Record few Americans believe in Biblical inerrancy.

[Drich]

YAAAAAAAAAY! Biblical inerrancy is the bottom of the barrel as far as anti-intellectual religiosity goes. I'm so glad it's on the decline!

I was an inerrantist... until I decided to read the Bible for myself at age 18.  And then I became an atheist.

---

Here's the thing my "good people" The bible never claims to be inerrant.. that is a doctrine that was created several hundred years ago to superceed the power of the pope.

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

OK, I'm ready for your gymnastics.  Let's see what you got.

Indeed... Where does it say the breath of God is also inerrant? I can point to passages to where God is with out error, but I have never seen anything that says The bible is with out error. Look at your passage. Does it say that all scripture is with out error? No it says all scripture is directed by God and is good for teaching rebuking and correct training.. meaning it is by the bible we are judge whether it is without error or not...

That is what the message in 2 Timmy says. Not that the bible is God or like God in that it is with out error.

If Paul wanted to say the bible is without error as God is without error he would have said so. Rather he just puts the authority of God behind the words of all scripture to tell us it is by these words we are judged...

No dancing just rehashing what is actually on page rather than what religion implicates.

Riddle me this sport.. what do we gain by repersenting the bible in a way the bible does not repersent itself? When in truth what God said in 2 tim was stronger than a message of infaliblity. In that Paul is saying I Don't care what you think the bible says it is all valid inorder to become a christian, and it is by this book that you will be judged.

The way Paul states it it does not matter if all the i s are dotted and ts crossed, this book is the holy standard.

---

I was an inerrantist... until I decided to read the Bible for myself at age 18.  And then I became an atheist.

---

2 Timothy 3:16

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

OK, I'm ready for your gymnastics.  Let's see what you got.

It seems that a self-professed believer just called the Bible a bunch of lies.

2 Timothy 3:16 (CEV) =  "Everything in the Scriptures is God’s Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people and for correcting them and showing them how to live."

see my last post

[Whateverist]

What difference would it make if the bible actually contained the claim that it or God is inerrant? The claim itself could be in error.

[Drich]

What difference would it make if the bible actually contained the claim that it or God is inerrant?  The claim itself could be in error.

because of the preceive errors in it. again I have studied for 25 + years and never found a real error.

If a weak minded or weak willed person thinks the bible is supposed to be without error the first time the see the skeptic annodaed bible they will loose all hope.

[Nihilist Virus]

25+ years and never found a real error. It's confirmed guys, he's retarded.

[Jehanne]

Scholars have, to a reasonable degree, reconstructed the original words of the New Testament. Interpolations happened, some known, others unknown. The consensus view is that around 20% of the Gospels contain authentic sayings of the historical Jesus, but his exact words and teachings were not preserved.

[Whateverist]

What difference would it make if the bible actually contained the claim that it or God is inerrant?  The claim itself could be in error.

because of the preceive errors in it. again I have studied for 25 + years and never found a real error.

If a weak minded or weak willed person thinks the bible is supposed to be without error the first time the see the skeptic annodaed bible they will loose all hope.

That sounds hopeful.  If we can help even a few poor lost lambs find their way back to the natural world it will be a blessing.

[vulcanlogician]

Logic and reason can lead you to conclude otherwise as well.

Since logic can lead to opposite conclusions, why do you value it so highly?

I want to just clear some things up about logic here. It's not magical. It doesn't fix everything. It doesn't solve all the mysteries of the universe. But it is a useful tool. It has two things going for it: it's reliable and it's consistent. To try to paint it as something one can bend to one's will to make it say anything is incorrect. You're thinking of scripture. Here's a good example of how useful logic can be (borrowed from my Introduction to Logic class).

Let's say you are a professor whose classroom is found in the center of a building and thus has no windows. If your students came in the room wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas that were dripping with water, it would be rather stupid to ask, "Why are you guys all wet?"

You can use logic to say, "It's probably raining outside. That's how they got wet." Even though you don't have windows in your room, you can figure this out. Now, you could be wrong. Maybe your students are playing a trick on you. Maybe they all got together and decided to wear raincoats to class, and one of them got a hose out and sprayed the students as they walked in the building. In this case, logic hasn't steered you wrong. You merely didn't have all the information. Had you somehow found out the students plans and had access to a weather report, you might deduce something different. Remember that even in the first case, you said "It's probably raining." Not  "I'm absolutely sure." A good logician takes into account that there is a chance his conclusion is wrong. A good logician knows the limitations of his tool. Given the evidence you had at your disposal, the best conclusion was that "it's raining."

As useful is logic is in making determinations, the person using it can end up employing it incorrectly (this is known as a fallacy--anyone who has read three threads in this forum ought to be familiar with the term). Through my own misunderstanding of logic, I accused another member of committing a fallacy yesterday. (So even someone like me, who highly values logic, can make mistakes from time to time.) The cool thing was, the member pointed out my mistake, and after some head-scratching followed by some reading, I was able to clearly see where I had gone wrong. 

I wrote all this so that you would see how realistically I view logic, and put to rest any notions that one can use it to say anything. Sorry if you feel like I wasted your time or told you things you already knew. Just saying, logic is a tool for me as it is for you. It's just that in the realm of drawing conclusions about the world, it is a better tool than faith.

[John V]

I want to just clear some things up about logic here. It's not magical. It doesn't fix everything. It doesn't solve all the mysteries of the universe. But it is a useful tool. It has two things going for it: it's reliable and it's consistent.

Philosophers disagree about all kinds of things. Go here and read:
https://plato.stanford.edu/

Logic doesn't lead all people to the same conclusions. So, how do you conclude that it's reliable and consistent?

It's just that in the realm of drawing conclusions about the world, it is a better tool than faith.

If the Bible is accurate, then no, logic isn't better than faith, at least not for the most important things.

Like many before you, you're trying to dress up a materialist philosophy as something more than it is.

[Jehanne]

If the Bible is accurate, then no, logic isn't better than faith, at least not for the most important things.

Like many before you, you're trying to dress up a materialist philosophy as something more than it is.

One could make such a claim about any religious text; of course, they contradict each other, as the Bible contradicts itself.

[vorlon13]

If the Bible is accurate, then no, logic isn't better than faith, at least not for the most important things.

Like many before you, you're trying to dress up a materialist philosophy as something more than it is.

One could make such a claim about any religious text; of course, they contradict each other, as the Bible contradicts itself.

But only to the extent of gestating 70,000 schisms.

It's not like it's open to a million different interpretations.