The Inerrancy of the Bible

[the_interactionist]

IA:

Would you say your particular brand of paganism is more like a form of self worship?

Why would you assume self-worship? Because I believe God lives within us and has created all mankind intentionally, for greater purposes than those touted by popular Christian dualistic ideology? I believe WE - all of humanity - contain a spark of the Divine within us. I don't believe that our righteousness is as of filthy rags - which is often translated by most preachers and ministers as meaning we're too low and undeserving of God's love, unless we accept the doctrine that He inspired man to write. I believe that self-righteouessnes, is more along the lines of what is filthy, spiritually and morally.

Tell me, what do YOU believe Paganism is?

Answer this without quoting scripture because if you use scripture, you're simply relying on yet another source that is unknowledgeable about the subject at hand.

What do YOU know about Paganism? Not based off of biased, stereotypical literature or research, either.

I know somebody watched to many episodes of Charmed if they are trying to push The Book of Shadows off on us.

Who ever said anything about pushing the book off onto anybody? I used as REFERENCE. Reread what I wrote and you'll see that I wasn't "pushing it off" on anyone, nor would I. Most Pagans don't believe in pushing our doctrine onto other people.

Besides, I've never even watched the show Charmed. Fairy tales don't appeal to me.

[the_interactionist]

Blessed Be

and now this one. . .

The Book of Shadows

I'm beginning to see a theme here. . . and it's disturbing.

Why is it disturbing? Because you don't understand it? For the record, I don't study the Book of Shadows. I simply used it as reference here. I'm not so narrow-minded that I find offense in the things you guys say, even though I could.

I'm sure you ignored it the first time I mentioned it on purpose, but how do you possibly believe you're going to save the "lost" if all you do is push them away with sarcasm? In your minds you're making fun of our beliefs. The way we percieve it is that you don't accept us, the individuals.

That's one reason I refuse to accept pop-Christian dogma - it's ineffective. Ultimately, it only benefits those who agree with you. Until you learn to see that unconditional love and acceptance are the only forces powerful enough to transform the world, you'll continue to go about your daily lives "saving" people according to your convenient formulas and memorizing scripture to use in "spiritual warfare" against "prinipalities and powers," all in vain.

If you'd step outside of the confines of your Biblical fundamentalism you'd find a whole new world. One that shouldn't scare any truly faithful believer, but all too often does. It's called reality. The reality is that dogma does not save the world.

I can't even put into words how many Christians ruin what chances they may have had to "win the lost" by ridiculing people and making them feel rejected. If secular beliefs are indeed wrong and erroneous, and the Bible is true, then their blood is on your hands just as well as the person's who you had the chance to minister to but didn't. If you have the opportunity to minister to someone and fail to commit to it, is it not your belief that their blood is on your hands? The whole purpose and mission behind taking on a Christian life is to not only redeem oneself, but to go out into the world and be a light. Isn't it?

So, under the same idea, if you ridicule Pagans - or atheists, or Hindus, or Muslims, or any other religious person - and they turn against God, certainly, in your eyes they've fallen from God's grace. But doesn't that put their blood on your hands? Technically, you didn't do everything you could to "save" them or minister to them. Instead of being forbearant, patient, persistent, and compassionate, you gave up on them and began to turn their religious beliefs into the object of sarcasm and demonization, ultimately attacking the delicate heart and mind of the individual.

Personally, i couldn't care less about what Christians believe of me, but coming from a Christian perspective, I know that I'd feel bad if I was before God on judgment day and someone's blood was on my hands for making fun of their beliefs instead of ministering to them as much as I could. Even, if I didn't make fun of them, I still didn't do ALL I could have to "save" them. Therefore, I'd be judged accordingly. Right?

It is disturbing because I do understand those terms and the circles they are used in. . . There is nothing sarcastic in my remark, only concern. Naturally you read sarcasim and ridicule into what I wrote because you expect it. People tend to expect attitudes from others that they themselves possess.

My concern is that you reject the basic truths of Christianity, and the basic truths about the Word of God. I don't worry so much about you feeling rejected, for that will not determine your eternal soul. Only your attitude toward God and His Word will.

You are very right, dogma does not save the world. God does. It is not by our will that someone accepts Christ or not. It is by God's will and nothing we do or say can help or hinder the work of Christ. It is our privilege to be a part of it and our blessing to obey his command to spread the Good News, but it is not necessary to further it.

No man's blood is on my hands, Christ's blood is on my hands. He died for me, and for you. I am responsible for His death. I am not responsible to open the eyes of an unbeliever. It is only my responsibility to tell them the Truth. The rest is up to God.

You are so afraid of geting sucked into some sort of suppositious dogmatic Christianity that you reject the total freedom that is found within the confines of serving Jesus.

I know the freedoms of serving Jesus. Your idea of serving Jesus and mine are quite different, I'm sure. I'm more than content and have total peace of mind about my beliefs of Christianity. I'm not afraid of Christian dogma, or any religion's dogma for that matter. I just have a different idea of what it means to serve Him. If I was afraid of dogma, I wouldn't have put myself in the position to get "sucked up" by it as a result of posting on this forum.

If no man's blood is on your hands after you've revealed the truth to him - and the rest is up to God - is it God that fails to save the man?

If God doesn't fail, that is, man chooses to reject God, did God not do all he could? Is he so powerless that he can't save man from man's own ignorance? Does he not love all of his creations equally and is it not true he's "not willing that any shall perish"?

What I am afraid of is a God that would create all of humanity, knowing that some would fall and some would rise above, and allow all this to happen. God created mankind, all of humanity, in order to fulfill what? Are we just entertainment for Him?

My questions are endless, so I'll stop there.

[Guest Biblicist]

I know the freedoms of serving Jesus. Your idea of serving Jesus and mine are quite different, I'm sure. I'm more than content and have total peace of mind about my beliefs of Christianity. I'm not afraid of Christian dogma, or any religion's dogma for that matter. I just have a different idea of what it means to serve Him. If I was afraid of dogma, I wouldn't have put myself in the position to get "sucked up" by it as a result of posting on this forum.

If no man's blood is on your hands after you've revealed the truth to him - and the rest is up to God - is it God that fails to save the man?

If God doesn't fail, that is, man chooses to reject God, did God not do all he could? Is he so powerless that he can't save man from man's own ignorance? Does he not love all of his creations equally and is it not true he's "not willing that any shall perish"?

What I am afraid of is a God that would create all of humanity, knowing that some would fall and some would rise above, and allow all this to happen. God created mankind, all of humanity, in order to fulfill what? Are we just entertainment for Him?

My questions are endless, so I'll stop there.

One can not understand the freedom that comes from knowing Christ as Saviour unless they do.

Indeed, your idea of Christianity, Salvation, the grace of God, and His mercy, and mine are quiet different. I base what I believe in the Truth contained in God's Word and you do not.

You ask so very many questions, which is a good thing, yet you are unwilling to accept that the only answers to those questions are contained in God's Holy Word.

Most Pagans don't believe in pushing our doctrine onto other people.

Then I must assume that you are here seeking The Truth, for what other reason would you come here?

[the_interactionist]

I know the freedoms of serving Jesus. Your idea of serving Jesus and mine are quite different, I'm sure. I'm more than content and have total peace of mind about my beliefs of Christianity. I'm not afraid of Christian dogma, or any religion's dogma for that matter. I just have a different idea of what it means to serve Him. If I was afraid of dogma, I wouldn't have put myself in the position to get "sucked up" by it as a result of posting on this forum.

If no man's blood is on your hands after you've revealed the truth to him - and the rest is up to God - is it God that fails to save the man?

If God doesn't fail, that is, man chooses to reject God, did God not do all he could? Is he so powerless that he can't save man from man's own ignorance? Does he not love all of his creations equally and is it not true he's "not willing that any shall perish"?

What I am afraid of is a God that would create all of humanity, knowing that some would fall and some would rise above, and allow all this to happen. God created mankind, all of humanity, in order to fulfill what? Are we just entertainment for Him?

My questions are endless, so I'll stop there.

One can not understand the freedom that comes from knowing Christ as Saviour unless they do.

Indeed, your idea of Christianity, Salvation, the grace of God, and His mercy, and mine are quiet different. I base what I believe in the Truth contained in God's Word and you do not.

You ask so very many questions, which is a good thing, yet you are unwilling to accept that the only answers to those questions are contained in God's Holy Word.

Most Pagans don't believe in pushing our doctrine onto other people.

Then I must assume that you are here seeking The Truth, for what other reason would you come here?

One can not understand the freedom that comes from knowing Christ as Savior unless they do.

Unless they do what? Know him as Savior? According to Scripture?

Then I must assume that you are here seeking The Truth, for what other reason would you come here?

Of course I'm seeking the truth. I'm just not confining it to any specific doctrine or dogma. I can't prove the Bible is flawed just the same as you can't prove it is inerrant. We can provide evidence which influences our minds to accept what we know as truth or reject it as discreditable. But, as Shiloh and myself have been saying, evidence is not proof. It's evidence.

None of us have proof of anything, only evidence, and based on that evidence we choose what we believe. Even if it ends up not being true, we still believe it now.

If any of you are willing, I would be more than happy to converse with you outside of these forums. It's only fair and respectful to you that we continue with Biblical and scriptural analysis offline, away from this forum. I don't want to be kicked off of here just because I continue to challenge your dogma and doctrine. I do wish to seek an honest evaluation of its meanings.

I have numerous questions (seemingly endless, to me) about every chapter of every book I've ever read in the Bible, especially its hisoricity and authorship. I want your opinions of what certain verses mean as well as answers to many questions I have concerning a wide variety of different subjects.

Please contact me however you see fit. My e-mail is available through my profile for anyone interested. I know that the moderators have direct access to all of my information, so please contact me as soon as you will.

Thanks for your patience. I know I've been testing you. You're good people. I think I might even love you guys

Blessed Be

[Guest shiloh357]

We're both parrots here. What we're repeating based off of what we've heard, know, or experience is what sets us apart. Likewise, you possess nothing a thinking person would request of you (evidence - NOT proof - of your position). You offer a position opposite of mine; however, like mine, you cannot provide the manuscript evidence required to support it either. Offering that the Bible is offensive to human intellect and pride is a matter of your personal opinion that the Divine had His hand in it. Evidence for such a personal, subjective idea isn't available, in manuscript or otherwise. Even if you're not offering that the Bible is inerrant, you are offering that its offensive nature to human egoism is enough evidence to support the idea that God inspired it.

Can you expand on this logic?

No, we are not both parrots. I have provided evidence in my last post. While I do not go off and make broad statements that I cannot support as you seem to do, I have already provided evidence. You don't want to look at it, you don't want to consider it, but my historical research is sound, and I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.

My position that the Bible is offensive to human intellect is not at all my opinion. And yes the evidence while not "manuscript" in nature, the evidence is self-evident in everyday life. Christianity is not the widest accepted religion it is much smaller than many other world religions. While it is the majority religion in the US, it is by far NOT the majority worldwide. One only needs to examine real life. There are far more shows on the history channel, A & E, PBS and other channels of similar ilk that consistently shed doubt on the biblical accounts. You won't find them running stories on why Buddha did not really exist, or challenging the philosophy of the Shintos or Hindus. More than any other religion, Christianity is mocked and made fun of in sitcoms and other shows on TV. Christians are regularly portrayed as weak minded imbeciles. Why? Because they are considered stupid for putting their faith in the Bible. Can you imagine the public outrage if Hinduism or Islam was portrayed in the same light? I also don't see anyone in the secular world spending a lot of time looking for "contradictions" in Buddhist writings, at least not with near the frenzy and energy that is put into trying to discredit the Bible. What I am saying is observable and there is a great deal of credibility whether you acknowledge it or not.

The majority of humanity rejects the claims of the Bible. The claims the Bible makes are unique to any other religious manuscript. They strike at human pride because the Bible says you are not basically good, you are sinner and without Christ you have no hope for eternal life. Man is hopeless and helpless with God. The Bible's message is very clear, and those reject Christ are sliding down a greased pole straight into hell. It doesn't matter if they believe or don't believe God exists. It doesn't matter if they believe hell exists. The Bible teaches hopeless and bankrupt condition of all mankind and offers the only remedy, Jesus. That message, when it is not watered down is rejected, by the majority of those who hear it, and they don't need to know about contradictions in the Bible or any other argument you think is a clever means of discrediting the Bible. Uniqueness of the Gospel makes it the object of scorn all on its own.

I am not offering the fact that man's offended ego is enough evidence to support God's hand in authoring the Bible, and have not made such a claim. I am saying that the fact that it is broadly offensive to human nature and contains a moral code that man generally speaking does not live up to simply argues for the Bible not having its origin in human nature. Most of us Christians were once those who were offended at the Bible, who once rejected its claims about Christ. Not every Christian on this board or in the real world was raised on this stuff from our mother's knee. Many of us have had to overcome some serious intellectual hurdles. If the Bible was friendly to man's sensibilities its message and assertions would not be so difficult for most people to accept.

So what is the evidence, according to your knowledge and experience, regarding its inerrancy?

For one thing, recorded history and archeological discoveries provide evidence. There is available scholarship and it is not hiding in obscure dark corners. I don't have time to itemize a list at this time, but recent archeological discoveries both in Israel and in surrounding areas testify to the Bible's accuracy. I think it is necessary at this point to clear up what is NOT required for a text to be "inerrant" in order to understand what the evidence is required to show.

1. Inerrancy does not require a strict adherence to all rules of grammar.

2. Inerrancy does not require strict historical and semantic precision.

3. Inerrancy does not exclude the use of figures of speech or any kind of literary genre.

4. Inerrancy does not require verbatim exactness when Old Testament passages are cited by the New Testament.

5. Inerrancy does not require that any literary sources used by the biblical writers also be inspired or inerrant.

6. In errancy provides no guarantee that any account given in Scripture is exhaustive.

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. The authors do not have to give every detail nor do they have to agree with one another verbatim. If you are genuinely interested, you can visit your local Christian bookstore, or even better, a Pastor in your area would be more than happy to point you toward evidence and scholarly works on the issue of inerrancy that you can study first hand.

Okay. So the issue at hand is not about proof of anything, but evidence. Specifically, evidence regarding its authorship. What evidence do you have that elicits substantial influence that the Bible - its books; all or any of its contents - would not have been created by the mind of men?

Aside from the evidence already provided, namely that human intellect and pride are offended at the morality of God, and the disparaging way the Bible pictures mankind, another point to look at is that the Bible unlike its contemporaries does not exalt its heroes to God like status.

Unlike the Pharoahs and Caesars, who were treated as "god on earth" by their subjects, the Bible does not exalt the kings of Israel to such status. In Egypt, the hieroglyphics (sp) only tell us about Egypt's victories, never their defeats. If we want to learn about the battles Egypt lost, we have to turn to Egypts enemies. The Pharoahs were considered gods in human form, and so their failures are simply omitted by Egyptian records.

In the Bible we get the good and the bad. The kings of Israel are seen for what they were. Some were great, and some not so great. Even Israel's greatest King, King David is exposed as a murderer and an adulterer. Unlike the the contemporary cultures around it, the Bible does not hide the flaws and moral failings, defeats in battle and so forth of the most revered biblical characters. Even with Moses, Abraham, Solomon, Elijah, Peter, Paul, etc. the Bible does not attempt to raise them two feet off the ground. It shows them as fully human with warts and all. Had the Bible simply been the product of Middleeastern mind set, it would more resemble its contemporaries.

Also, the way the Bible presents God is unique to time period(s) in which the Bible was written. Until the Korah came around in 7th century, the Bible was the only Monothestic religious manuscript in the Middleeast. The Bible was birthed in a culture surrounded by Pantheism. The Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Hittites, Phonecians, Philistines, Assyrians, et al., were believers in many Gods. The notion of ONE God was completely unique to that part of the world.

Furthermore, the gods of the other cultures like the Greeks and Romans for example, were fraught with limitations, character flaws, and in some cases need man's help when things got to difficult. Many of the gods possessed the same traits as human beings.

The God of the Bible revealed Himself as radically different, bearing no resemblance to the gods of the nations that surrounded Israel. For example.

• God of the Bible is omnipresent/gods of the pagans were limited to being in one place at a time.
  
• God of the Bible is noncorpreal/gods of the pagans had physical bodies.
  
• God of the Bible is not plagued with human character flaws/gods of the pagans are envious, petty, dishonest, sexually immoral,etc.
  
• God of the Bible is omniscient/gods of the pagans do not carry that capability.
  
• God of the Bible is omnipotent/gods of the pagans require at times, human assistance.
  
• God of the Bible offers forgiveness, redemption and expresses His everlasting love for mankind/gods of pagans do not love mankind, and in fact, tend to resent humans.
  

I could go on about the differences we see when we compare the ancient pagans and their gods against the radically different

God that is presented by the Hebrew prophets.

In the first case, how would one go about properly analyzing the Bible? Secondarily, your latter statement is true. Finding contradictions in Biblical scripture is a deliberate attempt to discredit the Bible.

1. Analyzing according the rules of literary analysis, what is known as hermeneutics. It treats the Bible as literature. The Bible contains several literary forms, it uses figures of speech and idioms common to the culture of the human writers. Proper literary analysis allows us to analyze the veracity of these silly, beggardly assertions about contradictions.

2. So you admit that it is skepticism attempting to find the contradictions. Funny, cause you previously said that it was the contradictions that prompted why the Bible is so offensive and why the skepticism exists. One the one hand you claim that these alleged contradictions are the source of offense and skepticism, now you are admitting that it skepticism and offense already in existence that prompted you to look for contradictions. Maybe you need to decide which came first: The contradictions or the skepticism.

They are obscure. Yet, there they are. What does it matter if they are searched out purposely or found mistakenly?

It matters only for the purpose of this discussion since it speaks to your inconsistent position which I have just noted above.

Absolutely relevant. You may, or may not, want this conversation to switch from one subject to another to avoid the issue of inerrancy and mistranslation; however, you cannot deny that in translation mistakes could have been made, resulting in an imperfect reproduction of the original texts. What evidence, besides personal ideology, is there to suggest mistakes were not made?

Could translation mistakes have been made? Absolutely possible. However the issue here, is not one of possibility since that is not in dispute. The issue here is probability. Again, using just the NT, 5,600 extant ancient Greek manuscripts which scholars have been able to compare one with another, along with tens of thousands of extrabiblical quotations of the New Testament Greek manuscripts and all within a 300 year time span help to dispell the canard about translation mistakes. Not one of the versions of the English Bible we have today are at variance with one another. They may not use the exact same wording, but they don't contradict or change any facts.

Even the dead sea scrolls provide us with evidence as to the accuracy of our modern manuscripts. There are enough manuscripts that real scholars have access to, to preclude any major genuine copyist errors.

I wouldn't discredit the news agencies for slight variations, especially not if they didn't quote one another verbatim. The fact that everyone has his or her own way of expressing their own accounts of the same story is obvious and inevitable. But if they're getting numbers wrong in such large amounts? That's discreditable.

Consider 9/ll. If CBS reported that the terrorist attacks on the twin towers produced casualties of 20,000 people, then NBC reported the casualty rate at 2,000, would you not consider that an error in translation or communication somewhere?

That aside, if two different authors were reporting their numbers of Solomon's horses/ stables differently, what vantage points need be considered? What was the purpose?

As I already pointed out in a previous part of this thread. There is no contradiction or error, because 1 Kings 4:26 refers to the total number of stables Solomon had in all of Israel. 1 Chron. 9:25 refers to the number of stables Solomon had in Jerusalem. You need to actually read the text. So, that is not the same thing as reporting on the same event and getting huge variances in casualties wrong.

That aside, if two different authors were reporting their numbers of Solomon's horses/ stables differently, what vantage points need be considered? What was the purpose?

The reading and study of my Bible brings me to another question about Solomon's accounts: who were the authors of 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles? In my Bible, an author for Chronicles isn't mentioned at all and it proclaims the final author for the books of Kings remains unknown. Unless, of course, you know. Do you have evidence of the authors of these two books? If not, then the idea that the difference in the numbers recorded of Solomon's horses and stables being reported from different vantage points and for different purposes falls short, due to lack of evidence.

I hope to be surprised on that one, 'cause my Bible is pretty old. Maybe your's is better updated?

No, mine is not better updated, I just know the Bible better than you.

The difference between Chronicles and Kings is that Chronicles was written AFTER the return from Babylon, several generations later, and this agreed upon by both Jewish and Christian Scholars. The reason they know this is that internal evidence extant within the text of Chronicles admits that it is drawing from other historical sources some of which were several generations older. Chronicles is not written like a first hand, eyewitness account. Rather it is written as even our modern historians write about events to which there are no existing eyewitnesses. They gather documents and peruse documents left behind by the eyewitnesses. The following is a list of sources that the author of Chronicles admits to drawing from for his accounts:

[*]The annals of King David (1 Chronicles 27: 24)

[*]The records of Samuel the seer, the records of Nathan the prophet, and the records of Gad the seer (1 Chronicles 29: 29)

[*]The records of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and the visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles 9: 29)

[*]The records of Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer (2 Chronicles 12: 15)

[*]The annotations of the prophet Iddo (2 Chronicles 13: 22)

[*]The annals of Jehu the son of Hanani, which are recorded in the book of the kings of Israel (2 Chronicles 20: 34)

[*]The annotations on the book of the kings (2 Chronicles 24: 27)

[*]The other events of Uzziah

[Guest shiloh357]

Continued from Previous Post

I'm not going to look back through all these pages to find out where I literally presented as FACT that the bible has undergone radical changes via misguided copyists. I especially didn't use those words, not did I ever imply it.

You are not accused of saying as "FACT" that the Bible has undergone radical changes. You are accused of saying as FACT that the Bible was written by men. That is the crux of my challenge. You don't even remember straightly what you have said, so how can you be taken seriously when it comes to textual criticism?

Here is what you said, Interactionist from post #18:

In reality it's a book that was written by men. The original texts have been changed, amended, and changed again so many times since their conception there's no possible way to tell what is accurate and what's not. Hence, this leaves the great possibility that they are indeed erroneous and contradictory.

[Guest Biblicist]

For one thing, recorded history and archeological discoveries provide evidence. There is available scholarship and it is not hiding in obscure dark corners. I don't have time to itemize a list at this time, but recent archeological discoveries both in Israel and in surrounding areas testify to the Bible's accuracy. I think it is necessary at this point to clear up what is NOT required for a text to be "inerrant" in order to understand what the evidence is required to show.

1. Inerrancy does not require a strict adherance to all rules of grammar.

2. Inerrancy does not require strict historical and semantic precision.

3. Inerrancy does not exclude the use of figures of speech or any kind of literary genre.

4. Inerrancy does not require verbatim exactness when Old Testament passages are cited by the New Testament.

5. Inerrancy does not require that any literary sources used by the biblical writers also be inspired or inerrant.

6. In errancy provides no guarantee that any account given in Scripture is exhaustive.

Inerrancy simply means that if the Bible says it happened it happened. The authors do not have to give every detail nor do they have to agree with one another verbatim. If you are genuinely interested, you can visit your local Christian bookstore, or even better, a Pastor in your area would be more than happy to point you toward evidence and scholarly works on the issue of inerrancy that you can study first hand.

Thank you for this, I never knew this.

[Guest Biblicist]

We're both parrots here. What we're repeating based off of what we've heard, know, or experience is what sets us apart. Likewise, you possess nothing a thinking person would request of you (evidence - NOT proof - of your position).

Evidence and proof are the same thing.

[Guest shiloh357]

We're both parrots here. What we're repeating based off of what we've heard, know, or experience is what sets us apart. Likewise, you possess nothing a thinking person would request of you (evidence - NOT proof - of your position).

Evidence and proof are the same thing.

Not really.

Evidence is more of indication toward the veracity of a claim. Evidence does not leave an issue beyond dispute but does provide a platform to demonstrate one's rationale.

Proof occurs on different levels. Often when unbelievers demand proof, it is of an unrealistic nature. In our courts of law, one is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence can lead to proof when there is a perponderence of evidence, meaning when the evidentiary nature of a position is so overwhelming no rational person could realistically expect to mount a successful challenge.

We cannot PROVE the Bible is written by God, but we can offer evidence. We can provide at least enough evidence that a rational, reasonable person MUST admit that, even if they are not convinced of our postion, we are not slaves of blind faith and that we have a thoughtfuly position and that it does have a valid evidentiary basis that can be taken seriously.

[the_interactionist]

Continued from Previous Post

I'm not going to look back through all these pages to find out where I literally presented as FACT that the bible has undergone radical changes via misguided copyists. I especially didn't use those words, not did I ever imply it.

You are not accused of saying as "FACT" that the Bible has undergone radical changes. You are accused of saying as FACT that the Bible was written by men. That is the crux of my challenge. You don't even remember straightly what you have said, so how can you be taken seriously when it comes to textual criticism?

Here is what you said, Interactionist from post #18:

In reality it's a book that was written by men. The original texts have been changed, amended, and changed again so many times since their conception there's no possible way to tell what is accurate and what's not. Hence, this leaves the great possibility that they are indeed erroneous and contradictory.

I never used the word fact, nor did I state it as such. It was my opinion and I in no way insinuated it as fact that it was written by men. I used the word: possible and possibility throughout.

You claimed that I stated something as fact that I clearly did not.

You are very knowledgeable about the Bible. Are you a scholar yourself? How do you gain access to your knowledge? What is your source of primary information? I have a lot of questions and I'd like to ask them of you.