How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

I noted that the image presented didn't accurately reflect that our own planet is about oblate spherical.

In the spherical family, right? It has a center. No need for splitting hairs.

I agree it's splitting hairs to debate exactly how spherical the universe is. But, I think it's reasonable to assume the universe is fairly spherical if the universe is Euclidean. And who cares if it's even 10 billion miles in deviation. The argument is still valid that we're in the center of the universe.

I could let the claim go if folks'd not try to promote it as truth.

My approach is not making a claim and then stating it is the truth. My approach is looking at all the possible explanations, then determining which explanation is most credible. It is like two sides of a court case. The prosecutor has to make her case. The defendant has to make her case. Each side needs to present evidence and rational arguments to support their own case. And the jury decides which side makes the better case.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to otseng in post #1341]

I agree it's splitting hairs to debate exactly how spherical the universe is. But, I think it's reasonable to assume the universe is fairly spherical if the universe is Euclidean. And who cares if it's even 10 billion miles in deviation. The argument is still valid that we're in the center of the universe.

The cosmological argument is the belief that the curvature of the universe is so large that the curvature cannot be detected. The analogy that is usually made is that someone out in the desert says that the earth is flat because it looks flat. But even more so. The curvature of the earth can actually be detected. A ship looks like it is sinking in the ocean as it goes further out.

From your op are you saying that the Bible is inerrant or it is inerrant? Because I am not understanding how anyone can say that the is authoritative if it is not inerrant.

[otseng]

The cosmological argument is the belief that the curvature of the universe is so large that the curvature cannot be detected.

Since it cannot be detected, it leads to the question, why hold a belief that has no empirical evidence for?

From your op are you saying that the Bible is inerrant or it is inerrant? Because I am not understanding how anyone can say that the is authoritative if it is not inerrant.

I'm not saying it's either. The term inerrancy is meaningless so it's a false dichotomy.

[Diagoras]

Taking these stories literally invites mockery because it is beyond silly to take these things literally. The only thing worse is trying to defend them. Biblical scholars accept these stories for what they are, myths.
Why not simply accept the truth, that this biblical myth of a world wide flood, borrowed from the Sumerians, reflects ancient man trying to deal with yearly local flooding?

<bolding mine>

I haven't been keeping up with this thread for a while, but serendipitously noticed this around the same time that I found this article - expanding on that very point. Just one example from many:

For another thing, the story of Eden contains such Hebrew borrowings from the Sumerian as the term ‘ed “(underground)flow” (Gen. 2:6), and the name Eden itself.

I wouldn't mind taking part in a discussion of Sumerian influences on the Bible at some point. Perhaps best taken to a new thread, but it was too good to ignore the reference Diogenes posted here.

[Diagoras]

The cosmological argument is the belief that the curvature of the universe is so large that the curvature cannot be detected.

Since it cannot be detected, it leads to the question, why hold a belief that has no empirical evidence for?

<emphasis mine>

Why indeed? Can we then apply the same reasoning to an it like 'the supernatural'?

[otseng]

I wouldn't mind taking part in a discussion of Sumerian influences on the Bible at some point. Perhaps best taken to a new thread, but it was too good to ignore the reference Diogenes posted here.

Yes, best for another thread.

The cosmological argument is the belief that the curvature of the universe is so large that the curvature cannot be detected.

Since it cannot be detected, it leads to the question, why hold a belief that has no empirical evidence for?

Why indeed? Can we then apply the same reasoning to an it like 'the supernatural'?

My point exactly. If scientists can do it with cosmology, why shouldn't Christians be able to do it in regards to religion?

And ironically, in this case of cosmology, I have presented evidence to argue for us being at the center of the universe, whereas no evidence has been presented to show we are not at the center of the universe.

[JehovahsWitness]

...The term inerrancy is meaningless so it's a false dichotomy.

The term inerrancy is not "meaningless" , few terms that have worked their way into general language are. It may be considered archaic, it may be a concept certain people do not accept but it is not ... "meaningless". The inerrancy of "the bible" (as in, divine scripture) is not only a concept that has meaning, it has meaning for millions of people. What that is and whether such meaning can justifiably applied to scripture is debatable but to claim the notion is without meaning is demonstratably false.



One can point out false dichotomy without decending into hyperbole.



RELATED POSTS


Is the term "inerrancy" without MEANING?
viewtopic.php?p=1091724#p1091724

Should the term "inerrancy" be replaced?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , RISK OF CORRUPTION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

[Diagoras]

The argument is still valid that we're in the center of the universe.

There is no agreed centre of the universe.

And to claim that science “holds a belief that has no empirical evidence for it” in relation to the universe having a centre is wrong. Note the final part of the linked article:

In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?".

[otseng]

One can point out false dichotomy without decending into hyperbole.

I'm willing to stand by the claim that the term is meaningless. But, that's another thread in itself.

And to claim that science “holds a belief that has no empirical evidence for it” in relation to the universe having a centre is wrong. Note the final part of the linked article:

In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?".

Please then provide the empirical evidence to support the claim we are not at the center of the universe or the universe is wrapped onto itself.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to otseng in post #1343]

Since it cannot be detected, it leads to the question, why hold a belief that has no empirical evidence for?

I am not defending that there is curvature in the universe. There is a real problem for secular cosmology if there is no curvature in the universe because that would mean the Earth would have to be at the center of the universe. The red shift could be an indication of matter outside of the universe.

I'm not saying it's either. The term inerrancy is meaningless so it's a false dichotomy.

How are you defining inerrant to make it a meaningless dichotomy?