Why do you think the Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God?

[Koensayr]

Here's an example of the book of Exodus contradicting itself.

20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"

32:27 Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, "Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour".

314159,

Just a quick one, it actually says "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:133).

There is a difference between killing and murdering. There is also a difference between those and God rightly pronouncing His judgment upon sinful humanity, which as Paul tells us in Romans 6:23 that "the wages of sin is death." Now wages are something that we are paid for work rendered, in other words, we earn our wages. Because we have all repeated sinned, we have earned the penalty of death.

 

[OldChurchGuy]

It does not represent itself as such, essentially being a collection of works by dozens of authors.

There is at least one apparent factual contradiction. ("No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation but the sign of the prophet Jonah..." in one gospel vs. "No sign shall be given to this wicked and adulterous generation." in another.)

There is the sacrifice of the daughter of Jepthah, apparently with God's approval.

And since you who respond presumably believe Jesus is God, do you believe everything He said during His earthly ministry is recorded in the Gospels? And if not, how can the Bible be the complete word of God?

ETA: The rules of this forum include the following:

No more than one non-Christian (the OP) may post in a thread.​

This being the case, I will report the next non-Christian who does so.

I believe it comes down to a matter of faith. One can have faith the Bible is the complete and inerrant word of God.

One can also have faith that the Bible is like a guidebook written by many unknown authors over many centuries all trying to explain what it is like to experience God in their lives. Just as a guidebook to New York City, for example, can give you all kinds of information about New York City it cannot exactly duplicate your personal experience of visiting New York City.

Since we do not have the original manuscripts for any of the books of the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament there is no way to prove if there is any deviation from the original. It is my understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls take us back 1,000 years closer to the original writings in the Hebrew Bible but there is still a gap of about 1,000 years from the Dead Sea Scrolls to the time of the original writings. Complete manuscripts of the New Testament are about 200 to 300 years after the fact. Granted, there are fragments which go back further but the fragments are not proof of inerrancy. Evidence, yes; proof, no.

Since all religion is a matter of faith I have no problem with those who understand the Bible as inerrant. I subscribe to the guidebook idea but neither view can be proven as correct. Both are a matter of faith.

Enough rambling.

OldChurchGuy