Is the bible authoritive and truly inspired?

since you have taken that verse out of context here it is : verse 53 is referring back to the prophets mentioned in verse 52 not to the biblical authors. 1. Was it possible for these imperfect men to produce a record that is actually Gods message? not without the help of the Holy Spirit. the Bible encompasses about 2,000 years and the men did not know every other writer. 2. How do we know they did not write of their own impulse, but were inspired by God as they claim? much of the information recorded they would not be privy to, nor have access to the records or records would be lost. in other words it would be impossible for them to obtain and gather all the records they would need to write the Bible. 3. How do we know the writings we have today are the same as they were written by the original men who wrote it.
because God promised to preserve His word. if He didn't then He lied and would not be God and there would be no hope or salvation for man.

yes but once it was found out to be fake only the hardcore believers would remain.why do you think mormonism is so successful? itincorporates the Bible in its belief structure. take away the Bible and people will start leaving it.every con man knows that they must include some truth in their cons or they will fail. none of those books are mentioned in the NT and it was written 400 years or so after the last OT book was. also, you argue that God is not part of the picture yet you use the divine when you need it. take God and his promise to preserve His words out of the picture then the NT writers wouldn't have those books, and probably the OT to use. mt. 24:35; mk 13:31; lk 21:33Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

no parts were changed.

now you are just being obstinate. and you can't nor didn't prove or provide evidence that they did.

so God has to be redundant and anal just to please you? there are no changes and i have a copy of eusibius so where does he talk about mark?also, that is not proof that the last of mark 16 was not original. you forget that many men altered the writings on their own, because they did not accept what was written. that does not mean that the rest of mark 16 was not original, it means that some of those mss. were not copied by those who followed God or were lead by the Holy Spirit.one of the bigger problems i have noticed in the scholarly world is the lack of discernmentwhen it comes to mss. just like today, the ancient workld had those who would translate the Bibl etheir way and it is foolish to blindly accept all mss. as valid copies. {see: Kenneth Scott Latourette's A History of Christianity vol 1, pg. 133; and take note of the Jehovah Witness translation. they do not believe God so they alter His word to suit their beliefs.}

it wasn't changed and if all four authors wrote the exact same words you and the rest of the secularists would charge fraud and copying or plagerism, among other charges you could think of. people like ehrman and dever have been saying these things for years and NOT one of them have produced one shred of real evide3nce. it is all hearsay, conjecture, speculation. i do NOT agree with you, you are leaping on a set of words without clarifying and putting your spin to it. the original words have not changed.my point stands secularists do not use discernment, they look for things to exploit to justify their unbelieve and make them feel good about following sin.

and i have answered you--the Bible wasn't changed. we have the original words that God spoke or God lied and didn't keep His promise. just because forgeries are put out there doesn't mean that God's word changed, it just means it is a little more work and a little harder to find the correct mss and translations.What was GOd's word to Adam, to Moses, to David, Zto The disciples is still God's word. your argument is like claiming that because there is counterfeit money out there america changed its money. that is a ridiculous argument. see above. this is a problem with dealing with unbelievers in discussions concerning the Bible. you want a strict, one way to do everything and if it doesn't follow your ideas then there is a problem with the Bible. you all forget that even today people forget words to the Bible and 'paraphrase', or 'or leave words out' or 'substitute the wrong ones' but that doesn't mean they are changing the Bible or what it says.get a little realistic in your criticism of God's word.

asked and answered--it wasn't changed. moot. then God still didn't keep His word. we have the originals, God promised to prreserve His word. Your argument i sbart ehrman's and this is his main point--we do not have the originals so we can't be sure what was written. yet, according to his argument, if we do not have theoriginals then he cannot say there were scribal errors for we do not know what the originals said. it works both ways using that line of thinking.and you cannot say the God's word was changed either. By the way Craig Evans mentioned that we have 99.9% of the Bible
( follow this link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf1pbTF0q0w&feature=related to hear his words. there are 3 epsiodes of 3 segments each) now you are just getting nit-picky because they only changed some features NOT the money itself--there are still 1, 5, 10, 20, 50, & 100 dollar denominations and still on paper. no, you are criticizing God for failing to keep His promise, according to your argument. you also cannot prove that man changed His words, you do not have the originals to compare with.as i said, God's word is the same, from the beginning onward. if you cannot trust God to keep His promise forthislittle thing of preserving His word, thenhow can you trust Him about heaven, salvation, security protection etc.?

but i am not doing blind assertion, i am looking at all the facts which you are ignoring. there is so much you do not know about the dpiritual world, you keep trying to put this on a humanlevel so you can feel justified in not believing. you have proven my point why it is impossible to have a good and honest discussion with an unbeliever. they reject any evidence they do not like or can't refute. he isn't the only one saying that.there is no real point in continuing discussion with you we do know. again, you just want excuses to ignore God's word and trust science. not worth giving you more details.

since you have taken my words out of context and applied your own conclusion to them, i will not be responding to these words. this is another problem with having discussions with unbelievers--they complain that christians are too literal, then when it suits the unbeliever they become very literal over minute points that do not matter.

read FF Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They reliable?

judging and condemning something that has not been answered yet. we all know the three ancient languages originallyused to pen the Biblical books, and we know that nothing is too hard for God thus putting His original words into english or any language to preserve them is not that difficult for Him especially when He wants all men to be saved.

AND unless YOU have the originals YOU CANNOT say they were altered and not preserved. what do you think he has in his book? hearsay? i have quoted people and i still hear 'more evidence...' you have been given evidence and people keep rejecting it. there is a limit. read the book, read strobel's The Case for Christ, you will find plentyof evidence in those works. read Craig Evans' Fabricating Jesus. Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament. plenty of evidence found in those books as well.p.s. i do present evidence, in one forum i presented a non-christian site and which showed i was correct and it was dismissed. so the problem lies with you and your unrealistic demands.Edited by archaeologist, : No reason given.

here is the gist of it: the Bible in 2 Tim. 3:16 tells us that 'all scripture is God beathed. 2 Peter the same idea and then we couple it with the fact that NOT ONE scientific or archaeological discovery has proven the Bible false and even history has confirmed the accuracy and veracity of the Biblical record.BUT when we believers post this information we get: " well those books weren't written by hom they claim it wass' or 'those books are metaphors' or 'those books were written centuries later and hesitantly included in the canon' or there is the dismissal of the truth.IF you do not want to believe, WHY are you discussing the Bible? you will not accept logical, reasonable, truthful explanations and you do not understand its words and cannot analyze them. PLUS you do not want to live by God's rules, so anything you say is not truthful and just wastes time. it would be better for you all to go volunteer to help the people of pakistan than it would be putting more nail sin your coffin by calling God a liar, false, and blaspheming HIm, and so on.If the Bible were NOT true, as you claim, then why are you filling your time discussing something that has no bearing on your lives?BUT since you are discussing it, among other things, then you know deep down that it is true and you can't do anything about it. No matter how hard you try.

here is a great case in point:JAR keeps repeting the same thing over an dover AFTER being told repeatedly that he CANNOT claim there are errors in the mss. because he does not have the originals.he is just being obstinate and looking to cause trouble. we have the originals, God has preserved them people need to learn to accept the reality that false teachers will write their own versions to fit their beliefs. Kenneth ScottLatourette recorded this in Vol. 1 pg. 131 (i believe) of his 2 vol. work A History of Christianity.we have a modern day example in the JW's and other cults. NOW if JAR and others refuse to listen to the evidence presented then there is NO MORE EVIDENCE to present. He and others are doing exactly what he accuses us believers of doing--making blind assertions he cannot prove exist or is true.if you want evidence, then listen to it the FIRST TIME it is presented.