The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

Hopefully it is interesting and enjoyable for both of us. I agree that references to Hebrew, Greek and NIV, are acceptable. I don’t read Hebrew or Greek, but am familiar with (and have access to) concordances. Since I am the instigator, you are welcome to start your rebuttals in the second round. I acknowledge that the burden is on me to show at least one instance where the Bible is inaccurate, inconsistent, or altered in such a way that it cannot be considered “inerrant. ” I think there are three fronts where the inerrancy of the Bible is most questionable: 1) Origination: Original authorship of many canonical books is highly disputed among scholars, and a variety of books were considered canonical before landing on the final 27 New Testament books [17] in the 4th century CE. I think that issue is a compelling argument against inerrancy, but the research is subject to interpretation. However, there is little dispute that as oral traditions were written down and as written traditions were manually transcribed into fresh versions or different languages, some alterations occurred [1]. An optimistic assessment would be that New Testament transcriptions were about 95% accurate. I would assert that this in itself is evidence enough that the Bible is not inerrant, after all, inerrant does not mean “very minor errors” or “very few errors”, it means “error free”. Completely. Even the most conservative scholars acknowledge that there have been alterations over time. To rebut this, I believe you need to show scholarship that asserts that there has never been an error in transcription, or else show that “very minor errors” / “few errors” is somehow equal to “error free. ” 2) Dubious science: This is an area that draws much attention, and rightfully so. There is no shortage of highly implausible scenarios in the Bible. The sun and moon “standing still” for a day in Joshua 10 [2]. The flood of Noah in Genesis 7-8 [3], and all of the many practical problems with that scenario [4]. So forth. These complaints are oft-recited, and this section could get quite long, but this isn’t where I want to put my stake in the ground. Don’t bother rebutting the Joshua or Noah stories for now. But I would be interested in seeing your rebuttal to Genesis 1:3-5 and 14-19 [5]. In 1:3-5, it states that God created light, separated it from darkness, and there was evening and morning the first day. In 1:14-19, God creates the sun, moon and stars on the 4th day. It begs three questions: a) It seems to me that implied in the Genesis story is the premise that the planet Earth preceded the creation of anything else. Is that your belief? If not, where in the Genesis account do you propose it relates the formation of planet Earth? b) What do you propose was meant by “light” and how would this relate to the creation of the universe? What was the source of light for the first three days. If earth pre-existed the account, it can’t be the "Big Bang". c) For argument’s sake, let’s say God did create light without a source (and separate it from darkness, no less). What does it mean for there to be “evening” and “morning” for the first three “days” if there are no light sources in the sky (remember the sun, moon and stars have not yet been created)? 3) Irreconcilable discrepancies: This area is often overlooked. Even Christians who know the Bible quite well often overlook these issues without noticing them. As with the two sections above, this could be quite long, but I’ll try to keep it to a few of the more obvious ones. I would, however, like each of the things I’m about the mention individually rebutted. a) What did God say when Jesus was baptized. According to Mark and Luke (most scholars think Mark was the primary source for Luke) [7], “You are my beloved son; with you I am well pleased. ” According to Matthew [8], “This is my beloved son, with whom I am well pleased. ” The book of John is more nebulous. John the Baptist “gives an account” where “he who sent me” said “He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit. ” No words are spoken from heaven after the baptism. These are each historical accounts, complete with quotations; yet three of the four are different. How can each be inerrant? b) Following the same story, Jesus goes into the wilderness according to Mark, “immediately” [9]. Both Luke [10] and Matthew’s [11] provide similar accounts. But not John. Jesus never goes into the wilderness according to John. One could say he simply skipped the story, except that he accounts for the time following the baptism with different stories in John 1:35-45 [12]. “The next day” (after his baptism), Jesus sees John again and picks up two of his disciples. Jesus talks to them, and then, “The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. ” The story is very much in a time and place. It doesn’t appear to leave room for the wilderness temptation to just be left out. How do you account for this discrepancy between John and the other three gospels? c) Moving to the big finale of Jesus’s ministry: which resurrection story is correct? In Matthew, there is an earthquake witnessed by the two Mary’s who watch one angel descend and roll the stone away with guards fainting [13] (oddly Jesus has already risen and is not in the tomb anymore). Jesus meets them as they are running away and tells them to tell the disciples to meet him in Galilee. In Mark, the two Mary’s find the tombstone already rolled aside and find a “young man” (angel? ) sitting there. The angel tells them that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee [14]. Not surprisingly, Luke is similar to Mark except that in Luke’s account there are “two men. ” Two? As in Mark, it is they who tell the women that Jesus will meet the disciples in Galilee. As is often the case, John’s account is quite different. The women find the tombstone rolled away and no one there. They say, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have laid him,” suggesting they believe the body was stolen, not resurrected. The women return to the tomb with Peter and “the other disciple”. They inspect the area (and believe he was risen), then the disciples “return to their homes. ” Mary stays behind and sees “two angels” in the tomb. In John’s account, there is no mention of Galilee and the story never leaves Jerusalem. There are a slew of dissimilarities to sort through in these accounts, but how would you account for them in a way that supports the inerrancy of each version? References: [1]: . http://www.godandscience.org... [2]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [3]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [4]: . http://biologos.org... [5]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [6]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [7]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [8]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [9]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [10]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [11]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [12]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [13]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [14]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [15]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [16]: . http://www.biblegateway.com... [17]: . https://en.wikipedia.org...