that you are inerrant, but rather your book "The Revelations of the Disembodied One".

Jack the Bodiless

My claim to be a "prophet of God" is just as valid as the Bible's claim to be the "word of God": it's true because I say so.

Evidences:

1. I hereby claim that I prophesied that the World Trade Center would be destroyed on September 11th 2001.

2. I hereby prophesy that on a vague, unspecified day in the indeterminate future, God will manifest to all the peoples of Earth and declare "Yep, Jack was my prophet, those who didn't listen to him are now in Big Trouble".

CX

Hmmm...let's go at this point by point. Let me preface though by saying that a)I am an atheist (in the sense of having no particular belief in any god, not in having the active belief that there is no god) and b)My study has been limited to the New Testament, both in translation and the original Greek.

&gt;&gt;You are correct in saying that
&gt;&gt;only the original manual scripts
&gt;&gt;are inerrant. Scrible errors are
&gt;&gt;present, but compared to Dead Sea
&gt;&gt;scrolls, they are still 99.5% accurate.

Its manuscripts not "manual scripts" and the originals are called autographs. Scribal errors are not the only issue in the manuscript evidence. There are scribal omissions, redaction and glosses evident in the manuscript evidence as well. As to this claim of 99.5% accuracy, it is one thrown around by inerrantists, but is not supported. There are some major differences between the Byzantine family of Manuscripts and the Alexandrian. A careful study of the manuscript evidence is probably in order if you want to use manuscript evidence in arguments. Not only that there are other issues with what you are saying here. The scrolls found at Qumran are a landmark find for archaeologists, the study of comparative religion and the study of the Xian text legacy. The essenes managed to save a lot of stuff from various and sundry conquerors who wanted to eradicate heretical documents. Practically everything we know about the gnostics comes from the scrolls at Qumran. The early Xian church did an exceptional job of erasing all traces of what it considered heresy, especially once Contantine converted in the 4th century and Xianity was adopted as the religion of the empire. That being said, most of the Qumran manuscript evidence is still quite late; late 2nd/early 3rd century and beyond. The earliest manuscript found to date is P52 which contains a tiny fragment of the gospel of John. So the closest we can get to the autographs is roughly 125 C.E. for one tiny piece and much later for everything else. Some of our earliest attestation to NT texts actually comes from quotations by Church Fathers in the late 2nd century and beyond. The earliest complete manuscript, B/03 or Codex Vaticanus, comes from well after the Council of Nicaea in 325 (around 350 C.E.) some 300 years plus after Paul's first letter was written. It is inevitable that both theological development would have occurred as well as transmission error, redaction, glosses and so forth unless we suppose that everyone who ever worked on copying the NT was also inspired which is clearly not the case given the disparity between manuscripts. The point is even the greek texts in use today, (such as the Westcott-Hort) are someone's best guess of what the original autographs said.


&gt;&gt;Which things also we speak,
&gt;&gt;not in the words which man's
&gt;&gt;wisdom teacheth, but which
&gt;&gt;the Holy Ghost teacheth…
&gt;&gt;1 Corinthians 2:13

Do you understand what Paul is saying here and what motivated him? At the congregation at Corinth he is faced, evidently, with a dramatic challenge to his authority. Individuals, probably from the Jerusalem group, are questioning Paul's authority by claiming that he is not an apostle because he was not a part of Jesus' original ministry. Paul faces this several times in the NT and gets quite agitated about it. His point here is not about inerrancy, but rather that his authority and knowledge comes directly from god. He is making the case that Jesus appeared directly to him and made him an apostle in order to stand up to the claim that only Peter and the Jerusalem Xians are truly Jesus' disciples. He is trying to show that his authority is no different than Peter's or John's or James'.

&gt;&gt;And Moses wrote all the words
&gt;&gt;of the LORD...
&gt;&gt;Exodus 24:4

I'm not too familiar with the OT, but this says to me that YHVH told god what to write and he did it. This does not say that Moses was infallible and that he faithfully recorded every word with perfect accuracy. Furthermore it makes no claims about future scribes not screwing anything up or adding their own ideas. Not only that, but in this whole thread you are using the bible to prove that the bible is inerrant which is tautological.

&gt;&gt;Thus speaketh the LORD God of
&gt;&gt;Israel, saying, Write thee all
&gt;&gt;the words that I have spoken
&gt;&gt;unto thee in a book.
&gt;&gt;Jeremiah 30:2

Okay, it's established that the Hebrew god talked to his people and told them to write it all down. It still does not provide support for the notion that they did so infallibly.

&gt;&gt;You must present your position
&gt;&gt;more clearly. If you claim
&gt;&gt;that there is a god, but you do
&gt;&gt;not know to which religion that
&gt;&gt;god is, then I would provide you
&gt;&gt;with examples of why Christianity
&gt;&gt;is the one true religion.

I think I presented myself pretty clearly above, sorry if I have been unclear up to now. So we are back where we started which is first to establish god's existence and then to show that Xianity is the only true religion. I am of the opinion that the former part of that is unproveable in principle. Furthermore most of the world's religions over the past 6,000 years or so have claimed exclusivity. Anyone can try to show that his particular flavor of theism is true and the on true one. But the problem arises that such proofs must of necessity be based on assumptions which are only true if you already believe.

Believe me. I am an honest seeker. I would love to believe in a benevolent Xian god calling the shots. Furthermore I would love to be able to guarantee myself an eternal life of utopian bliss simply by professing that I believed a 1st century Jewish peasant was god incarnate and that he died for my sins. Problem is, the more I have studied religion, theology, science, philosophy and mathematics, the firmer my belief that it simply isn't true. I'm willing to be proved wrong. I just strongly doubt I will.

CX

Errata:
Oops. Should be YHVH told MOSES what write. I didn't mean to say that god was talking to himself.