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

[TRANSPONDER]

Sargon in the bulrushes is a dead giveaway, isn't it? I think you have to ignore some telling clues to cling to your Eyewitness account belief.

As I mentioned in post 842, it all depends on which account was written first.

The legend of Sargon was written between 1200-700 BC, which is centuries after the time of Moses.

My mother the high priestess conceived me, bore me in secret,
~~in a reed basket she placed me, sealed my lid with bitumen.
She set me down on the river, whence I could not ascend;
~~the river bore me up, brought me to the irrigator Aqqi.
The irrigator Aqqi lifted me up as he dipped his pail,
~~the irrigator Aqqi brought me up as his adopted son.

Date: 1200-700 BC

http://www.etana.org/node/578

"A Neo-Assyrian text from the 7th century BC purporting to be Sargon's autobiography asserts that the great king was the illegitimate son of a priestess. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargon_of ... rth_legend

Since I believe the Torah was written in the 15th century BC, then it would predate the legend of Sargon. So, yes, it's a dead giveaway they liked the Moses story so much that they copied it.

That's on top of the archaeological indication that the Hebrews were still living in the hills at the time of the 18th dynasty

What hills are you referring to?

Egypt controlled Canaan, Gaza and Sinai at the time

Yes, Egypt had jurisdiction over Canaan during that time.

It's evident that the only reason to really think that Exodus is a reliable narrative is because you have a Faith -based need to do so.

Your conjecture of my motivation is immaterial. What really matters is the evidence, which I've provided pages of evidence that supports the Biblical narrative.

Cue 'What about my bias?

Yeah, it's obvious you have bias as well.

More and more Knocks - Kenyon's discovery that Jericho's wall did not fall

I'll get to Kenyon's discovery later when we get to entering Canaan. But, suffice to say that her datings are questionable.

Finkelstein's argument that Israel did not exist in Canaan until after the 11th C BC,

What is his argument?

The contradictory situation shown by the Amarna letters and the Timnah ostracon

Amarna letters actually fit in well with the early date, but I would agree is problematic with the late dating.

of the 200 year gap between Senusrets' boy - adviser and the multicolored statesman in Avaris
forget about him leading the Hebrews' Exodus some forty years later , and the less said about Hatshepsut finding Moses in the Bulrushes when he'd be over 200 years old, the better.

I've never claimed (or even implied) there are 200 year gaps in ages, so the charge does not apply.

Bias is neither here nor there, it is (as you say) the evidence that matters. Your 'pages of evidence' amount to nothing at all. You have already effectively refuted your 'Torah was written 15th c BC' argument by accepting that it had to be redacted later. It makes little sense that the Assyrians or Babylonians copied the Moses story and made it the Bio of an Akkadian king. And you ignore the anachronism of Philistia which is not just an anachronistic name but anachronistic situation. The evidence indicated the Exodus was written later, not glossed or redacted later.

"Amarna letters actually fit in well with the early date, but I would agree is problematic with the late dating." I have already mentioned that the Amarna letters would fit with Canaan as the conquest starts, which would fit with the Exodus at the time of the earlier 18th dyn. kings.

"I've never claimed (or even implied) there are 200 year gaps in ages, so the charge does not apply."

This is either stupid or dishonest and you can save yourself the trouble of waving the 'personal attack' card. That YOU haven't brought up the 200 year gap is idiotic because I've brought that up and you are the one trying to evade or excuse it. It is either your failure to comprehend the argument (and I think you are smarter than that) or such a clumsy attempt at evasion that it is effective dishonesty. Again, don't think of pulling rank by telling me not to be personal - this is a really clumsy piece of misdirection and everyone is looking at you doing it. It hurts you, your credibility and your Faith and supports my point about your bias. I don't believe that I have ever done worse than got confused about the presented evidence or tried to make 'the best case' out of the evidence.

I'm no Mod; you are, but

Do not engage in clumsy attempts at evasion or misdirection.

Really Chum, I'm saying this out of respect for a tough and resourceful opponent and you should be better than that, as well as not wasting my time with such stuff. Don't do it, really.

Of course, Kenyon and Finkelstein have to argue their case that the walls of Jericho did not suddenly tumble and that the Israelites came down from the Northeast hills with the other Amorite tribes. I have explained this before, but I don't mind doing it again. I don't believe that Kenyon's findings have been overturned, and Finkelstein's argument relies on some hut - circles in the hills as well as Israel archaeology of 11th -10th c BC. I can see that a few hut circles does not debunk the Bible but to you your argument, 'it fits', with a scenario of no Exodus but an emergence from the Northeast post 11th c BCE along with Edom and Ammon.

[otseng]

You have already effectively refuted your 'Torah was written 15th c BC' argument by accepting that it had to be redacted later.

What I believe is the Torah was written by Moses around mid 15th century BC and a small percentage of it has been redacted at a later point in time. This is different than the entire Bible was written during post-Exilic times.

It makes little sense that the Assyrians or Babylonians copied the Moses story and made it the Bio of an Akkadian king.

This would not be the only thing other cultures copied. I'll get into those later.

And you ignore the anachronism of Philistia which is not just an anachronistic name but anachronistic situation.

It could be anachronistic and another example of redaction. I'm not convinced what it all really means, but I have some theories and will post later about the Philistines.

I don't believe that Kenyon's findings have been overturned

I'll post about that later.

Finkelstein's argument relies on some hut - circles in the hills as well as Israel archaeology of 11th -10th c BC.

How is this evidence that "Israel did not exist in Canaan until after the 11th C BC"?

[otseng]

Exod 7:1-4 (ESV)
1 And the LORD said to Moses, "See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron shall be your prophet.
2 You shall speak all that I command you, and your brother Aaron shall tell Pharaoh to let the people of Israel go out of his land.
3 But I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt,
4 Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.

The Egyptians worshipped a pantheon of gods and the plagues were a confrontation between Yahweh and the deities of Egypt.

Num 33:4
On their gods also the LORD executed judgments.

We do not know exactly how many gods they worshipped, but it's at least 1500 deities.

"Egypt had one of the largest and most complex pantheons of gods of any civilization in the ancient world."
https://www.britannica.com/list/11-egyp ... -goddesses

These gods and goddesses appear in virtually every aspect of ancient Egyptian civilization, and more than 1,500 of them are known by name. Many Egyptian texts mention deities' names without indicating their character or role, while other texts refer to specific deities without even stating their name, so a complete list of them is difficult to assemble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Egyptian_deities

The plagues were a demonstration that Yahweh was more powerful than all the Egyptian gods.

Exod 7:5
The Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I stretch out my hand against Egypt and bring out the people of Israel from among them."

Exod 18:11
Now I know that the Lord is greater than all the gods; because in the very thing in which they were proud, he proved to be above them.

In addition, through the plagues, the Hebrews will also know he is their God.

Exod 6:7
I will take you to be my people, and I will be your God, and you shall know that I am the LORD your God, who has brought you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

There were ten plagues that struck the Egyptians. In Hebrew thought, ten represents "complete". So, it carries a symbolic meaning of a complete judgment against all their gods.

"Ten - Divine order, completed cycle, measure, or group (congregation) whether for good or evil, blessing or judgment."
https://graceintorah.net/2015/06/15/heb ... bers-1-10/

"Now ten is a number marking shelemut, or completion and order"
https://www.hebrew4christians.com/Gramm ... d/yod.html

First plague - Nile river

Exod 7:17
Thus says the LORD, "By this you shall know that I am the LORD: behold, with the staff that is in my hand I will strike the water that is in the Nile, and it shall turn into blood.

The Nile river was the life blood of the Egyptians.

The famous Greek historian Herodotus summarized the importance of the river to the Egyptians by saying "Egypt is the gift of the Nile".

https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/89 ... f-the-Nile

This plague was also against Hapi, the god of the Nile.

Hapi (Ancient Egyptian: ḥʿpy) was the god of the annual flooding of the Nile in ancient Egyptian religion. The flood deposited rich silt (fertile soil) on the river's banks, allowing the Egyptians to grow crops.[1] Hapi was greatly celebrated among the Egyptians. Some of the titles of Hapi were "Lord of the Fish and Birds of the Marshes" and "Lord of the River Bringing Vegetation". Hapi is typically depicted as an androgynous figure with a big belly and large drooping breasts, wearing a loincloth and ceremonial false beard.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hapi_(Nile_god)

Hapi was also mentioned in the Pyramid Texts as a destructive power, but one that worked for the pharaoh. As a water god, Hapi was a deity of fertility - he provided water, food and the yearly inundation of the Nile.

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/hapi.htm

Hapi (Hep, Hap, Hapy) was a water and fertility god who was popular throughout Ancient Egypt. It is thought that his name was originally the predynastic name for the Nile. However, by the Dynastic period the Nile was known as “iterw” (“the river”) and the word was used to refer to the god of the Nile (the name “Nile” derives from the Greek word “Neilos” which was a corruption of the Egyptian word “nwy”, meaning “water”).

https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/hapi/

In the New Kingdom, when Osiris's death and renewal came to be associated with the annual flooding of the Nile which fertilised Egypt, the waters of the Nile were equated with Isis's tears of mourning[40] or with Osiris's bodily fluids.[41] Osiris thus represented the life-giving divine power which was present in the river's water and in the plants that grew there after the flood.[42]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiris_myth

In this plague, the Egyptian magicians were able to replicate this.

Exod 7:21-22 (KJV)
21 And the fish that [was] in the river died; and the river stank, and the Egyptians could not drink of the water of the river; and there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.
22 And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the LORD had said.

Second plague - Frogs

Exod 8:2
But if you refuse to let them go, behold, I will plague all your country with frogs.

This plague was against Heqet, the goddess of fertility.

Heqet (Egyptian ḥqt, also ḥqtyt "Heqtit"), sometimes spelled Heket, is an Egyptian goddess of fertility, identified with Hathor, represented in the form of a frog. To the Egyptians, the frog was an ancient symbol of fertility, related to the annual flooding of the Nile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heqet

The magicians were also able to replicate this plague.

Exod 8:6-7 (KJV)
6 And Aaron stretched out his hand over the waters of Egypt; and the frogs came up, and covered the land of Egypt.
7 And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt.

Pharaoh hardened his heart (made his heart heavy) after this.

Exod 8:15 (KJV)
15 But when Pharaoh saw that there was respite, he hardened his heart, and hearkened not unto them; as the LORD had said.

[Tcg]

This is either stupid or dishonest and you can save yourself the trouble of waving the 'personal attack' card. That YOU haven't brought up the 200 year gap is idiotic because I've brought that up and you are the one trying to evade or excuse it. It is either your failure to comprehend the argument (and I think you are smarter than that) or such a clumsy attempt at evasion that it is effective dishonesty.

Moderator Comment

This is quite a string of both personal and uncivil comments. Please address the subject rather than relying on insults.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[brunumb]

[Replying to otseng in post #1023]

There are some perfectly natural explanations for the so-called biblical plagues of Egypt. Given that the account was written at a time when nature was generally regarded as being under the control of the gods, it's no wonder the events were co-opted into a religious text such as the Bible.

The Science of the 10 Plagues
By Live Science Staff published April 12, 2017
https://www.livescience.com/58638-scien ... agues.html

The ten plagues of Egypt
7 January 2019
Stephen Mortlock asks if the 10 plagues of Egypt were the result of an ecological domino effect or divine intervention?
https://thebiomedicalscientist.net/scie ... gues-egypt

The natural explanations have more credibility as far as I am concerned.

[Diogenes]

What I believe is the Torah was written by Moses around mid 15th century BC and a small percentage of it has been redacted at a later point in time. This is different than the entire Bible was written during post-Exilic times.

This is a belief in tradition over scholarship.

... the systematic study of the five books led the majority of scholars to conclude that they are the product of multiple authors throughout many centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosaic_authorship

The books do not name any author, as authorship was not considered important by the society that produced them, and it was only after Jews came into intense contact with author-centric Hellenistic culture in the late Second Temple period that the rabbis began to find authors for their scriptures.

ibid
Well... it looks like personal opinion versus the weight of scholarship.

Mosaic authorship is simply not Biblical. Also, it does not make any sense. Creation myths and the flood myth predate the time of Moses; they were clearly stories from Sumerian culture, adapted for Hebrew history.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is either stupid or dishonest and you can save yourself the trouble of waving the 'personal attack' card. That YOU haven't brought up the 200 year gap is idiotic because I've brought that up and you are the one trying to evade or excuse it. It is either your failure to comprehend the argument (and I think you are smarter than that) or such a clumsy attempt at evasion that it is effective dishonesty.

Moderator Comment

This is quite a string of both personal and uncivil comments. Please address the subject rather than relying on insults.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Well, that is disappointing. Instead of taking on board a legitimate request for you not to twist my arguments and not waste all our time, you pull moderator rank. Well I think it discredits you rather than me. And your post about various gods and more than vague resemblances to something in the Moses story. I'll address relevant points, but not stuff like that.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to otseng in post #1023]

There are some perfectly natural explanations for the so-called biblical plagues of Egypt. Given that the account was written at a time when nature was generally regarded as being under the control of the gods, it's no wonder the events were co-opted into a religious text such as the Bible.

The Science of the 10 Plagues
By Live Science Staff published April 12, 2017
https://www.livescience.com/58638-scien ... agues.html

The ten plagues of Egypt
7 January 2019
Stephen Mortlock asks if the 10 plagues of Egypt were the result of an ecological domino effect or divine intervention?
https://thebiomedicalscientist.net/scie ... gues-egypt

The natural explanations have more credibility as far as I am concerned.

That's always a possibility, of course. But, in view of the clues that the whole story was concocted later as part of a Hebrew origin -story, I wonder whether any of it happened in any form, natural or miraculous. It's like the Flood; various explanations can be suggested from the miraculous (Genesis) to the pseudo-scientific (Hydroplate theory or Ice -sphere theory) to mythologisation of a real event, such as the Black Sea Flood. But taking the clue of a Babylonian borrowing, I doubt that the story is based on any actual event, but merely borrowed the Babylonian myth (derived through a couple of versions), from Sumer. It is something of a personal pet theory, but I rather like the story that the Jews in Exile in Babylon with the books of the Law, and some of the histories, decided to produce an origin - story showing that they were directly descended from the first man, and showing that they had the right to rule over all the rival tribes (1). The adaptation of the Flood and Ark as well as the the adaptation of the story of Sargon of Akkad as the story of Moses (more likely that otseng's explanation of them copying it from the Bible - why would they apply the story to some ancient king? It is more likely that the story already existed and the Hebrews writing a later tale used it, just as they used the Babylonian Flood) again points to a Babylonian origin of the story as does (of course) the ziggural of Babel, turned into that absurd story of the origin of all languages.

I just add to that the idea that they used an exeant account of the Hyksos being driven out of Egypt by Ahmose, and turned it into them being led by Moses out of Egypt. I already mentioned that the context of avoiding Philistia (not just glossing the place -name later on as otseng suggests) is evidence that the story has to be later than the time the Philistines were settled in Gaza. The story simply cannot work in the 18th dynasty context.

So all in all, I am disinclined to credit any of Genesis and Exodus as relating to real events, except the garbled story of the Hyksos being kicked out of Egypt. Thus, there is no need to search for any natural explanation of the plagues. Just my take on it, of course.

as a p.s I have a rather jaundiced view of the 'natural explanation' of Bible miracles. It's like those attempts to explain Matthew's silly natal star as a nova, or comet or a conjunction of planets. Not only does that make it even more unlikely that Chaldean magi would interpret that as a Judean royal birth, let alone that they would want to go and pay homage (not long before, the Persians had occupied the country) to a Herodian prince, but it dignifies a mythological tale with a veneer of validity that it doesn't deserve. I feel the same about the plagues of Egypt. Sure, it does delete the miraculous element, but it does make it seem that it actually happened, and I truly doubt that any of it did.

(1) Esau being swindled out of his birthright and the rival tribes being descended from Lot's drunken incest with his daughters. I recall one of those eponymous ancestors being roundly told that they were fit only to be Israel's slaves.

[Diogenes]

as a p.s I have a rather jaundiced view of the 'natural explanation' of Bible miracles.

I agree with this, generally. I think it more likely that writers used natural events that happened at different times and places to add a supernatural 'God did it' to their stories to give them the appearance of divine authority. They may have even, sometimes, believed their own baloney.

[TRANSPONDER]

as a p.s I have a rather jaundiced view of the 'natural explanation' of Bible miracles.

I agree with this, generally. I think it more likely that writers used natural events that happened at different times and places to add a supernatural 'God did it' to their stories to give them the appearance of divine authority. They may have even, sometimes, believed their own baloney.

That's a creditable suggestion. After all, I'm suggesting that the writers of Genesis and Exodus borrowed some existing material and reworked it to suit themselves and their narrative. That's not requiring me to credit the Bible of course, any more than accepting the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem requires me to accept that God smote Sennacherib's army, or the historical reality of the census of Quirinius requires me to accept that this was the reason Joseph went to Bethlehem (1). The Genesis writers would use older myths as a peg to hang their narrative on, as in the use of the older Ark and Flood myths and borrowing (or so I argue) the origins of Sargon of Akkad for the origins of Moses.

It's also been observed that the star and Magi might have been derived from the Mithras story with a star, a cave and three hooded figures. However, I have to consider that a tall story can just be concocted if a narrative is required. Mind, the 10 plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea might have some unknown origin, perhaps mythological, perhaps based on some sort of actual event. I can just imagine a writer concocting a trek into Sinai (which neither the Hebrews in the 18th or even 19th dynasty would need to do, and the Hyksos even less) might have to explain how they crossed the Red Sea and so invented a miracle, and that parted Sea acting like a trap to destroy the pursuit was too good to miss. I'm inclined to opt for concoction rather than adaptation.

(1) which is so improbable (near to impossible) as to be more likely an event used as a pretext to wangle Joseph and Mary into Bethlehem, since Galilee was under Roman Rule and the Tax wouldn't apply to them and even if it did they'd register in Capernaum (since probably Nazareth didn't even exist) rather than traipse off to some ancestral city.