For the Christian, the Bible is the book that tells them all that they need to know about god, life, the afterlife and the hows and whys of it all. This is why it is so important for so many Christian denominations to establish that the Bible is without error, was preserved by god and inspired by the very spirit of god as he breathed upon the very authors of the sacred text. For most Protestants and Baptists, for example, the Bible and god are so closely linked that belief in the one is to believe in the other. This can be established biblically.

For example, the Bible says that god created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them and that he did so by his spoken word (and god said, let there be light). Later in the book of Genesis, Abraham had a question of doubt. God gave an answer and Abraham believed the word of god. As a result, the Bible records that god "counted it to him for righteousness" and Abraham was made righteous before god by his faith in god's word. As we approach the New Testament, we find that the "word of god" becomes forever linked with the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In John chapter 1, for example, we are told:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - John 1:1

And in verse 14 of the same chapter we read:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

And thus the Bible presents Jesus as the word of god in human flesh. Just as righteousness before god was achieved by Abraham by his faith in god's word, in like manner, according to the New Testament, a man is made righteous by his faith in Jesus, the word of god.

From this we can see that both Testaments teach the way to god (through righteousness) is the same: faith in the word of god.

The Bible is proclaimed to be the very word of god. Because god is declared to be perfect and without error, then it would stand to reason that his word would also be perfect and without error. Jesus, the word of god, is declared to be without sin and to be perfect and without error (after all, he is "the truth"). God, Jesus and the written word are so closely linked together that it is difficult to talk about the one without talking about the other. It would stand to reason that the Bible, if it is the very word of god, would, in like manner, be perfect, spotless and without error. If the pages of the holy writ could be proven to contain error then what would that say about god himself?

There are those that believe that they do not need to accept all of the Bible. For example, some people accept the moral code of the Bible, but reject the miracles recorded therein. On what grounds do they do this? Human reasoning? Because they do not "believe" in miracles? What criteria do they use to make such assumptions? How can a mere man weed through what is proposed to be the very words of god and determine what he did and did not say? How can a mere mortal determine, with certainty, what is the word of god and what is not? Wouldn't the one that says a certain passage in the Bible is not from god, be god (or at least claim to be) in order for them to know for certain that the particular passage was not from god? Or could it be that they have a source outside of the Bible itself that helps them to determine what is and is not from the mouth of god? And if a source, how can it be known if this source is divine or simply another imagination of man?

While I don't claim to know the answers to all of that, I do want to examine the concept of the veracity of the Bible. Whether a person believes in the inerrancy of the Bible or not, all who claim to be "Christian" rely , to some degree, on the pages of this book to determine what they know about god and how he functions in the affairs of men. This is why it is so important to examine the Scriptures to see if there is any error within. If god is perfect and his word is perfect and Jesus and the word are so closely linked together, then you would expect perfection in his word. If there is error within, then what does that say about god? About Jesus? What does it say about the trust-worthiness of what we read in the pages of the Scriptures themselves?

In another thread, some challenged me on the basis of logic to defend my position about why I no longer believe in the god of the Bible nor in his Christ. While I will not speak of all the reasons, I would like to address some of them. I will begin with a common prophecy that most Christians know. While this prophecy is not the crux of what I believe (or don't believe) I think it is a decent starting point. We will begin by looking at Isaiah's prophecy of the virgin birth as found in Isaiah 7:14:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

When one reads this verse it seems obvious that this is speaking of Jesus. And the Apostle Matthew would agree:

Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. -Matthew 1:22-23

For most people, this is the end of the line. If the Bible says it, that settles it! However, what if Matthew is in error? What if Isaiah 7:14 is not speaking about Jesus at all? Let's go back and examine the verse in Isaiah to see what it is all about.

It would help to put it in a bit of context. If we begin reading in the very first verse of Isaiah chapter seven, then we can find out what is going on.

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, [that] Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it. And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind. - Isaiah 7:1-2

As can be seen from the verses above, Rezin, king of Syria and Pekah, king of Israel, were planning to go to war against Jerusalem. In those days, the nation of Israel had split into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom was called Israel and the southern, Judah. Jerusalem was the capital city of Judah. As we can see from these verses, the two northern kings had banded together with the purpose of setting out to destroy the capital city of Judah. Ahaz, the current king of Judah, was afraid as he was very much outnumbered. Because god, according to the verses that follow, wanted to calm the fears of Ahaz and let him know that god was with Judah, he sent to Ahaz the prophet Isaiah. Isaiah was to tell Ahaz not to fear:

And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. - Isaiah 7:4

God went even further and told Isaiah to ask Ahaz to declare a sign that god would perform in order to further help Ahaz know that god was with him (verse 11). Ahaz refused and god, a bit angry, determines to give him a sign of his own choosing:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. - Isaiah 7:14

This is the context of the passage ... or most of it. We will examine what comes after verse 14 a bit further on. Before getting too deeply into the passage, it might be helpful to know when this was all taking place. According to Bible commentaries, Ahaz ruled in Judah in the early 700's B.C. (about 720 +/-). So the events that we are reading about take place about 700 years before Christ was born. This is important to keep in mind.

This brings up an immediate question: How does Isaiah 7:14 apply to Ahaz if the promise is not to be fulfilled some 700 years later? In other words, if the sending of Isaiah and the sign given were to comfort the heart of Ahaz because of the enemy that was about to attack him, how could a prophecy about someone that would be born 700 years later accomplish that? Please keep this in mind as we examine the passage in context a bit further.

One thing that is interesting is that many will stop at verse 14 and do not even think about the verses that follow. However, verse 14 is not in a vacuum. In fact, one vital rule of interpreting Scripture is context. It is imperative that the student of the Bible examine any passage within the context in which it was written. And, yet, many seem to violate this principle when it comes to Isaiah 7:14. Could this be because an honest evaluation of the passage would show that Mattew was wrong and the passage does not apply to Jesus of Nazareth? We shall see.

Let's begin by adding verses 15 and 16 onto verse 14: