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

[Difflugia]

Not sure what you mean how much I've worked out. But, like I said, I'm on a journey and far from completing the path.

I guess I meant in the sense of a method or set of rules for deciding what kinds of statements are or must be true as opposed to those that aren't. That might not even be how you think about it, but that's how I do.

I don't think a fallible Bible is compatible with any sort of biblical authority.

Many people have this viewpoint, including many very smart people, both Christians and non-Christians. I realize my viewpoint is in an extreme minority, but I think my position is a reasonable position.

I might be splitting hairs over what you mean by "authority." I have no logical or theological problem with a genuine Christianity (or whatever) and a Bible that isn't inerrant, but if the Bible's not inerrant, then though it may serve to lead one to the authority (direct revelation, say), it cannot be the authority itself. While the problem with an errant authority isn't a logical objection in that God may decree the Bible to be our guide despite its errors, I think that makes God too capricious to square with Christian theology.

A major part of the problem is definitions and terminology. In this thread, I have not mentioned the terms fallible or infallible. Rather, I'm talking about inerrancy, and even more specifically inerrancy as defined by the Chicago statement. If we can address the issue of compatibility of authority while not being inerrant, then can address other issues such as infallibility.

According to the Chicago statement, inerrancy of scripture technically only applies to the autographs. It does not apply to any of our translations (or to any original language manuscript). And even what constitutes an autograph is not so clear. Since we do not have any of the autographs or even know what autographs refers to, what does it really mean to believe in inerrancy?

I have the same issue with the Chicago Statement that you do. The qualification about the autographs just seems like a dodge to me that turns inerrancy into a meaningless theological abstraction. It strikes me as the Calvinist "perseverance of the saints," in which no "truly regenerate" Christian may ever fall away, but it may appear that someone was saved and lost if they were never "really Christian." I get the theological reasoning behind perseverance of the saints and the necessity of somehow reconciling that with the reality of Christians that have fallen away, but does that have any practical meaning? With inerrancy, if a verse turns out to contain an irreconcilable error, that verse was just different in the autograph. It seems a way to maintain the illusion of a high view of Scripture, but building in an escape hatch for the times one is forced to face reality. It's a sophisticated form of the "motte-and-bailey" fallacy.

In another practical sense, there's also the issue of dealing with textual criticism. All modern Bibles and their source texts are the result of scholarly criticism and match no available source text. That was actually a big deal when the RV and ASV were published, but it's been water under the bridge for over a hundred years now. Anyone now that decides that textual criticism isn't OK at least in principle is pretty much stuck with KJV-only as the only practical alternative.

How did you arrive at these particular doctrinal conclusions if the Bible might not be inerrant?

Fundamentally, by choosing to believe in it. Yes, I know it's not an intellectually satisfying answer. But, perhaps later can get into more details about this.

If nothing else, I understand the concept of a theological gut-feeling.

Actually, I believe in a literal worldwide flood because empirical evidence points to it.

I emphatically disagree, but you've at least got the cart hitched up in the right direction.

I believe the Bible is a work written by humans with God involved through secondary causation and not primary causation. God used fallible people with their skills, intellect, personalities, weaknesses, limited memory to write down things. God did not create the Bible so that it'll be defect free and everything to be factually correct. The Bible is meant to learn about God, how to have a relationship with God, how to live, etc. It is the absolute standard for Christian doctrine and life. It is how we learn what God is like and how to love God. It is our comfort, hope and inspiration for life.

The model I currently view the Bible is like the sun. It has a core, but as you go farther out, it becomes less defined. It is not something that can be defined with clear boundaries. It is not like a rock where you can say this is part of the rock and not part of a rock. Like the sun is central to the solar system, it is central to the Christian faith and gives life and light. But, it is not something to be worshipped like we should not worship the sun.

I get that and it makes sense. The main problem I have is that I can't reconcile God being sort of half-involved in the Bible's composition. If the inspiration's literal, it says exactly what God wants it to say without error. If it's figurative, then it's no more authoritative than a love song. For me, that's a theological binary. As I said before, a lack of biblical authority doesn't remove the possibility of Christian revelation or even that the Bible's predominantly true, but it's no more or less an authority than Pilgrim's Progress, a copy of The Watchtower, or The Book of Mormon.

I don't, though, have a problem with allegorical fiction being inerrant in a meaningful sense, even if not in the "every statement," literal way that verbal inerrancy genuinely assumes. Matthew's infancy narrative, for example, paints Jesus as the new Moses. I have no problem with the idea that God inspired Matthew's inerrant Gospel even if Jesus and his family never set foot in Egypt. If people mistakenly think it's literal history, it's not Matthew's (or God's) mistake if it was meant allegorically. Even if Jesus had no earthly life, I don't think that wrecks Biblical inerrancy or Christianity. To be sure, I think there are other details that wreck both, but, perhaps oddly, not the idea that the New Testament is predominantly fiction in the modern sense.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a valid point. I know the Bible apologists will say that it's inspired by God een if the writers made mistakes, and it can be argued that it gives enough evidence about God and Jesus even if God had no input. But it's also a reasonable question that, if God knew how much doubt it would cause, why not see that it was inerrant?

[otseng]

It is kinda weird to note that some claims are dismissed as errant, while others are accepted as not.

Especially in light of supernatural claims.

Simply because a supernatural claim is made does not mean it could not have happened. Additional evidence and arguments will need to be presented to substantiate it, just like any claim that is made, whether it is a natural claim or a supernatural claim.

But it's also a reasonable question that, if God knew how much doubt it would cause, why not see that it was inerrant?

There is no indication God or Jesus ever set out to prove and remove doubt. As a matter of fact, what impressed Jesus were people who believed in the face of lack of evidence.

(As an aside, I'm not sure who you responded to. I assume you're responding to one of my posts. In the future, could you use the fa-mail-reply button when replying?)

[otseng]

I guess I meant in the sense of a method or set of rules for deciding what kinds of statements are or must be true as opposed to those that aren't. That might not even be how you think about it, but that's how I do.

I think it's the same as the principles of this forum. If any claim is made, evidence and logical arguments should be presented to back it up. Then we can decide for ourselves what is the truth. If statements are made in the Bible, then we should dig deeper and think about it and not just take it at face value.

We carry our own assumptions and perspective when we read the Bible. But it could be our viewpoints are wrong. For example, we assume God needs to have created a "perfect" book, but what if that assumption is wrong? Or we assume God needs to prove his existence. What if that assumption is wrong? We read the Bible with our modern scientific perspective that everything should be precise. But, this perspective did not exist when the Bible was written. We often read the Bible with a Greek (western) mentality, but the Old Testament was written with a completely different mentality, a Jewish (eastern) mentality.

We need to dig deeper to really know the Bible. Prov 25:2 says, "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings." To me, studying the Bible is like digging for gold in a mine. It takes work to chip away and dig. But, when you hit a gold nugget, it's worth the effort. And I think this is the way God intended it to be. 2 Tim 2:15 says, "Diligently study to show yourself approved unto God, a workman who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of the truth;"

One thing I've been doing is learning Greek and Hebrew to understand the Bible more. That has really been helpful to unlock the meanings of the text.

Studying the history of the origin of the Bible has also been enlightening and given greater understanding of the context of the books.

But with all this study, I feel like I'm just scratching the surface.

I might be splitting hairs over what you mean by "authority."

There are a few groups to address. The first are Christians. By faith, Christians should accept the Bible is authoritative. The second are skeptics. They do not need to accept the Bible as authoritative. The third are seekers. These accept God exists, but have a problem with accepting the Bible as something they can trust. I'll address this third group in future posts.

The qualification about the autographs just seems like a dodge to me that turns inerrancy into a meaningless theological abstraction. It strikes me as the Calvinist "perseverance of the saints," in which no "truly regenerate" Christian may ever fall away, but it may appear that someone was saved and lost if they were never "really Christian." I get the theological reasoning behind perseverance of the saints and the necessity of somehow reconciling that with the reality of Christians that have fallen away, but does that have any practical meaning?

I agree.

If the inspiration's literal, it says exactly what God wants it to say without error. If it's figurative, then it's no more authoritative than a love song.

I think it's more complex than a simple binary of either literal or figurative. It could also be both. Or it could even be neither.

As I said before, a lack of biblical authority doesn't remove the possibility of Christian revelation or even that the Bible's predominantly true, but it's no more or less an authority than Pilgrim's Progress, a copy of The Watchtower, or The Book of Mormon.

I'll get into arguments later why the Bible should be considered authoritative compared to other religious texts.

[JoeyKnothead]

It is kinda weird to note that some claims are dismissed as errant, while others are accepted as not.

Especially in light of supernatural claims.

Simply because a supernatural claim is made does not mean it could not have happened. Additional evidence and arguments will need to be presented to substantiate it, just like any claim that is made, whether it is a natural claim or a supernatural claim.

Our problem here is that not one single, solitary claim of the supernatural can be shown to be real.

But yeah, until we search under every rug in the universe, claims of supernatural stuff happening can't be disproven.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is kinda weird to note that some claims are dismissed as errant, while others are accepted as not.

Especially in light of supernatural claims.

Simply because a supernatural claim is made does not mean it could not have happened. Additional evidence and arguments will need to be presented to substantiate it, just like any claim that is made, whether it is a natural claim or a supernatural claim.

But it's also a reasonable question that, if God knew how much doubt it would cause, why not see that it was inerrant?

There is no indication God or Jesus ever set out to prove and remove doubt. As a matter of fact, what impressed Jesus were people who believed in the face of lack of evidence.

(As an aside, I'm not sure who you responded to. I assume you're responding to one of my posts. In the future, could you use the fa-mail-reply button when replying?)

Yes, though it's a valid point in any relevant discussion. The thing is; reasonably, God wants to save souls. So why allow a situation that fails to save so many because the evidence is so doubtful? Yes, I know that the Faithful will argue (have argued) that Faith without evidence and (even better) in spite of the evidence, is the sort of Faith that God is looking for. But even I can see that Knowing that God exists and that it is the God of one religion and book and no doubts about which, would inspire an unquestioning confidence that is surely what God wants. It would lead to Righteousness just as a knowledge of gravity (even without the science) stops us walking off cliff - edges because we know what will happen.

What could God possibly lose by removing all doubt? The 'evidence cancels out faith' excuse is just that - an excuse as to why the evidence is all against. God.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to otseng in post #42]


You said this (regarding inerrancy):

To Christians I'll say, it's OK. It's alright to throw away the belief of inerrancy; everything will still be the same. God is still on the throne and worthy of our trust and allegiance. Jesus is still Savior and Lord. The Holy Spirit still lives in us. The Bible is still authoritative and our rule in faith and practice. We should still keep the law. We should study the scriptures. Jesus rose from the dead. God created the cosmos. The flood was still a literal worldwide flood. Adam and Eve were real people. God's kingdom will be established. Jesus will judge all the nations.

You also said you were on a journey, and I do not want to get in your way, but perhaps on your journey you might keep something in mind (this is not an exact replica of your statement because some things might not be entirely accurate as written):

It is also ok to throw away the belief that the bible is the authority for Christians. God is still on His throne and (more than) worthy of our trust, faith, love, allegiance; Jaheshua (not "Jesus") is still Savior and Lord. He still gave His life and rose from the dead, God still created all things through Him, the flood was still a literal worldwide flood, Adam and Eve are real people. We should still keep the law - but the TRUE law which is written upon the heart of those in the new covenant - which law is LOVE (love is the law from God, from the beginning). We still have an authority: the TRUE Word of God, who is alive and sharper than any double edged sword. He (Christ Jaheshua) lives and teaches and leads His sheep into all truth.


** Going by the definition of authority that you gave here: viewtopic.php?p=986155#p986155



Peace again to you, and to your loved ones,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[otseng]

What could God possibly lose by removing all doubt? The 'evidence cancels out faith' excuse is just that - an excuse as to why the evidence is all against. God.

For one thing, I believe it's an impossible task. There is very little that can be proven without any doubt. This has been touched on in Why can't God be proven? Further debates on this can continue in that thread.

[otseng]

It is also ok to throw away the belief that the bible is the authority for Christians. God is still on His throne and (more than) worthy of our trust, faith, love, allegiance; Jaheshua (not "Jesus") is still Savior and Lord. He still gave His life and rose from the dead, God still created all things through Him, the flood was still a literal worldwide flood, Adam and Eve are real people. We should still keep the law - but the TRUE law which is written upon the heart of those in the new covenant - which law is LOVE (love is the law from God, from the beginning). We still have an authority: the TRUE Word of God, who is alive and sharper than any double edged sword. He (Christ Jaheshua) lives and teaches and leads His sheep into all truth.

This is a good segue into reasons for accepting the Bible as the authority for Christians.

Let's start with the assumption that theism is true. A person believes God exists and it interacts with mankind. Without some sort of written material, how would you know it is like? How would you even know about its characteristics? It would either be someone else told you or you heard from it, But, that would not be very objective. A book would be an objective way to transmit information. So, the best way for God to reveal specifics would be through some sort of book.

Without some universally accepted written document, there would be no basis of rule and cohesion. Suppose we play a game and we just make up the rules as we go along. It wouldn't really be much of a game. People can play a game together because the rules are codified. Countries (at least civilized ones) are governed and ruled by a codified set of laws. Without that, it would be anarchy. Companies are built on a business plan that founders and investors can agree on. Written documents are especially important as an organization gets large.

With a Bible, Christians in China and Christians in Africa can agree on things. Without it, there would be little basis for agreement. (Yes, I hear the skeptics pointing out Christians don't agree on everything. But, without a book, there certainly would be much more disagreements.) With a Bible, at least there's an agreed upon starting point for discussions.

Without a Bible, how would you even know there was an Adam and Eve? Or a worldwide flood? Or even about Jesus for that matter?

A book is also a good method to reliably transmit information. Oral communication is prone to errors, esp when when it has to span a large space and time.

So, at a minimum, some book is required. Whether it is the Bible is for further discussion.

[Diagoras]

Let's start with the assumption that theism is true. A person believes God exists and it interacts with mankind. Without some sort of written material, how would you know it is like? How would you even know about its characteristics? It would either be someone else told you or you heard from it, But, that would not be very objective. A book would be an objective way to transmit information. So, the best way for God to reveal specifics would be through some sort of book.

<bolding mine>

It's my understanding that tam does hear from Christ directly - given the 'theism is true' assumption above. Direct god to person interaction would be the most objective interaction, surely? And given a god's assumed omnipresence and omnipotence, direct interaction with everyone is possible.

Without some universally accepted written document, there would be no basis of rule and cohesion.

Do you not think that under the 'direct interaction model', rules and cohesion couldn't be managed by a god? If not, why not?

With a Bible, Christians in China and Christians in Africa can agree on things.

Direct interaction can achieve this just as easily, with the added benefit of knowing that their information source is identical - not just 'mostly similar'.

Without a Bible, how would you even know there was an Adam and Eve? Or a worldwide flood? Or even about Jesus for that matter?

God would be able to explain things a lot more clearly if he interacted directly with people. He could point archaeologists to incontrovertible evidence for the Flood, for instance.

A book is also a good method to reliably transmit information. Oral communication is prone to errors, esp. when it has to span a large space and time.

I agree it's a better method. But not inerrant.

So, at a minimum, some book is required. Whether it is the Bible is for further discussion.

I disagree. Starting from your initial assumptions, the optimal method for acquiring knowledge of a god would be to have that god impart it directly to whosoever required it.