Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This question already has an answer here:

Before I go on, I do realize that biblical claims for the inerrancy of the Bible is in fact self-satisfying and therefore questionable (at least in a court room), but bear with me.

The old testament scripture is verified by Jesus's obvious regard for it as He quotes it all the time (See Matt. 19:4, Mark 10:6, Heb 4:4, Acts 7:3, the list goes on...).

I could see the words of Jesus while he was on earth (mainly the gospels) verified as Jesus allowed the Holy Spirit to help the apostles remember what they had heard (John 14:26).

But what about the epistles and apocalyptic books? We can obviously assume that the apostles writing the books knew mostly what they were talking about as they spent so much time with Jesus, but there's a pretty big leap from that to infallible. We also don't know who wrote some books (Hebrews for example), how do we know these are the words of God?

Worth mentioning is 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.

But how do we know what "Scripture" Timothy is referring to here? And as for the "canonization" of the books, are we just trusting that God safeguarded the accuracy of the Bible by guiding the decisions of those involved in the Council of Trent and Synod of Hippo, for example?

If there is no such claim, why did some Christian denominations start believing it was inerrant?

Thanks and God Bless!

CLARIFICATION: I know any answer supporting the inerrancy of the Bible can't, by nature, be a perfect proof because of the recursiveness, but I think it worthwhile to find out if the Bible claims itself to be inerrant or if people just assumed it was later.

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by exxodus7, Bruce Alderman, El'endia Starman May 1 '13 at 14:44

This question was marked as an exact duplicate of an existing question.

You're asking for a recursive proof. "Where in the book does the book prove a fact about the book?" It's hard to imagine (for me) what a good answer would look like that couldn't end in discussion or disagreement. – The Freemason Apr 30 '13 at 15:16
I agree, hence the disclaimer at the top of my answer. The reason I asked anyway is that I'm operating under the assumption that the Bible is, at the very least, not grossly incorrect. If it was recorded in scripture that "Everything the apostles writes is inerrant," then I'd be ok with that. – exxodus7 Apr 30 '13 at 15:35
Clarified: I know any answer can't, by nature, be a perfect proof because of the recursiveness, but I think it worthwhile to find out if the Bible claims itself to be inerrant or if people just assumed it was later. Added this to my question. – exxodus7 Apr 30 '13 at 15:36
Not all Christian traditions hold the doctrine of inerrancy. Are you looking for an answer only from those who do? – Bruce Alderman Apr 30 '13 at 16:22
This is already included in this question, which asks in part whether the Bible declares any part of itself to be inerrant/infallible. – El'endia Starman Apr 30 '13 at 17:15

See "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroebel, chapter 3, section "A High Degree of Unanimity" (I can't post it here, because "No part of this publication may be reproduced" etc.) It talks about the rigorous process used to select books as part of the canon. They had to be written by apostles or eyewitnesses to them, they had to conform to existing Christian doctrine, and they had to be accepted by the community at large. Even today there are some eastern churches that don't accept the book of Revelation.

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.