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

[Mithrae]

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.

It seems that in the case of the bible, we know that it is not perfect and is not proof and therefore must suppose (if God had anything to do with it) that it is not God's intention to offer perfection or proof:

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?

But then in the case of direct communication from God the primary objection is, essentially, that it isn't perfect and isn't proof:

I'm not discounting the possibility of God speaking directly to people. And it certainly does happen. But on what basis can we judge what they say is true?

We have people coming all the time on this forum claiming to hear directly from God. Yet, on this forum, it has no place as evidence. It is subjective evidence in that it is based on one person's experience. It is not something we can judge if it's true or false. He or she could have heard from God, or just made it all up, or heard from whatever.

So it seems to me the question of what kind of communication is 'required' or is 'optimal' hinges on three questions:
- What purpose/s lie behind God's supposed communication with people?
- What kind of reliability/perfection/proof/objectivity is required for that purpose?
- Is that better matched by the bible or some other book or by direct communication?

For example if the purpose of God's communication were to encourage humanity to love one another, it wouldn't really be something requiring proof or objectivity, merely motivation and clarity, and one might suppose that a tome filled with tales of a deity committing and commanding genocide and slavery and eternal tortures would be more than a little counter-productive!

If the purpose of God's communication were to encourage worship and/or build a relationship with his creations, once again dry objectivity would hardly seem to be an important aspect of that communication and, again, would be rather counterproductive to place a material object, a book, between himself and those with whom he supposedly desires that relationship or worship.

On the other hand if the purpose of God's communication were to generate confusion and misunderstanding, to force humans to work it out for ourselves whether as some kind of ant-farm experiment or as some kind of learning process important to our development as individuals or as a species, then a tome full of diverse theologies and tales of dubious provenance might be exactly the sort of thing to include in the mix! Offhand, that's really the only scenario I can imagine in which a bible genuinely (even if only partly) inspired by God makes any real sense; and as I've noted earlier with reference to the achievements of Jewish academics and the spread of democracy through conversionary protestantism, one could argue that it's a potentially plausible scenario. However even in that scenario, the assumption that humans should never progress beyond that stage and should always look to that tome as a source of authority, would seem a little questionable - especially if that tome itself declares that there would come a time when the written code was no longer required!

[otseng]

When Paul asserted that ALL Scripture is to be uses for teaching/training, was Paul wrong?

Of course I believe that. That's what I'm trying to argue for in this thread. The Bible is authoritative for teaching and training in Christian life and doctrine.

Seeing it differently seems almost pedantic.

Unless, you mean god's 99.9% all powerful, but there's nothing 100% all powerful (which, again, is debatable).
So, if there's nothing more powerful (aka most powerful) it doesn't really matter: all powerful or most - there's nothing greater in power.

Yes, it's a bit pedantic, but I think it's crucial. Yes, I believe God is the most powerful. No, I do not believe God is all powerful. Is there a difference? There is if people start throwing in hypothetical situations that an all-powerful, perfect, omnipotent God should be able to do.

But then in the case of direct communication from God the primary objection is, essentially, that it isn't perfect and isn't proof:

It might be proof for the person who God spoke to, but certainly not proof for anyone else. We have these people all the time on this forum. People who claim to hear from God are convinced they have the truth. But, we don't accept that as evidence. I do find it odd that posters are now suggesting God directly speaking to people is the optimal way for God to convey his message when we don't accept that on this forum. I've yet to see anyone on this forum accept the testimony of a person saying he or she heard from God as acceptable evidence.

What I believe is more convincing is a written document that multiple people can attest to. An example of this is Wikipedia. It's not controlled by any official group and open to input from the general public. But we consider it pretty good evidence to use in arguments. Another example are peer reviewed articles. Because they have multiple people attesting to it, it carries more weight than an unreviewed article. In my line of work, any code written has to be reviewed by peers in order to make it into production. Because multiple people attest to the code, it's more likely to be better code.

On the other hand if the purpose of God's communication were to generate confusion and misunderstanding, to force humans to work it out for ourselves whether as some kind of ant-farm experiment or as some kind of learning process important to our development as individuals or as a species, then a tome full of diverse theologies and tales of dubious provenance might be exactly the sort of thing to include in the mix!

I believe one of the main purposes of the Bible is to learn how to have a relationship with God. I would hope Christians of all stripes would agree on this. I would also hope Christians agree the summary of the Bible is to love God and love others. Beyond that, yes, we have differences in theology.

In a way, the Bible is simple to understand. A child can understand the Bible. Yet, the message is also quite complex so that a PhD can study for a lifetime and still not understand. I do not believe God's intention is to make things obvious, rather I believe God's intention is to reward those who seek him. "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him." (Heb 11:6)

Offhand, that's really the only scenario I can imagine in which a bible genuinely (even if only partly) inspired by God makes any real sense; and as I've noted earlier with reference to the achievements of Jewish academics and the spread of democracy through conversionary protestantism, one could argue that it's a potentially plausible scenario.

Those two are good examples, though I believe there are also a few more contributions it has made to society. More on those later.

However even in that scenario, the assumption that humans should never progress beyond that stage and should always look to that tome as a source of authority, would seem a little questionable - especially if that tome itself declares that there would come a time when the written code was no longer required!

Not sure what you're referring to about it will no longer be required.

[Mithrae]

However even in that scenario, the assumption that humans should never progress beyond that stage and should always look to that tome as a source of authority, would seem a little questionable - especially if that tome itself declares that there would come a time when the written code was no longer required!

Not sure what you're referring to about it will no longer be required.

I mentioned some of these references in my earlier posts in the thread; it's a surprisingly consistent theme among several authors. Strictly speaking Paul suggests that an authoritative written code will not just be no longer required but actively, fatally detrimental:

• "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:5-6
  
  "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit." ~ Romans 7:6
  
  "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach one another or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." ~ Hebrews 8:10-11 quoting Jeremiah 31
  
  "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." ~ John 16:13
  
  "As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him." ~ 1 John 2:27

Apparently those authors were wrong in thinking that this new covenant of guidance from the Spirit had been fulfilled in the 1st century, since virtually all Christians since have turned for their primary guidance to either a written code or to a church hierarchy: But maybe they were at least partly right, and there should be a time when Christians put their Writings into context as interesting or sometimes even useful but ultimately not the real source of God's guidance for them?

But then in the case of direct communication from God the primary objection is, essentially, that it isn't perfect and isn't proof:

It might be proof for the person who God spoke to, but certainly not proof for anyone else. We have these people all the time on this forum. People who claim to hear from God are convinced they have the truth. But, we don't accept that as evidence. I do find it odd that posters are now suggesting God directly speaking to people is the optimal way for God to convey his message when we don't accept that on this forum. I've yet to see anyone on this forum accept the testimony of a person saying he or she heard from God as acceptable evidence.

As Diagoras has pointed out at length - and as Jeremiah, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews claimed - any God worthy of the name should be able to speak directly to dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of followers! Maybe that's why Jesus said that only a few would be chosen, because God can't handle communication with millions or billions of followers?

I don't actually know whether there is or isn't a God or how limited he is in his communication skills. What I do know with pretty high confidence is that if there were a deity even half as powerful as described in the bible, that kind of direct communication of the 'new covenant' would indeed be optimal for almost any purpose (some kind of ant-farm experimentation aside). I know that in the 21st century accepting the bible as evidence or a source of authority is extremely sub-optimal, to put it mildly, and causes millions of Christians to actively suppress their own reason, deny scientific facts and oppress their fellow humans under bronze- and iron-age worldviews. And I know that even if there isn't a God, or God is incapable of communicating directly with all her followers, it still can't be any worse for 21st century believers to search their own hearts and minds - their own conscience and reason - for whatever they consider worthy enough to maybe be divine guidance than to look for it in the opinions, propaganda and sometimes barbaric ideologies of more primitive peoples.

I believe one of the main purposes of the Bible is to learn how to have a relationship with God.

Rather than actually having a relationship with God? By analogy, if some parents dropped their children off with a foster family but left them with an anthology of old fables, risque poems, newspaper clippings and political propaganda from a range of sources as diverse as Confederate America to Churchill's Britain, that would be a viable approach to developing a relationship with their children?

[TRANSPONDER]

It looks like the argument any other culture or religion could make as a validation of their traditions, not so much because they are traditions but because their gods are supposed to be the authority behind them, and for me that's going too far, never mind claiming as a faith based belief something that is open to question.

No, we should not trust the Bible, because it is not just errant - any history or even science text -book may be - but because it is often demonstrably wrong and self -contradictory. And thus it should be subject to serious doubt and question and Faith should not be a basis for dismissing doubt and question out of hand as we have seen far too often. 'We cannot be 100% sure, so dismiss all the doubts and questions'. that's not how it should work.

[POI]

When Paul asserted that ALL Scripture is to be uses for teaching/training, was Paul wrong?

Of course I believe that. That's what I'm trying to argue for in this thread. The Bible is authoritative for teaching and training in Christian life and doctrine.

Paul asserts ALL Scripture. This means when Scripture speaks about Adam and Eve, a flood, the Exodus, slavery, women's oppression, etc; it's is all given by God. Which means it's all true. But is it?

Was there an actual Adam and Eve?
Was there an actual flood?
Was there an actual Tower of Babel?
Was there an Exodus from Egypt?
Is slavery moral?
Should women remain silent and not be allowed to lead men; especially in Church?
Is homosexuality an abomination?
etc etc etc....

Remember, the Bible is there to not only teach about morals, but also claimed physical events in human history.

Hence, your follow up answer here leaves one scratching their head?

[Diagoras]

One way would be discovering multiple identical copies of Genesis that had been written down independently in several different countries at the same time, <..>

And implicit in your answer is some written record would need to be available to communicate it with others.

If multiple independent cultures all around the world mention one common event, would you accept it to be true?

I’d accept it over a single culture’s multiple different copies of the same event (where the source documents don’t exist), yes.

Nuclear launch codes are also written down in order to be transmitted from one person to another.

Proving that ‘human-given’ writings are more reliable and trustworthy than ‘god-given’ ones.

Further, you'd then be 'closer to God' than you'd ever become from studying the Bible (however diligently).

I'd disagree with this, unless God is dictating to me the words of the Bible to me constantly.

Sorry, I’m skeptical. Would you know me better if I rang you up, rather than you reading my posts? It sounds as if the miraculous direct communication with your god is, for you, of less use than the reading of an interpretation of a translation of a copy of the committee-approved parts of an out-of-date collection of disparate materials.

Yes, I agree if more than one person's views agree, then there's a more likelihood they both heard from God and not just independently hallucinating.

Do you consider the number and likelihood to be directly correlated?

Yes and no. Yes, God can preserve and control. No, God doesn't have to preserve perfectly or control every natural disaster.

Control over only the environment of a few documents over a couple of thousand years is required. Easy for a god, wouldn’t you say?

Are you able to now answer the first part of my post - about the relative values of ‘Statement 1’ and ‘2’?

[otseng]

I mentioned some of these references in my earlier posts in the thread; it's a surprisingly consistent theme among several authors. Strictly speaking Paul suggests that an authoritative written code will not just be no longer required but actively, fatally detrimental:

• "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." 2 Corinthians 3:5-6
  
  "But now we are discharged from the law, dead to that which held us captive, so that we are slaves not under the old written code but in the new life of the Spirit." ~ Romans 7:6
  
  "This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach one another or say to each other, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest." ~ Hebrews 8:10-11 quoting Jeremiah 31
  
  "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own, but will speak whatever he hears, and he will declare to you the things that are to come." ~ John 16:13
  
  "As for you, the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and so you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, abide in him." ~ 1 John 2:27

I don't see how these verses support the position that the Bible is not applicable anymore.

2 Corinthians 3:5-6 is referring to the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. The Pharisees were a good example of following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law.

But woe unto you, Pharisees! for ye tithe mint and rue and all manner of herbs, and pass over judgment and the love of God: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. Luke 11:42

Jesus summed up the spirit of the law when he said:

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. Matt 22:37-40

Let's continue on with Romans 7:7-12:

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

So, you cannot just take Romans 7:6 out of context to show the law is just for something for the past. It is through the law we know we are sinners, so it's applicable to Paul's time as well as our time.

For the prophecy quoted in Hebrews 8, I'm not so sure it's referring to now since it says, "Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." Not everyone knows the Lord now (or even before), so it can't be fulfilled prophecy.

Don't see how John 16:13 refers in anyway to the Bible no longer being applicable. Yes, the Holy Spirit will guide us into truth, but that does not mean the Bible no longer is valid.

1 John 2:27 is not making a universal statement that the Bible is no longer needed to teach everyone. Just the verse before mentions why John wrote them. He is addressing false teachings that they have heard and to not waver. "These [things] have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you." 1 John 2:26.

As Diagoras has pointed out at length - and as Jeremiah, Paul, John and the author of Hebrews claimed - any God worthy of the name should be able to speak directly to dozens, hundreds, maybe even thousands of followers! Maybe that's why Jesus said that only a few would be chosen, because God can't handle communication with millions or billions of followers?

I do believe other cultures have had independent knowledge of God and other historical events in the Bible (such as the global flood).

One book that talks about this is The Discovery of Genesis: How the Truths of Genesis Were Found Hidden in the Chinese Language by C. H. Kang. He goes though many examples of how the early Chinese knew about YHVH and how it's recorded in the Chinese language.

For example, the character for boat is comprised of "eight", "people", and "vessel". This is descriptive of Noah's ark where 8 people entered the ark.



And he goes on with many other examples in the book.

Even in modern times, people are having dreams of Jesus without even heard of Jesus before.

For decades, a well-documented phenomenon has been occurring in the Muslim world—men and women who, without knowledge of the gospel, or contact among Christians in their community, have experienced dreams and visions of Jesus Christ. The reports of these supernatural occurrences often come from “closed countries” where there is no preaching of the good news and where converting to Christianity can invoke the death sentence. But these are more than just dreams. Setting them apart is the intense reality of the experience and the surrender of one’s heart and mind to Christ in the wake of the dream. A common denominator appears to be that the dreams come to those who are seeking—as best they can—to know and please God.

https://lausanneworldpulse.com/perspect ... 95/01-2007

So, yes, God has and does speak directly to other cultures and is not "limiited in his communication skills".

But, getting back to my point, the most objective evidence is written documentation that has been attested to by multiple people.

The Bible is best thought of as an anthology by multiple authors and not just a single (human) author. We have multiple people attesting to what God has done. And not only that, it has gone through a "verification" process in which only the books that has been de facto accepted has made it into the canon. Other religious texts have been written, but have not been considered to be in the top tier. There is also a continuum for this. Some books might not be considered canonical by some, but should be considered canonical by others. For example, I think the Didache should be canonical. And if the book of Revelation was not canonical, I would not get upset.

In the Old Testament and the New Testament, there are certain books which would be considered the core. The Pentateuch and the Gospels I believe would be universally accepted as the core books (esp since practically all Bibles places these in the very front of the OT and NT sections). The other books of the Bible would surround the core. And as we move farther from the core, it becomes more debateable if it should or should not be considered part of the Bible (Deuterocanonical books comes to mind).

By analogy, if some parents dropped their children off with a foster family but left them with an anthology of old fables, risque poems, newspaper clippings and political propaganda from a range of sources as diverse as Confederate America to Churchill's Britain, that would be a viable approach to developing a relationship with their children?

It would not. Fortunately the Bible is not that.

[otseng]

Paul asserts ALL Scripture. This means when Scripture speaks about Adam and Eve, a flood, the Exodus, slavery, women's oppression, etc; it's is all given by God. Which means it's all true. But is it?

Was there an actual Adam and Eve?
Was there an actual flood?
Was there an actual Tower of Babel?
Was there an Exodus from Egypt?
Is slavery moral?
Should women remain silent and not be allowed to lead men; especially in Church?
Is homosexuality an abomination?

I do believe Adam, global flood, etc to be literal events. But, there are true born-again Christians that love Jesus that do not believe these to be literal events. Are they still going to heaven? Yes. So, ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Christian takes these literally or figuratively.

[otseng]

Further, you'd then be 'closer to God' than you'd ever become from studying the Bible (however diligently).

I'd disagree with this, unless God is dictating to me the words of the Bible to me constantly.

Sorry, I’m skeptical. Would you know me better if I rang you up, rather than you reading my posts? It sounds as if the miraculous direct communication with your god is, for you, of less use than the reading of an interpretation of a translation of a copy of the committee-approved parts of an out-of-date collection of disparate materials.

I've never dismissed the value of God directly speaking to someone. What I am saying is my direct experience with God is not objective evidence for another person. It is only my opinion and my personal experience.

I spend significant time each day studying the Bible. So, in order to replace that if the Bible does not exist would require God to directly speak to me and for me to directly speak to God. Would that be the optimal way to communicate? Probably so, but that will only occur in heaven, not now. There's no requirement that everything should be ideal and perfect now. But, when there's a new heaven and a new earth, things would be much more ideal than now.

Control over only the environment of a few documents over a couple of thousand years is required. Easy for a god, wouldn’t you say?

Actually, I do believe God's hand has been over the development of the Bible, but like I've been saying, it doesn't have to mean it's perfect.

Another example is the Shroud of Turin. I happen to believe it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Has God protected it all these years? Yes, I believe God has. But, it has still been affected by fire and contamination.

Are you able to now answer the first part of my post - about the relative values of ‘Statement 1’ and ‘2’?

I'm trying to address everyone that has posted, but it's certainly possible for me to miss something. Can you be more specific about what is statement 1 and 2?

[POI]

Paul asserts ALL Scripture. This means when Scripture speaks about Adam and Eve, a flood, the Exodus, slavery, women's oppression, etc; it's is all given by God. Which means it's all true. But is it?

Was there an actual Adam and Eve?
Was there an actual flood?
Was there an actual Tower of Babel?
Was there an Exodus from Egypt?
Is slavery moral?
Should women remain silent and not be allowed to lead men; especially in Church?
Is homosexuality an abomination?

I do believe Adam, global flood, etc to be literal events. But, there are true born-again Christians that love Jesus that do not believe these to be literal events. Are they still going to heaven? Yes. So, ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Christian takes these literally or figuratively.

If you were to find out all the listed above did not happen, and if you also thought slavery and women's inequality was immoral, would you still believe? If so, why?