Which is more rational, to believe the bible is the inerrant word of god?

Question

or to pick and choose what you agree with?

I think there is only two possibilities: either the bible is the inspired word of god, or it isn't.

As an atheist, of course I don't believe the bible is the word of god, but It seems to me that the inerrantists are at least consistent. Isn't it a slippery slope to try to determine which parts are god's word and which parts aren't?

Answer 1

It's a tie.  Both are irrational.  Like you, I think it's either inspired by god or it isn't.  But I guess selective interpretation is more self-serving.

Answer 2

Most religious people read and study the Bible to justify what they already believe.  If everyone began a study of the Bible with an open mind they might learn many truths.  

The Bible is not one book, it is a collection of sixty-six books written by many men over many centuries.  These books have been translated by different cultures at different times throughout history.  There is no doubt that changes have been made from time to time.  Word meanings change and become obsolete.  The meaning of a line can be slanted toward one belief or another by choosing an alternate

defination in translating a document.

To simply write off the truths of the Bible because one cannot accept the creation story is to miss the point completely.  People who reject the Bible based on a one-time casual reading do themselves a great injustice.   The Bible does contain the word of God.  

Answer 3

Even the literalists dismiss certain parts as relevant only to the specific situation written about (e.g., the rich man who was told to give away all he had to follow Jesus).   Sometimes they make up stories by which they can claim that it means something different than what it appears to mean (e.g., the unsupported claim that there was a gate in Jerusalem called the "eye of the needle").  

It's really not hard to believe in Biblical inerrancy yet believe only the parts you want to.

Answer 4

See I have something on all of you, as an LDS we have another source, the Book of Mormon that tells us Jesus Christ was who he say he was and did what he said, as a companion to the Bible but on a separate Continent.  That is a second witness.  Nobody wants to heare this.

Answer 5

Agreed.  It is or it isn't.

And I would definitely say it isn't because I believe that, if it is the word of god(tm), none of it can be false.  All of it must be true.  And since there are discrepancies in the bible, they falsify the whole thing. It cannot be partly the word of god(tm).  It must all be.  

Answer 6

I think that the only consistent position is that it is either God's word, or it isn't.  

If you start into the idea that parts are real and parts aren't it would be basically like having a history book.  You know that parts are total fiction, but not which parts.  It would make the entire thing worthless.

Answer 7

In the movie "Rudy", there was a line from the elderly priest who said that after all his years, this is all he knew:  "There is a God, and I am not Him."

If that is all we got from the Bible, it would be sufficient. Without that, we never start the race and so nothing else really matters.  It is the initial stumbling block that most people cannot cross.

Answer 8

Yes, there is a consistency in inerrancy.  The stress and strain lies elsewhere in that theological position.

There are a range of intermediate positions for believers who do not believe in total literal inerrancy, well away from the simple "pick and choose" caricature you describe, a little unfairly.  Although I have met some individuals guilty of that.  

None of the options are without difficulties.

One, for example, takes the line that the bible records the genuine experiences, encounters, humans have had with the divine, and their attempt to express that.  Which leaves it as a revealing and important human document which must be understood as such, and especially with the help of the spirit of the same God that the writers also met.

Yes, that leaves personal and subjective elements.  But has it been established beyond doubt that they are illegitimate?

Some Churches in some places have so ruled, but perhaps the error could have been theirs?

I am an atheist, but I won't push false dichotomies on Christians.

Answer 9

When you are reading the sports page and you read that one team devoured another  do you believe that one team left with fat bellies and the other team did not leave at all? No you don't but you don't believe that the sports writer is lying either. Some kind of truth is being communicated and you figure out by looking at the score that what the author meant to say was that one team beat the other with a large point spread.

Yes I believe the Bible, but just as you read the sports page differently then you would read a text book, Informed Christians read the genealogies differently then we read passages that are clearly symbolic.

Answer 10

As a Christian, I believe every word. That includes stories like the story of Jephthah, to when Jesus said that the greatest commandment is to love God and your neighbors. I have noticed that many Christians only believe what sounds appealing in the Bible. You are very right when you imply that many people pick and choose what they agree with. I think that every believer should take this question as constructive criticism, because it is true. You can't have it both ways.

Answer 11

God was under the influence of vasts amounts of alcohol when he sat down in haven on a sunny afternoon and set out to the godly task of writing the Buybull

Answer 12

We have the God given right to reject the Lord if we choose!  

As for me and my house - we will serve the Lord!