> Humans wrote the Bible.
>
> Humans arn't perfect. They may have been inspired and directed by God, but the original authors may still have made mistakes. Mistakes happen.

This opens up a whole new can of worms. I said in a previous post that Jesus was either the Son of God or a liar and a blasphemer but could not merely be accepted as a wise man or prophet. The Bible is much like that. It's either the written and preserved Word of God, or it's a bunch of lies. It's either worth adopting as one's exclusive guide to God, life, and righteousness, or it's a historical curiosity and little more. Why? From what the Bible says itself. Just as what Christ said makes it impossible to accept him as something in between "Son of God" and "blasphemer," so what the Bible says makes it impossible to accept as either GOD'S Word (physically written through humans, perhaps; even written so that the personalities and styles of the human instruments show through [Why not? God created them just as he created his Word.]) or an errant pack of lies.

Unipeg already pointed out the best quote for this (thank you, unipeg). II Timothy 3:16, which, in the KJV, says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." The first part, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God," defines the word "scripture." If it's not given by inspiration of God, it's not scripture. The second part, more interestedly, defines the ramifications of what it means for it to be inspired by God: that it is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. If it is NOT profitable for those things, it's not scripture. If it's not scripture, it's not inspired by God. If it is error-prone, it's not profitable for those things and therefore is not scripture and therefore is not inspired by God. Basically, your choices get narrowed down: (1) this verse is true, in which case all the Bible is true; (2) is verse is false, by translation errors, and originally meant something different; (3) the Bible is incorrect, and that includes this verse.

The purpose of this post is to illustrate how (2) is not a rational position. Arguing (1) vs. (3) is a whole new post and something I won't tackle here.

So, assuming errors in translation skewed the meaning of II Timothy 3:16 so it doesn't mean quite ALL scripture is inspired by God, or that being inspired by God doesn't necessarily make it *wholly* profitable for doctrine, reproof, etc., then you have a lot of other verses to contend with.

II Peter 1:20-21 says, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." Not only does this verse reiterate that the Bible is God's Word, it shuts the door on individuals interpreting it as they please.

I Corinthians 2:13 says, "...Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's
wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth." I Cor. was written by Paul, one of the apostles. He's coming right out and saying that his words ARE the Holy Ghost's words. Not his own. Not his interpretation. The Holy Ghost's actual words. Either he is indeed speaking the Holy Ghost's actual words, or he's a liar and a blasphemer. Or errors in translation caused the exact same shift of meaning that befell poor Peter, above, and again befell Paul when he wrote II Timothy.

Same situation with:

II Samuel 23:2: "The Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my tongue."

Acts 1:16: "...this scripture...which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake..." This one is a double whammy: it puts the divine inspiration behind both what David AND Luke (he's the one that wrote Acts, right? I'm not positive, but no matter) on the block.

Ezra 1:1: "...that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be fulfilled..." And again here; this verse makes both Ezra AND Jeremiah accountable.

None of the above verses leave any room for human error. It is not rational to believe that human error, errors in translation, etc, affected all these different verses in precisely the same way, skewing the meanings of verses written in wholly different languages and over a period of many centuries, so that they all are now incorrectly translated to mean exactly the same thing: that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and therefore profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

So, ruling that out and accepting that these verses say what they mean, either the Bible IS the divinely inspired and wholly accurate written Word of God, or the Bible's authors were liars and blasphemers. Believing the former is why myself and others choose to uphold it as the final word on any issue it broaches; believing the latter means that it is foolish to put any more stock in the Bible than as a historical, anthropological, and/or literary artifact.