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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #191

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:22 pm I must say I'm impressed by the way you field several opponents at once.
Thanks.
First, I believe I have always made it clear that the errancy case (for me, at least) doesn't rely on minor errors. Not even on easily explainable ones. They have to be serious contradictions.
I entirely agree it would have to be serious contradictions. The disagreement is what qualifies as a serious contradiction. For me, it would have to directly impact a core doctrine to qualify.
Minor errors in the Bible could be put down to copying errors. Even less minor ones could at least be argued with the well known 'eyewitness errors'.
These can certainly happen. But, I think there are also factors, some perhaps which we'll never know. But, one fundamental issue I believe is this difference in standards of precision between the 21st century mind and the first century mind. As I've argued, this expectation of precision did not exist in the minds of the authors.
As to Genesis, you can define a myth however you like. :D The only point that matters at all is the case that it didn't really happen.

Your St. Nick example is excellent. King Arthur is another and Troy a third. These are reliably based on true persons, but there are huge mythical elements that bury the original real historical thing. Jesus is a fourth example.
I'll go further and say the entire Bible is a myth. The question of course is figuring out what is historically true or false. But, the Bible was not written with the intent of everything being historically true like an encyclopedia or science book. Though many parts are rooted in the context of history, it is the underlying messages that are more important.

Though there are elaborations in the Bible that deviate from the actual events, compared to other myths, in my opinion it is a small percentage. The Bible stands out on its own compared to all the other myths. If anyone knows about myths, JRR Tolkien would definitely qualify. He goes so far as to say Christianity is the true myth, whereas all other myths are men's myths.
Diagoras wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:14 pm
otseng wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:37 am
Diagoras wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 3:54 pm We still haven't heard a reasonable argument for why God communicating directly with multiple people (not 'everyone') today is not a better method than trusting to an old collection of writings.
A written record is accessible by everyone, whereas direct communication is limited to a few. So, it's a better method since it can reach more people.
For this to be a sound and logical argument, you would have to show:

a) an indirect form of communication is no less clear than a direct one;
b) the clarity and truthfulness of any communication has no bearing on its utility;
c) God is limited in his ability to communicate with only a 'few' people - despite being 'omnipresent'.
d) everyone takes the same message from this written record.
I disagree I need to show these additional statements of yours are true. My statement is simply making the point that a written form of communication is more accessible than direct communication to a few. Do you disagree with this statement?
More than has already been done, do you mean?

You've already agreed in this thread that attempting to falsify a claim is the best way to test it, yet I don't see you rushing out to find any counter-argument to the 'whopper of a claim'. Here's one for a start.
Of course more than has already been done - I haven't even started to debate about the flood yet.

I would ask also if we debate about the flood to not simply post links and expect me to respond to every single argument on that site. Otherwise, I can also just simply post links to support the flood.
If the Bible 'makes claims that are falsifiable', and you have the means to investigate those claims, why not do so - and do so repeatedly? Stating that you listened to someone give a lecture at college a few years ago and that you became convinced on the strength of that is wilfully avoiding the exercise of falsifying the (Global Flood) claim.
I'm already devoting an hour each day just for this thread alone. If someone is willing to sponsor me and pay all my bills so I can quit my regular job, I'd be more than happy to spend more time debating on this forum.

As for defending the flood, I've already done this is one of the longest threads on this forum - A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?. But I'll soon start a condensed version here in this thread.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

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

Post #192

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:45 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 12:22 pm I must say I'm impressed by the way you field several opponents at once.
Thanks.
First, I believe I have always made it clear that the errancy case (for me, at least) doesn't rely on minor errors. Not even on easily explainable ones. They have to be serious contradictions.
otseng I entirely agree it would have to be serious contradictions. The disagreement is what qualifies as a serious contradiction. For me, it would have to directly impact a core doctrine to qualify.
As I've said elsewhere, I don't care. Mind, you are right in that severe doctrinal contradictions would be a problem. The nearest I have come to that is the promise to grant prayers so you could harvest cotton by just praying for it to magically leap into the baskets, but we -all know that isn't gong to happen. But we all know the excuses 'God knows best' essentially. God omitted to put the small -print get - out clause in that contract.

But I prefer to deal with the contradictions of supposed recorded events. They can't doctrine away that Matthew says they saw Jesus and Luke says they didn't, though we have seen many efforts to explain it - some really ingenious, if speculative.
Minor errors in the Bible could be put down to copying errors. Even less minor ones could at least be argued with the well known 'eyewitness errors'.
otseng that can certainly happen. But, I think there are also factors, some perhaps which we'll never know. But, one fundamental issue I believe is this difference in standards of precision between the 21st century mind and the first century mind. As I've argued, this expectation of precision did not exist in the minds of the authors.
That's why I go for the biggies. You may explain away minor contradictions with a different mindset back then as well as copying errors, misrecollection or even a change made for the writer's agenda, like Luke altering the angelic message at the tomb - I know Why he did that...though Bible apologists don't often try that one. But contradictions, discrepancies and additions too big to be explained away and are best just not talked about eh? are what I look for, and I've said so often enough.
As to Genesis, you can define a myth however you like. :D The only point that matters at all is the case that it didn't really happen.

Your St. Nick example is excellent. King Arthur is another and Troy a third. These are reliably based on true persons, but there are huge mythical elements that bury the original real historical thing. Jesus is a fourth example.
otseng I will go further and say the entire Bible is a myth. The question of course is figuring out what is historically true or false. But, the Bible was not written with the intent of everything being historically true like an encyclopedia or science book. Though many parts are rooted in the context of history, it is the underlying messages that are more important.

Though there are elaborations in the Bible that deviate from the actual events, compared to other myths, in my opinion it is a small percentage. The Bible stands out on its own compared to all the other myths. If anyone knows about myths, JRR Tolkien would definitely qualify. He goes so far as to say Christianity is the true myth, whereas all other myths are men's myths.
Caramba :shock: I have to confess that I did (we atheist apologists do) tend to assume 'mainstream' views on the Bible. You already corrected me on elements of doctrine about God's being and about aspects of literalism, but I didn't expect to see you apply the 'Myth' label. In other words, 'truer than true'. Well, in that case it doesn't matter if the writers tell contradictory stories (or versions of it) if they are only teaching the same values. In which case it is just another commentary on human thought and habit, and seeing a god behind it is rather like seeing a god behind evolution - a matter of Faith and with no good reason to believe it. But there again, it sounds uncannily like a Deist God, as otherwise, if He intended it to tell us about Himself, wouldn't he have wanted us to take it seriously and made sure the writers got their story (as well as the science) straight?


....pardon me for clipping the rest. Now how does that look...? dreadful :roll:

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

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

Post #193

Post by TRANSPONDER »

p.s I missed responding to this "Though there are elaborations in the Bible that deviate from the actual events, compared to other myths, in my opinion it is a small percentage."

Well I think even 1 really bad one in an important place is enough to cause doubt, but in the resurrection it's a good 5% contradiction (not in just wording and expressions but what was supposed to have happened) and the nativities are even worse. And the point is 'clean hands':. (1) When a few story -discredited contradictions are shown up in court, the credibility of the witness suffers. Therefor other contradictions, even if they come up with an explanation of sorts, are going to suffer in credibility, and they drag down even more minor ones. In the end, the whole story is discredited, 50% or more.
(1) that punctuation is copyright.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

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

Post #194

Post by Diagoras »

[Replying to otseng in post #191]
otseng wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 8:45 am I'll go further and say the entire Bible is a myth. The question of course is figuring out what is historically true or false. But, the Bible was not written with the intent of everything being historically true like an encyclopedia or science book. Though many parts are rooted in the context of history, it is the underlying messages that are more important.

The conclusion I reach from what you wrote there is that the Bible contains at least some ‘mythologised history’ that’s not true; it’s not especially easy for everyone to determine the truth from the myth, and; the ‘important’ stuff is somewhat obscured and open to misinterpretation.

How can we trust such a book?

You wrote:
I wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:14 pm
otseng wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:37 am A written record is accessible by everyone, whereas direct communication is limited to a few. So, it's a better method since it can reach more people.
For this to be a sound and logical argument, you would have to show:

a) an indirect form of communication is no less clear than a direct one;
b) the clarity and truthfulness of any communication has no bearing on its utility;
c) God is limited in his ability to communicate with only a 'few' people - despite being 'omnipresent'.
d) everyone takes the same message from this written record.
I disagree I need to show these additional statements of yours are true. My statement is simply making the point that a written form of communication is more accessible than direct communication to a few. Do you disagree with this statement?
<bolding mine>

As I bolded above, your conclusion was that the written form is better, not merely “more accessible”. Is accessibility (the number of recipients of the message) the only way communication can be ‘better’? I disagree. The message also needs to be clear and unambiguous, relevant to its audience, and timely. Direct communication has one further advantage: instant feedback, which ensures the message has been properly understood.

Further, you’re claiming that ‘direct communication is limited to a few’, but not supporting this claim. What is stopping God from giving a press conference, or appearing at the United Nations?

otseng wrote:
I wrote: You've already agreed in this thread that attempting to falsify a claim is the best way to test it, yet I don't see you rushing out to find any counter-argument to the 'whopper of a claim'.
Of course more than has already been done - I haven't even started to debate about the flood yet.

I would ask also if we debate about the flood to not simply post links and expect me to respond to every single argument on that site. Otherwise, I can also just simply post links to support the flood.
<bolding mine>

But that’s exactly what I’m not asking you to do! The result of apologists repeatedly offering ever more creative explanations for how the Flood might have occurred is precisely what you’d expect: “one of the longest threads on this forum”!

My claim here is: the most reliable method to test whether something is true or not is to attempt to falsify it. We do not see any apologist here making the effort to do so.

Your request regarding links and their refutation is of course reasonable. I wasn’t trying to overwhelm you with a ‘Gish Gallop’, and will gladly comply. The whole ‘Flood thing’ only came up because it appears to be a central plank of your personal belief. To be honest, I’d much rather we stuck to the ‘problem’ of written vs. direct communication, which seems to offer more scope for an interesting debate.

You wrote:I'm already devoting an hour each day just for this thread alone.
Taking 95.833% of the day off? What a slacker! ;)

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

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

Post #195

Post by JoeyKnothead »

How bout we trusted the bible, either way?

"Y'all set to worship me, or I'm here to tell it, y'all's in trouble!"

Trouble with who? A Trumpian god? A god who's ego is so fragile, if ya don't bend the knee, he's such a coward he won't lop your head off right there, he'll just wait to post about it on the internet? After ya done died from the plague it is, he did him not the first fret to fret?

Trust the bible? I trust the bible to expose humans for their being all it. Proud, and loving, and hateful, and goofy, and smart, and stupid, and well, truth be told, if God created him the pretty things, well I'm proud for that.

We can trust the bible, errant, inerrant, or otherwise. We can trust it to expose humans who'll use this page or chapter, this psalm or verse, to either love ya, or to hate ya.

As for me, I'm set to trust those who love.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #196

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:33 pmYou already corrected me on elements of doctrine about God's being and about aspects of literalism,
Glad I could influence at least one person in having a more correct idea of God. O:)
but I didn't expect to see you apply the 'Myth' label. In other words, 'truer than true'.
You can blame Tolkien for that.
But there again, it sounds uncannily like a Deist God, as otherwise, if He intended it to tell us about Himself, wouldn't he have wanted us to take it seriously and made sure the writers got their story (as well as the science) straight?
Definitely not arguing for a Deist God. I think the key idea is God is not apparent to remain hidden, but to be sought. A main theme of the Bible is God wants to be known and is not a God that is completely cut off from having any relationship with man (like a Deist God).

One of the most popular games in the world is hide-and-seek. Why do kids enjoy this so much? There is something inside us that finds pleasure in finding something that is hidden. And in the reverse, we find pleasure when someone seeks after us. Why do we like puzzles? There's something satisfying about finding the key to resolving a problem. Why do we even do science? There's something fulfilling about finding a better understanding of the world. For the Christian, these are all fundamentally rooted in the idea of seeking God. God is manifested through relationships with others and a relationship with God's creation and seeking through these things. Isaac Newton stated it by, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” God expresses his manifestations through nature, people, and the Bible. And in all these areas, it is in seeking that we can discover what God has laid for us to find.
Diagoras wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:09 pm The conclusion I reach from what you wrote there is that the Bible contains at least some ‘mythologised history’ that’s not true; it’s not especially easy for everyone to determine the truth from the myth, and; the ‘important’ stuff is somewhat obscured and open to misinterpretation.
Could be. Never said it would be easy to figure out the entire Bible.
Further, you’re claiming that ‘direct communication is limited to a few’, but not supporting this claim.
As I mentioned, from my experience as a Christian, I have never come across anybody that has heard or seen or touched God. And it's pretty apparent that God is not directly speaking with everyone right now. But, we do have reports of people having dreams directly from God now, but this is a small minority.
What is stopping God from giving a press conference, or appearing at the United Nations?
This hints at the omnipotent issue. One could throw out endless hypotheticals of how God should act. But, the bottom line is God will directly communicate with people in the future in heaven. So, it's not like it's out of God's desire or power to directly communicate with everyone.
My claim here is: the most reliable method to test whether something is true or not is to attempt to falsify it. We do not see any apologist here making the effort to do so.
Why should it be the burden of apologists to try to falsify their own belief? But, apologists should be receptive to a dialogue with opponents that seek to falsify their belief.
The whole ‘Flood thing’ only came up because it appears to be a central plank of your personal belief. To be honest, I’d much rather we stuck to the ‘problem’ of written vs. direct communication, which seems to offer more scope for an interesting debate.
That would be great by me. It'd save me a lot of time and also would not make this thread too off-topic.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

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

Post #197

Post by Diagoras »

otseng wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:24 amGod expresses his manifestations through nature, people, and the Bible.
When scientists have investigated nature, they've discovered that the universe is governed by natural laws, not by any deity. When the Bible has been studied, it's been shown to all have been written by men (and from a logical point of view, can't avoid a circular argument for the existence of God).

God 'expressing his manifestations through people' - as the remaining method - is a rather vague concept, so perhaps you could show some strong evidence to back up this claim? All our conversation on the matter of direct communication up to this point has pointed to a lack of evidence.

otseng wrote:As I mentioned, from my experience as a Christian, I have never come across anybody that has heard or seen or touched God. And it's pretty apparent that God is not directly speaking with everyone right now. But, we do have reports of people having dreams directly from God now, but this is a small minority.
<bolding mine>

How could someone reliably distinguish a dream 'about' God from a dream 'from' God? And how can 'reports' of such be in any way considered 'direct communication'?

It's pretty apparent that God is not directly speaking with anyone right now. Why would that be? Possible answers are: God's playing hide and seek, God's being mysterious, or simply that God's not there in the first place.

otseng wrote:
I wrote:What is stopping God from giving a press conference, or appearing at the United Nations?
This hints at the omnipotent issue. One could throw out endless hypotheticals of how God should act.
One doesn't need to be omnipotent to call a press conference, does one? I'm trying to approach the subject from a logical point of view: what exactly is limiting God from showing himself?

As far as I can tell, there's no logical reason why he couldn't.

otseng wrote:But, the bottom line is God will directly communicate with people in the future in heaven. So, it's not like it's out of God's desire or power to directly communicate with everyone.
If we're allowed 'bottom lines', then mine is that God doesn't directly communicate with people in the present on Earth. So, it's like it's out of God's desire or power to not directly communicate with everyone.

otseng wrote:Why should it be the burden of apologists to try to falsify their own belief? But, apologists should be receptive to a dialogue with opponents that seek to falsify their belief.
Maybe try instead to see it as being less a burden, and more 'fulfilling about finding a better understanding of the world'?

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7960
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3486 times

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

Post #198

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 9:24 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 1:33 pmYou already corrected me on elements of doctrine about God's being and about aspects of literalism,
Glad I could influence at least one person in having a more correct idea of God. O:)
but I didn't expect to see you apply the 'Myth' label. In other words, 'truer than true'.
You can blame Tolkien for that.
But there again, it sounds uncannily like a Deist God, as otherwise, if He intended it to tell us about Himself, wouldn't he have wanted us to take it seriously and made sure the writers got their story (as well as the science) straight?
Definitely not arguing for a Deist God. I think the key idea is God is not apparent to remain hidden, but to be sought. A main theme of the Bible is God wants to be known and is not a God that is completely cut off from having any relationship with man (like a Deist God).

One of the most popular games in the world is hide-and-seek. Why do kids enjoy this so much? There is something inside us that finds pleasure in finding something that is hidden. And in the reverse, we find pleasure when someone seeks after us. Why do we like puzzles? There's something satisfying about finding the key to resolving a problem. Why do we even do science? There's something fulfilling about finding a better understanding of the world. For the Christian, these are all fundamentally rooted in the idea of seeking God. God is manifested through relationships with others and a relationship with God's creation and seeking through these things. Isaac Newton stated it by, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” God expresses his manifestations through nature, people, and the Bible. And in all these areas, it is in seeking that we can discover what God has laid for us to find.
excuse the clip just to the response to me, specifically.

Of course getting a clearer idea of how you see the 'God - claim' doesn't mean that's how I see it. In fact the only god - claim I'm bothered about is an intervening or, at least, a communicating, god, and as usual, name your own and then prove that's the one that's doing it.

Truer than true is, again, moving into the area of symbolism and metaphor which doesn't interest me other than, like poetry, art and music, as human constructs to tell stories about ourselves and our condition, and, like Tolkien, Star wars or Star trek, isn't a problem until people take it too seriously. Religion is (on all the evidence I've seen), human story - telling and rather fun if not taken too seriously. Unfortunately it is taken far too seriously and that's why I'm here.

The Bible is Myth, in that sense, and no less so for being dressed up in more convincing history than most of the other religions. Although convincing as fact, it is demonstrably fabrication over a certain basis in history· That's my line and what I am here to argue.

So you clarify, bit by bit, where you stand on this. I'd Thought you were defending the Bible as reliable enough fact. Maybe I got you wrong. But, if you are taking about a god that's Deist other than communicating with us and maybe guiding our actions and events, that's a different discussion.

If however, you are arguing for Any of the Bible - touching on the religious claims, as I am not here to argue that Pilate wasn't governor or Caiaphas wasn't High priest - that IS the same argument. If you state that you are NOT proposing the Bible as factually reliable, then we can have a different conversation.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #199

Post by otseng »

Diagoras wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 4:33 pm When scientists have investigated nature, they've discovered that the universe is governed by natural laws, not by any deity.
Sure, but the creation of the universe and the natural laws had some origin, which I attribute to God.
When the Bible has been studied, it's been shown to all have been written by men (and from a logical point of view, can't avoid a circular argument for the existence of God).
Yes, for the purposes of this debate, the Bible is written by men.
God 'expressing his manifestations through people' - as the remaining method - is a rather vague concept, so perhaps you could show some strong evidence to back up this claim?
God manifesting himself through people is not central to any argument I'm making in this thread. It's only in reference to a side comment about seeking for truth.
All our conversation on the matter of direct communication up to this point has pointed to a lack of evidence.
You mean currently or in the past about God directly communicating with people? If you mean currently, then the only thing I've offered is dreams by Muslims. If in the past, then the primary exhibit would be Jesus on earth as God's direct communication with man.
How could someone reliably distinguish a dream 'about' God from a dream 'from' God? And how can 'reports' of such be in any way considered 'direct communication'?
If Muslims who dream about Jesus have never heard of Jesus before, how could that have happened if not from God?
I'm trying to approach the subject from a logical point of view: what exactly is limiting God from showing himself?
It hints at the omnipotence problem because it's a loaded question and not really a logical question. So, any answer to this is pointless.
As far as I can tell, there's no logical reason why he couldn't.
Sure, but it doesn't mean he should.
If we're allowed 'bottom lines', then mine is that God doesn't directly communicate with people in the present on Earth. So, it's like it's out of God's desire or power to not directly communicate with everyone.
Well, you have people all the time claiming to hear directly from God, and they've even visited this forum or even currently participating on this forum. What's to say they haven't heard from God? Why would you dismiss their claims?
Maybe try instead to see it as being less a burden, and more 'fulfilling about finding a better understanding of the world'?
I mean burden as in burden of proof. Your assumption here is I'm not out to seek truth. If I wasn't out to seek truth, this forum would not be setup the way it is. Rather, it would just be another forum where only my religious beliefs are allowed and everything else is stifled. Instead, what is valued here is evidence and arguments, regardless of the belief.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:25 pm excuse the clip just to the response to me, specifically.
No need to state this. This is normal course for debates here.
I'd Thought you were defending the Bible as reliable enough fact. Maybe I got you wrong.
I said this...
otseng wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:00 pmI believe in the authority of the entire Bible and accept many of the fundamentalist/conservative interpretations of the Bible (literal 6 days of creation, literal Adam/Even, global flood, virgin birth, miracles of Jesus, bodily resurrection, etc).
Pretty much all the major doctrines of Christianity I accept. Minor doctrines such as eschatology I'm agnostic and don't really have a position.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #200

Post by otseng »

One advantage of having the Bible as a written document is the promotion of literacy. And it has been an instrumental factor in promoting literacy across many cultures.

The rise of literacy of the English language can be largely attributed to the Bible.
Just 70 years before William Shakespeare put pen to paper, there was no viable written English language. Scholars and academics at universities and professions in business and law spoke Latin, the universal language of the day throughout England and Europe. The king and nobility spoke Norman French. English peasants, a marginalized people group of that time, who spoke a throw away language, English were seen as beyond reach of the Gospel.

The first English translation of the Bible was done in the 14th century by John Wycliffe. William Tyndale took English translation to a whole new level by doing an excellent translation of the Bible creating modern English. Translating from Hebrew and Greek, his translation was accurate and at times poetic and memorable. Caught, tried and sentenced to death, his dying wish as he was burned at the stake was “Lord! Open the King of England’s eyes.” The following year King Henry VIII allowed English Bibles to be distributed in England. Then, in 1539, Henry VIII allowed publication of “the Great Bible,” which included Tyndale’s translation.

Even more amazing is that in a period of 100 years reading and writing English among males in England went from about 5 percent of the population to 25% eventually reaching 40% of the population. By 1770, shopkeepers were 95% literate. Literacy in England is directly attributable to the Bible.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/20 ... n-literac/

During colonial America, the Bible was fundamental in the high literacy rate, primarily due to the Puritans.
Puritan emphasis on literacy largely influenced the significantly higher literacy rate (70 percent of men) of the Thirteen Colonies, mainly New England, in comparison to Britain (40 percent of men) and France (29 percent of men).

The Puritans valued education, both for the sake of religious study (they demanded a great deal of Bible reading) and for the sake of citizens who could participate better in town meetings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education ... n_Colonies
Dr. Lawrence A. Cremin, distinguished scholar in the field of education, said that during the colonial period the Bible was “the single most important cultural influence in the lives of Anglo-Americans.”
https://fee.org/articles/education-in-colonial-america/

Most of the colleges formed were for religious training, with the Bible as a core text.
"Religious denominations established most early colleges in order to train ministers. In New England there was an emphasis on literacy so that people could read the Bible."
https://www.k12academics.com/systems-fo ... on/history
The Puritans who founded Harvard in 1636 intended to train clergy primarily and civil servants secondarily. Ministers led colonial Harvard and made daily prayer and study of classical languages and texts central, including the Old and New Testaments in their original languages.
https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/m ... e-ivy-vine
The history of Yale College and University begins in the mid-1600s when some Puritans broke away from the Massachusetts colony and formed their own Bible-based settlement in the Hartford area of Connecticut.
https://www.allabouthistory.org/history-of-yale.htm

Princeton was originally founded with the goal to train ministers and later branched into liberal arts and sciences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeton_University

The New-England Primer was the principal textbook of colonists and early Americans. And this book was based primarily on the Bible and is often called "the little Bible of New England".
The New England Primer was the first reading primer designed for the American colonies. It became the most successful educational textbook published in 17th-century colonial United States and it became the foundation of most schooling before the 1790s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_England_Primer

You can read the primer for yourself and see how much of it comes from the Bible:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/1777/

Post Reply