Is the Bible "The True Inerrant Word of God"?

Merriam Webster Dictionary True - Honest, Just Inerrant - Free from Error Word of God - Sayings of the Supreme Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe Basically, one should never be able to find any corruptions in the Bible as it is from... show more Merriam Webster Dictionary

True - Honest, Just
Inerrant - Free from Error
Word of God - Sayings of the Supreme Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe

Basically, one should never be able to find any corruptions in the Bible as it is from God.

Let us see just two things which will totally prove otherwise.

The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available.

Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story.

To top it all, The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying,

"the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation"

(Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons").

"admittedly not genuine", hope you guys understand what it means.

Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.

The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples.

The Church admits:

"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"

(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).

How is it possible for Christians to claim this "Fiction" as True Inerrant Word of God?
Update: Church of Corinth “But, the absence of certain verses from the oldest manuscripts, for instance, may be due to loss and destruction rather than forgery” – Let me put it to you in simple terms. All Christians claim the Bible is an inspired Word of God. So, if those words in Mark 16:9-20 were intended by God, He... show more Church of Corinth
“But, the absence of certain verses from the oldest manuscripts, for instance, may be due to loss and destruction rather than forgery” –

Let me put it to you in simple terms. All Christians claim the Bible is an inspired Word of God. So, if those words in Mark 16:9-20 were intended by God, He would have inspired Mark to write them in the first place. You have to provide an intelligible answer as to why it never happened that way, because you claim the Bible is Inspired by God.

Moreover, only Honest Bibles tell us (in a footnote at least) that in the Gospel according to Mark all the verses after 16:8 are not found in "some of the oldest manuscripts." The rest, they don’t even bother to mention, which means, deceit.
Update 2: Vin You seem to back KJV. Just for your knowledge: Luke 14:26 KJV Bible: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Better Translation: "If any man come to me, and love less... show more Vin

You seem to back KJV. Just for your knowledge:

Luke 14:26
KJV Bible: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Better Translation: "If any man come to me, and love less by comparison his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

Comments: This verse has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's Concordance Number #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!

Genesis 10:9
KJV Bible: " . . . Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD."

Better Translation: " . . . Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of the LORD."

Comments: The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a
Update 3: Catalyst You wrote, “These are not "translations" as muslim propagandists would like to state as the following verses differ between the Warsh version and the Hafs of the Quran” And you also quoted a Hadith, whereby the Prophet (pbuh) allowed this. Did you ever ask, why the Prophet allowed this? If... show more Catalyst
You wrote,
“These are not "translations" as muslim propagandists would like to state as the following verses differ between the Warsh version and the Hafs of the Quran”

And you also quoted a Hadith, whereby the Prophet (pbuh) allowed this.

Did you ever ask, why the Prophet allowed this? If there was any difference in the meaning, he would have stopped it. The fact he allowed it means, the recitation and pronunciation and spelling Never Altered the Intended Meaning of the Verse.

You tell me, is there any difference in the meaning between “O, yeah” and “Oh yes”?

Is there any difference in the meaning between “color” and “colour”?

The Prophet said, “after me, follow my sahabahs, they are the righteous”. Why don’t you mention this? He also said, if there was anyone who was fit to be a prophet after me, it would have been Umar. Why don’t you also mention this? These were the people who compiled the Quran after thorough investigation.
Update 4: Catalyst And the fact that, the Prophet allowed these variations during his lifetime shows us he accepted it. He was the ultimate authority. And none of the so called “christian learned men” can ever say that these variations have altered the meaning of the verse. Compare this with the insertion and deletion of... show more Catalyst

And the fact that, the Prophet allowed these variations during his lifetime shows us he accepted it. He was the ultimate authority.

And none of the so called “christian learned men” can ever say that these variations have altered the meaning of the verse.

Compare this with the insertion and deletion of the verses in the Bible. Who authorized it? Jesus, his disciples or God?

Any Tom, Dick and Harry will add and remove and you expect us to take it as Word of God?
Update 5: Questioner:

All the rant you made was to prove what, Bible is Inerrant?

Allah killed Muhammad? You know the meaning of killed? Please go back to school and find out the meaning of killed and died.

Its a waste of time explaining this to people of your mentality.
20 answers 20