Do you believe the Bible is inerrant and if so what is your definition of inerrant?

[Logostician]

Yes, the Bible is inerrant according to the simple definition of containing no errors.  Unfortunately, men are very much error prone.  Their interpretations of Bible writings will vary.  You can call this error, or simply ignorance of all of the ways of God.  Nobody knows all of the ways of God.

Jno 1:18

No man hath seen God at any time.  The only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 Cor 13:12

For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face.  Now I know in part, but then I will know even as also I am known.

While interpreters of the Bible may err,  myself included, the original writers of the books did not err.  They were inspired by the Spirit of God which is true and faithful.  Sometimes they fully understood what God revealed to then, sometimes they didn't.  But they delivered God's words faithfully.

Moses wrote about creation in the first chapter of the Bible.  I don't think he understood every detail of what God gave him to reveal to us.  Obviously there are various interpretations of exactly how and when God created the universe.  They can't all be right.  Nobody has the capacity to fully understand creation.  The issue here isn't one of of error though.  We just don't have the capacity to fully understand the ways of God.  So God gave us one small chapter instead of millions of books on creation that even Einstein wouldn't understand.

The Bible contains hundreds of prophesies that have been fulfilled.  The remaining latter day prophesies will be fulfilled in their time.  Notice how the Koran contains no prophesies prior to latter days.  This is because untruthful prophesies fail, and condemn the false prophet.  The Koran makes no prophesies because the power of God to make and fulfill prophesies is not in it.  The truth of the Koran does not stand the test.  The Bible does.

It's interesting that you mention steps taken by Jesus, but don't cite any verses.  I will give some verses here.

Mrk 14:50-52

And they all forsook him and fled.  And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about his naked body, and the young men laid hold on him.  And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

This is Mark's account of the arrest of Jesus, and how the apostles abandoned him.  The young man who loses his clothes while running away is probably Mark himself.  It is a humble account of failing to stand with Jesus.  Did we really need to know that he lost his clothes?  Was it fundamental teaching of Jesus?  No.  Mark tells us this, even though it's embarrassing, because it is true.  This is what really happened.  He is simply revealing the truth (and whole lot more when he lost his clothes!).

Jno 8:5-7

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?  This they said tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.  But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.  So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself, and said unto them, he that is without sin among you, let him cast a stone at her.

Why did Jesus write in the dirt?  Some, including me, would believe he was writing the names and the sins of the accusers of the adulterous woman, for them to read, and be convicted in their own sins.  But it doesn't specifically say that.  So why would John tell us that Jesus wrote in the dirt?  And that he used his finger instead of a stick?  I think it's because that's what John saw with his own eyes.  That's what Jesus really did.  How many steps did Jesus take before writing in the dirt?  I don't know.  I just know he wrote in the dirt.  More importantly, I know the message, judge not lest ye be judged.

Jno 21:25

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.  Amen.

John could have truthfully written about every step that Jesus took, every meal that he ate in total truth.  But he wrote of the most important truths that show the power of God through Jesus Christ to save us from ourselves.  And I beleive every word of it.

Amen.

 

 

 

 

 

[Sower]

3 hours ago, Regenerated-Adult said:

3 hours ago, Alive said:

Yes, yup, you bet and Amen. Accent on an actual and very real relationship--this is what God wants. No Father sets a child adrift and unconnected. It makes me profoundly sad when folks make the Bible their God.

What do you mean?  The Bible is the word of God isn't it?  It's not just an ordinary book.

For sure it's not an ordinary book.
It's the book of life.
But I don't worship the book.
I worship the giver of the book, God.
My first bible given me is old, rebound three times.
It has sweat stains, beer stains, coffee stains, and cigarette burns.
I use it to learn about my creator. It talks to me. I don't reverence it.
I use it. It contains the word, that I hide in my heart.
I have several dozens small cheap bibles in my shop, new testament bibles,
bible promise books for men and women, expanded and living bibles, etc.
To give to our delivery drivers and stranger we meet.
They're books with the words of life in them. We share them.
I use my bible, and when it wears out I'll get another one. It's a book.
A very special book though, for sure.

PS
I also have the (digital) bible on my cell.
I guess it's not a book?       
But the app is special......
 

[Regenerated-Adult]

52 minutes ago, Riverwalker said:

It means the bible is without error on contradiction, and everywhere a scoffer sees "a contradiction" they are only pointing out the failure of their understanding

I find little value in joining a fool in his folly. If someone really wants to know, they will the truth.. If not, they never will.

It doesn't mean that the Bible contains contradictions.  That is what atheists want people to believe.  Rather, it means is the Bible free from error.  Firstly, this cannot be the case due to the fact we don't have the original autographs, that is, the original writings without adulteration.  And secondly, as I pointed out, we know that men wrote the Bible and their writings contain such things as greetings and other superfluous information that cannot be said to come from God directly.  Greetings to people in churches have no direct application to every human being.

[johnthebaptist]

8 hours ago, Amigo42 said:

I ask this question because I believe that a lot of Christians are not prepared to respond to skeptics or people like Bart Ehrman who are scholars of the New Testament.  I think that some Christians are too fundamentalist or narrow in a strict definition of inerrant.  Is every single word in the Gospels exactly accurate and specific to exactly what occurred in history?  Maybe not exactly, but that's not important.  The point is that the Gospels give us a general and sometimes specific Outline of the ministry and purpose of the Lord Jesus Christ.  All of the details in the between are not as important for Christians to twist themselves into psychological or spiritual knots.  Did Jesus walk 20 paces and preach or did he walk 40 paces?  How many paces he walked is not important.  In reality maybe he only walked 25 paces and neither account of the 20 or the 40 is correct.  This is not important or relevant to the Gospel message.  

 

I believe the Bible is what it says it is. For example, the letters attributed to Paul are letters written by Paul. Was Paul always right? Well, Paul says women shouldn't speak when they are in a church building (1 Corinthians 14:33-36). How many abide by that?

[hdtwice]

18 hours ago, Regenerated-Adult said:

Firstly, this cannot be the case due to the fact we don't have the original autographs, that is, the original writings without adulteration

You have stated an absolute... When actually it is your assumption. 

Actually it.. Can.. Be the case, but you think not probable which I understand. 

Be cautious in making definitive statements based on assumptions  because it can shut out avenues in the thought process when trying to think through a subject. 

[Regenerated-Adult]

1 minute ago, hdtwice said:

You have stated an absolute... When actually it is your assumption. 

Actually it.. Can.. Be the case, but you think not probable which I understand. 

Be cautious in making definitive statements based on assumptions  because it can shut out avenues in the thought process when trying to think through a subject. 

Fortunately, this is not my assumption but belongs to most scholars.

[Peterlag]

I believe the Bible can be trusted if we know how to read it. Just a few hours ago a guy posted on this website about being "in" Christ. He believes the word "in" refers to believing in Christ. Like in believing in his house. I believe the verse that he quoted referring to the word "in" means to be within like in his house. So the huge problem with most Bible students is they do not understand the Bible when they read it.