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

[Diogenes]

....
If a naturalistic explanation is the best explanation, then of course the naturalistic explanation should be preferred. However, if there is no naturalistic explanation that is viable, then a supernatural explanation should be preferred.
....
Nobody is saying we should abandon science.

You're not saying it. Your approach IS the abandonment of science. Using scientific conclusions only when they agree with your preconceptions is not science. Claiming that if we don't yet have a solid scientific explanation of a phenomenon, we should ASSUME a supernatural one reveals an anti-science bias; that science is only useful if it supports a theory about a being no one has ever seen, heard, touched, or otherwise observed, and that this 'being' can violate all the laws of the universe on a whim is exactly the same as proposing miniature, invisible squirrels running on a tiny, invisible treadmill make the hands of a clock move, in the absence of knowledge of how a clock actually works.

PRESUMING a supernatural explanation is also statistically absurd because we have thousands, if not millions of phenomena that were once attributed to gods. And now 99% of them have natural explanations. So, if we don't yet have a precise, natural explanation the PRESUMPTION should be for another natural explanation.

When 100% of the explanations we so far have for mysteries, has turned out to be naturalistic,
why jump to the conclusion "Well, the next unexplained thing MUST have been done by God?"
That is what is silly.
For example, right now in the news there's an investigation of a school in NJ that has a much greater incidence of brain tumors than expected.
https://www.today.com/health/health/107 ... -rcna24973
But they haven't yet figured out why. So, according to your presumption, we should assume a supernatural cause like demons, rather than assume there is a local carcinogen.

... and yes, we have been down these roads before, including the overwhelming support of evolution as not just a theory, but something we can refer to as fact as certainly as we accept the Earth as round.

"There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established."

__ Nobel Prize–winning American biologist Hermann J. Muller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_ ... _evolution

[TRANSPONDER]

Correct. This is the old and basic logical error that theist apologist habitually make: assuming the God (Bible) explanation to be the default.

As you observe, the naturalistic/material/scientific explanations (which do not show any spoor or print of a god) have surely earned it the default. Thus a naturalistic explanation is the default choice even if the explanation isn't to hand.That is, it is valid for science to say 'We trust that the evidence will be forthcoming some day'. Because it so often has been.

Now Biblegod apologists do this, to o(1) . And it stems from the assumption that what they believe is true until proven false. And I reckon it has been amply demonstrated that all they need to do is dismiss the secularist case (with varying degrees of validity) and that leaves them with the win.

It doesn't but Faithbased apologetics makes them think that it does.

(1) "There is probably some reason for this, even though I can't come up with anything." Though the Bible - apologists are rarely at a loss to make up some Hypothesis which (of course ) is valid until 100% disproven. And do I need to point up what happens when this kind of cult -think becomes the mindset of a political party?

[otseng]

There are examples in the Old Testament where anachronisms exist. That is, words and ideas are used that would not have been correct at that point in time and are only relevant much later. Michael Grisanti proposes the Old Testament texts, in particular the Torah, have updated certain text so contemporary readers could understand it better. His paper is Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The OT Canon: The Place Of Textual Updating In An Inerrant View Of Scripture
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ ... santi.html

Some examples he points out:

1. In Gen 14:14, the city of Dan is referred to, which at that time would've been known as Laish.

Gen 14:14-318 (ESV)
14 When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

"It is customarily identified with Tell el Qadi. This ancient city was known as Laish in the Egyptian execration texts and Mari texts.[15] The city of Dan received its name in the settlement period when the Danite tribe migrated north and conquered the city of Laish (Gen 14:14)/Leshem (Josh 19:47-48). Consequently, it appears that this place did not receive the name of Dan until after the Mosaic period (Judg 18:29).[16]"

Other examples of place names used in Gen 14 that could also be anachronistic.

Gen 14:2 "Bela (Zoar)"
Gen 14:3 "the valley of Siddim (the Salt Sea)"
Gen 14:7 "En-mishpat (Kadesh)"
Gen 14:8 "Bela (Zoar)"
Gen 14:17 "the valley of Shaveh (the Kings Valley)"

2. The death of Moses.

Deut 34:5 (ESV)
5 So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD,

"An unnamed prophetic figure added ch. 34 sometime after Moses completed his work on the Pentateuch."

3. Reference to the Chaldeans.

Gen 11:28 (ESV)
28 Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans.

"The Chaldeans did not become contenders for the Babylonian throne until the middle of the eighth century BC. Consequently, the expression "of the Chaldees" could represent a scribal gloss supplied to distinguish Abraham's Ur from other cities carrying the same name."

4. The phrase "until this day", "to this day", "you are this day" are used in several places.

"The expression ... often occurs to direct the attention of the audience to an event whose impact is still obvious."

Gen 26:33 (KJV)
33 And he called it Shebah: therefore the name of the city is Beer-sheba unto this day.

Gen 32:32 (KJV)
32 Therefore the children of Israel eat not [of] the sinew which shrank, which [is] upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank.

Gen 47:26 (KJV)
26 And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part; except the land of the priests only, which became not Pharaoh's.

Deut 2:22 (KJV)
22 As he did to the children of Esau, which dwelt in Seir, when he destroyed the Horims from before them; and they succeeded them, and dwelt in their stead even unto this day:

Deut 3:14 (ESV)
14 Jair the Manassite took all the region of Argob, that is, Bashan, as far as the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites, and called the villages after his own name, Havvoth-jair, as it is to this day.)

Deut 4:20 (AMP)
20 But the Lord has taken you and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt, to be to Him a people of His own possession, as you are this day.

Deut 11:4 (ESV)
4 and what he did to the army of Egypt, to their horses and to their chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued after you, and how the LORD has destroyed them to this day,

Deut 29:4 (KJV)
4 Yet the LORD hath not given you a heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.

Deut 29:28 (ESV)
28 and the LORD uprooted them from their land in anger and fury and great wrath, and cast them into another land, as they are this day.'

Deut 34:6 (KJV)
6 And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Beth-peor: but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day.

5. Parenthetical comment of Deut 2:10-12

Deut 2:10-12 (ESV)
10 ( The Emim formerly lived there, a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim.
11 Like the Anakim they are also counted as Rephaim, but the Moabites call them Emim.
12 The Horites also lived in Seir formerly, but the people of Esau dispossessed them and destroyed them from before them and settled in their place, as Israel did to the land of their possession, which the LORD gave to them.)

This passage has several comments that would've taken place much later, such as referring to the land that was given to Israel.

6. Parenthetical comment of Deut 3:11

Deut 3:11 (ESV)
11 (For only Og the king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim. Behold, his bed was a bed of iron. Is it not in Rabbah of the Ammonites? Nine cubits was its length, and four cubits its breadth, according to the common cubit.)

Based on these examples (and more in Grisanti's paper), there are a number of textual evidence the text has been modified/added after Moses wrote the Torah after the Exodus. The text is targeted for a later period to read past events in a manner for them to understand it.

A modern example of this is all the translations we have now. Biblical text is modified so that modern readers can understand what the original text means.

[TRANSPONDER]

What are the evidences that the original text was altered so that the people at the time could understand which places were meant, as distinct from that was the way it was originally written?

Take the anachronism of the land of the Philistines. The situation (wars) that causes Moses to avoid it and enter Sinai is anachronistic, given that Egypt (in the early 18th dynasty) controlled all that area makes that reason to avoid it anachronistic in itself, never mind the place -name. Together with the clues of Babylonian borrowings, doesn't that suggest that it (Genesis and Exodus) was all written that way originally?

[Diogenes]

There are examples in the Old Testament where anachronisms exist. That is, words and ideas are used that would not have been correct at that point in time and are only relevant much later. Michael Grisanti proposes the Old Testament texts, in particular the Torah, have updated certain text so contemporary readers could understand it better. His paper is Inspiration, Inerrancy, And The Ot Canon: The Place Of Textual Updating In An Inerrant View Of Scripture
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_ ... santi.html
....
Based on these examples (and more in Grisanti's paper), there are a number of textual evidence the text has been modified/added after Moses wrote the Torah after the Exodus. The text is targeted for a later period to read past events in a manner for them to understand it.

A modern example of this is all the translations we have now. Biblical text is modified so that modern readers can understand what the original text means.

The effect of Grisanti's work is to support exactly the opposite of what he claims he is doing; that is, he provides examples that show the Bible text is NOT inerrant and was changed many times by men.

It is my opinion that “inspired textual
updating,” as described by Grisanti, poses a significant problem for those who espouse
biblical inerrancy and infallibility.

__ William D. Barrick* in "A Brief Examination of So-Called “Inspired Textual Updating”
https://drbarrick.org/files/papers/othe ... gPart1.pdf

Faced with the obvious textual changes, inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, failed prophesies, and human changes in the Old Testament, Grisanti and others explain this away by claiming all changes were supernaturally supervised by God.

I wholeheartedly endorse the commonly held evangelical view of both theological concepts and do not question that God superintended the entire process of inscripturation with the result that the OT Scriptures were God-breathed. Those Scriptures are without error, infallible, and fully reliable.

__ Grisanti, ibid

This is typical evangelical technique. All errors, changes, and problems are 'solved' by application of at least two devices:
1. Mental and verbal gymnastics to make the text mean something different than the plain text, and
2. God somehow supernaturally (read 'magically) aided each reviser/editor while he changed the text so it was done perfectly and without error.

___________________
*https://drbarrick.org/author/drbarrick/

[otseng]

What are the evidences that the original text was altered so that the people at the time could understand which places were meant, as distinct from that was the way it was originally written?

The primary evidence is the internal evidence. It's written in a style that makes it appear it's written in a narrative form of past events and sprinkled in with comments from a later perspective (eg. the phrase "until this day" and the parenthetical comments of Deut 2:10-12 and Deut 3:11). And as far as I can tell, this later editing is primarily from the Torah, so it would make sense if the Torah was written much earlier than the rest of the Tanakh.

Take the anachronism of the land of the Philistines.

It could be another case of redaction as I mentioned earlier.

The effect of Grisanti's work is to support exactly the opposite of what he claims he is doing; that is, he provides examples that show the Bible text is NOT inerrant and was changed many times by men.

I agree with his analysis that supports text have been edited/added later. And I agree with you that it does not fit in with an inerrantist view of the Bible.

[otseng]

If either of you is interested, the Internet Archive has a scan of a book-length monograph discussing the personal names found in the Amarna tablets.

One problem with interpreting who influenced who is which dating is used, either the early date or the late date of Exodus. With the early date, the Israelites would have already entered Canaan when the Amarna letters were written. With the late date, the Amarna letters would've been written before the Israelites entered Canaan.

As mentioned earlier, there are actually two dates proposed for the timing of all the events in Egypt, the early dating and the late dating.

"Fixing the date of the exodus has proven to be one of those contentious areas of biblical study that has produced two opposing views."
http://www.crivoice.org/exodusdate.html

I've been using the early dating and I believe it fits best with the Biblical account and archaeological evidence.

The late dating puts the time of entering Egypt around 1650 BC and leaving Egypt around 1270 BC. This compares with the early dating of 1876 BC entering Egypt and 1446 BC leaving Egypt.

There are several lines of argument for the late dating.

One is Exodus 1:11 that refers to Rameses.

Exod 1:11 (KJV)
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.

Though Rameses refers to a city and not the Pharaoh, it is assumed the Pharaoh referred to is Raamses II, who ruled from 1279-1213 B.C.

However, there is no archaeological evidence linking Rameses II with the Bible.

"Ramesses II, however, left the most extensive and exacting records of any Egyptian monarch – there is literally no ancient site in Egypt which does not mention his name – and nowhere does he make any mention of Israelite slaves nor any of the events given in Exodus."
https://www.worldhistory.org/Pi-Ramesses/

According to the early dating, the Hebrews have long settled in Canaan at this point. So, it makes sense according to the early dating why there is no archaeological evidence of the Israelites in Egypt during the time of Ramesses II.

As for the cities mentioned in Ex 1:11, there is no consensus where is Pithom.

"Multiple references in ancient Greek, Roman, and Hebrew Bible sources exist for this city, but its exact location remains somewhat uncertain."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pithom

The city of Rameses (Pi-Ramesses) did exist and it was actually just next to the ancient city of Avaris.

"Pi-Ramesses (/pɪərɑːmɛs/; Ancient Egyptian: Per-Ra-mes(i)-su, meaning "House of Ramesses")[1] was the new capital built by the Nineteenth Dynasty Pharaoh Ramesses II (1279–1213 BC) at Qantir, near the old site of Avaris."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi-Ramesses

"After Ramesses II constructed the city of Pi-Ramesses roughly 2km to the north and "superseding Avaris",[14] large portions of the former site of Avaris were used by the inhabitants of Pi-Ramesses as a cemetery[15] and part of it was used as a major navy base,[16] while the "Harbor of Avaris" toponym continued to be used for Avaris' harbor through the Ramesside period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avaris

Also, throughout the Torah, Rameses is equated with the land of Goshen.

Gen 47:11
And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

Exo 12:37
And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children.

Num 33:3
And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.

I believe Rameses is later textual editing as I presented in post 1017. The original had the word Avaris when Moses wrote it. Later, Pi-Ramesses took over Avaris and the word was then replaced with Rameses so readers could identify it.

[TRANSPONDER]

What are the evidences that the original text was altered so that the people at the time could understand which places were meant, as distinct from that was the way it was originally written?

The primary evidence is the internal evidence. It's written in a style that makes it appear it's written in a narrative form of past events and sprinkled in with comments from a later perspective (eg. the phrase "until this day" and the parenthetical comments of Deut 2:10-12 and Deut 3:11). And as far as I can tell, this later editing is primarily from the Torah, so it would make sense if the Torah was written much earlier than the rest of the Tanakh.

Take the anachronism of the land of the Philistines.

It could be another case of redaction as I mentioned earlier.

The effect of Grisanti's work is to support exactly the opposite of what he claims he is doing; that is, he provides examples that show the Bible text is NOT inerrant and was changed many times by men.

I agree with his analysis that supports text have been edited/added later. And I agree with you that it does not fit in with an inerrantist view of the Bible.

I may be biased, but I'd still see it as having been entirely written afterwards to account for the points you mention rather than later editing to bring it up to (that later) date, and I repeat the built -in anachronism of avoiding Philistia and the hints of Babylonian sourcing weights the thing towards an Exilic date. Come on, mate; 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.

That's on top of the archaeological indication that the Hebrews were still living in the hills at the time of the 18th dynasty, Egypt controlled Canaan, Gaza and Sinai at the time, and you haven't really made a case for Hebrews in Egypt, as slaves or not. You've had to explain the Hebrews as a tribe within the Hyksos state in the Delta while still having a statue of Joseph in his 3 color coat being put up in Avaris (your excuse of it being a memorial hardly works, let alone he still had the Exodus to lead). It makes more sense that it's a Hyksos king, especially as Joseph would have died a century and a half before (if he was adviser to Senusret III), and is nothing to do with Hebrews, just as that cylinder - seal, despite that Talliss - wearing apologist you evidently copied from, it works better as a Hyksos seal than a Hebrew one.

It wabbles too much to have them ruling and making seals on documents when convenient and relegate them to just a part of the (evidently heathen) Hyksos when it suits you. 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.

Cue 'What about my bias? As I said before, I originally accepted an Exodus event. It had to be updated a bit to gloss over the magical stuff, but that was the fashion from my early days - make the Biblical fairy -tales work in mundane terms. Rivers of blood turned into rivers of red algae, a parting of the seas turned into wading ankle deep across a causeway and never mind why the chariots couldn't follow them; and of course the Flood was only local, which makes the Bible "true" even though in terms of God's intentions, it completely blows God and his Flood out of the water.

More and more Knocks - Kenyon's discovery that Jericho's wall did not fall, Finkelstein's argument that Israel did not exist in Canaan until after the 11th C BC, The contradictory situation shown by the Amarna letters and the Timnah ostracon, all called the Exodus into question, and while I won't claim to be the one who first thought of it (I just was ) The Philistia anachronism and the Moses/Ahmose connection pushes the burden of proof onto the Bible -believer to show that Exodus has supporting evidence. And, dude, you have virtually none.

Trying to wangle it into fitting isn't evidence, even if it does fit. It often doesn't, though you tried to wriggle out (playing the 'I don't get your point' gambit ) 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.

It really doesn't work, even if one dearly wants it to. It amounts to Faith -based denial of how the evidence really looks. But then I would imagine the majority of the people (even those who don't follow the Bible) still believe that the Exodus really happened. Just as they believe that Nativity was real. Dude...the people have to be disabused of so much rubbish the Bible -believers have taught them.

[TRANSPONDER]

A bit of a P.S.

I had a look at that linked source (Biblical apologist as one would expect) and it is at best trying to be honest but can't help the bias or is crafty in pretending to be objective ...

"Some still contend that the Bible is absolutely inerrant in all matters, and therefore must be absolutely accurate in all aspects of historical accounts (see The Modern Inerrancy Debate). They argue that if we could just find more evidence we would be able to prove the biblical accounts. Others conclude that the Bible is simply not always a totally reliable account of "what really happened" from the perspective of modern historical criteria since that was never its intent. There is also consideration of differing worldviews, of different cultural perspectives, and of different ways of describing the world that may not correspond to our modern assumptions and categories. It is this difference in perspectives that continues to mark the two opposing poles in several historical questions in Scripture, including the date of the exodus."

but then gets into a string of evasive excuses..

Excuses of the 'The Bible is not intended to be History' or 'They wrote differently back then' ilk. Which would mean that nobody could rely on a thing the Bible says, but that would at least enable the Faithful to scrape a draw and avoid a debunk, so they could revert to 'I can't prove it, but nobody can disprove it', which is all that Faith needs. Though it actually means that 'without good evidence disbelief is mandated'. But the Believers never understand that. Of course the Bible exists as 'evidence' but by now it is wide open to question (or should be) and assuming it is true until 100% debunked will no longer wash. The burden of proof on the Bible critic has been met, and it's the Bible that has to argue its' case.

I'll leave it to Difflugia to address your efforts to equate Goshen with Ramesses (the second, I suppose) in hopes to push this excuse of later editing to account for anachronisms. I'm just saying that we are familiar with just inventing stuff to wriggle out of problems, and also with the ploy of pretending that criticism of reasoning methods is a personal attack, so you won't think of playing that particular card, will you?

[otseng]

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.