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

[TRANSPONDER]

So, how can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?
Only by faith and want. No other way.

There will always be an element of faith, but it doesn't need to be blind faith.

As for the "errors", there are several possibilities to account for this.

One reason is we have on the wrong glasses. We read it from a modern Greek perspective, not a Jewish perspective. It's like you reading a Chinese book and saying it's all wrong. You have to dig a little deeper to understand the culture, audience, and mentality of the Chinese and not judge based on western modern culture. Also, just because our glasses makes things look skewed doesn't necessarily mean the Bible is skewed. Our modern assumptions of precision and accuracy did not exist in the minds of the authors. So, each account doesn't need to match up in all the details. It is anachronistic to place on them a modern standard that they did not and could not have. Now, it's entirely possible to read the Bible with our modern glasses on and to understand the core message. But to impose modern assumptions to demonstrate the Bible is wrong is anachronistic.

Another factor is our culture has a major impact in our interpretation of the Bible and makes things look skewed. An example of this is our modern debate on homosexuality. Actually, the Bible doesn't say much about this. And Jesus didn't say anything about it. Yet, given all the hoopla over it, you would think this is some major doctrine of the Bible. Another example is accepting Jesus as your savior by raising your hand, walking down the aisle, and accepting him in your heart. Who knows how many times this is done in the US each Sunday? Yet, this is not even in the Bible.

This is a wangling of what 'blind faith' means. It seems to pretend that it means faith for no reason or Faith without evidence. Of course there are reasons and the evidence is the Bible ory anything else that can be pulled out of the hat, like Kalam, Miracle cures or vertical whale -fossils. When these get debunked or deflated, at least, then logically, agnosticism is the default knowledge position and that mandates non -belief until the religious claims are verified.

The believers dismiss and deny that and revert to Faith and That's 'blind Faith', where the evidence (as correctly explained) is dismissed because it doesn't serve the Bible - believers' case and so is waved away.

An aspect of this is a priori assumptions. A god (name your own) as a default hypothesis until disproven is an obvious one. That we are seeing Jewish material through Greek eyes is another. Why isn't it possible that we are seeing it through Greek eyes? Sure the claim is that the Jewish material of Jesus teaching his followers was written in Greek, or translated. But if they made it up in Greek, then the lost in translation argument doesn't apply. Not that it applies anyway. That the Flood isn't supported by the evidence is the case in Hebrew or Greek. That John shifted his temple cleansing and Luke his anointing at Bethany and the rejection at Nazareth with a whole invented story attached to it to Before Jesus' ministry, is the case in Greek, Hebrew or Finnish. That is the case with the debunking discrepancies of the Nativities and the Resurrection and much else, whether translated into Russian, Chinese or Basque. Translation - shopping won't help, even when we find the Hebrew doesn't imply two donkeys or an actual Virgin, nor a globe rather than a flat circle for the earth in Genesis.

No, I suspect this is looking for an easy excuse 'They meant something else in those days'. Yes, "slavery meant something different in those days". No, it meant the same - making people your property for Life (though there were Outs or enslaved Jews). I also note your ingenuous assertion that Jesus said nothing about the SS thing - But Gay- critical Christians point to Jesus referring to the days of Noah - one man, one woman. Didn't you know that or were you hoping that we goddless wouldn't?

I think that's quite enough, so I'll leave alone your nice little trick of trying to drag the debate onto discussing the Bible and whether it undermines doctrine or Dogma. Don't care. I only care about whether on internal or external evidence, it is reliable as a record of events. If not, it is no more to be preferred than the Bhagavad Gita.

[brunumb]

How can the Bible be regarded as authoritative and inspired when it contains passages like this from Joshua 10:
"13
So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on [2] its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.
14
There has never been a day like it before or since, a day when the LORD listened to a man. Surely the LORD was fighting for Israel!"

Disregarding what we know about the catastrophic outcome if such an event actually did take place, surely there should be records from everywhere testifying to this event. Did no one in the civilised world notice that the sun and moon stopped moving and made a record of it? There were keen astronomers all over the place, particularly in the East, that would surely have noted this unprecedented event. Even ordinary people wouldn't have just shrugged it of with "Gee, it's a long day today". So, if the passage is a really just a literary contrivance to give the warning that one doesn't mess with the friends of Yahweh, how much else in the Bible was contrived with a similar intention?

[TRANSPONDER]

It certainly fits in with the assertion that the OT envisages a snowdome cosmos - a flat (circular) earth with a dome over it and the celestial bodies trundling around the inside. Easy for Jehovah to turn off the power until the battle was over. Less easy to do when we know the sun apparently moves in relation to the earth because of earth's rotation. Those who embellished (if not invented) this battle would see no problem. Just as they didn't see a problem with light and dark (morning and evening marking a Day) clicking on as off before the sun and moon were made as afterthoughts just so Adam and Eve would have something to look at during the day. At night of course Eve had something to look at but the moon was there so she could see it.

A poster (I think here) argued the 'cloud cover' excuse. The sun and moon were there but couldn't be seen until the clouds were gone. But that's from the human point of view and Adam wasn't made until later. So how did anyone know unless God told them? And why wouldn't God tell them the truth? The smart money is on the whole thing being a mythological explanation written by Hebrews (probably during the Exile, because they draw on Mesopotamian myths) to explain the origins of 'God's People'. The battle over Genesis - literalism should have been binned long ago, but the -cover to cover' believers won't let it go.

[otseng]

Of course the four are consistent in the core doctrine - they are Christians, so why wouldn't they?

Then if they are Christians, why would they want to invent tales on top of the core doctrines that they all agree on?

The need of Jesus to be God from Birth, not just from the baptism (as well as fulfilling the OT prophecy) led to the invention of the two contradictory nativities

Could you cite the passages that you're referring to?

Can you show that the Septuagint was used by Jews?

"Greek scriptures were in wide use during the Second Temple period, because few people could read Hebrew at that time. The text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted more often than the original Hebrew Bible text in the Greek New Testament[10][11] (particularly the Pauline epistles)[12] by the Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek Church Fathers. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"300 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew bible, which Christians consider the Old Testament, was translated into Koine Greek. The title of this translation was called the Septuagint. It is this translation that was used by the Paul, the Apostles, and the early church. "
http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/the ... ly-church/

"Since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, the Septuagint was popular among Jews living under Roman rule. Many of the early Christians didn’t know Hebrew, so they naturally embraced this popular Greek translation as well."
https://overviewbible.com/septuagint/

If you read Romans, it is clear what Paul is arguing - the Law is a requirement for Jews. It is not a requirement for Gentiles. It is a burden for Jews as it just gives them more to sin about. Gentiles are free of that. Becoming God's people is through Righteousness, not the Law. The Law cannot save, only Jesus can save. All this is perfectly clear in Romans. Mind, in later letters, he seems to argue that Jesus can even make Jews free of the Law, but that's something else. But the end point is that the Gospel arguments about good deeds counting more than ritual cleanliness and Sabbath observance is absolutely in line with Pauline preaching. Now, it also looks like Paul was in conflict with the Jews about converting Gentiles without regard to Jewish Law - not even the Noahide ones. Acts 21 21 shows that the writer (I am sure Luke writing a biographical novel based on Paul's letters) was aware of this. I also think this was Paul in conflict with Jesus' own followers, who were still observant Jews. If so it of course means that Jesus did not teach his own followers or anyone else to sideline Jewish Law. If so, it follows that none of the gospels (other than a basic story) is what Jesus taught but is what the Christian writers invented, using common text or just their own invented material. That's my argument and I think there are clues that support it. It explains the contradictions, it explains the nonsense. It explains everything.

Interesting theory. Not sure if I have time to get into debating this though in this thread and since it is only your theory.

But Jesus has had two thousand years to perform this 'best way' of communicating God's will to multiple people, so the question becomes, why rely on a sub-optimal communication method (the Bible) for that length of time?

Eventually Jesus will come back again and there will be a time coming where the saints will commune directly with God.

Rev 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.

But until then, the best method of communication for those that don't hear from God directly would be a written record.

I was hoping to avoid a lot of time spent rehashing old arguments.

I was hoping so too, but I'm willing to go where the general consensus wants to go. If people agree I don't need to talk about the flood, this thread will be much shorter. If people want me to talk about it, we can go there.

Would you be willing to instead rank three sources if they were simply ‘an 18th-Century geology textbook, the Bible and a very recent geology textbook’?

If your question is should I believe in the Bible or modern science, then it depends on the evidence, which is ultimately what we should consider for any argument.

As how we determine the trustworthiness of such sources may differ greatly, I suggest the ranking exercise is a useful first step toward my better understanding of what you mean by ‘good evidence for a global flood’. If we can agree on what are ‘good sources’ before we move onto ‘good data’, then we might save ourselves time and trouble.

If I'm arguing for the flood, a good source would NOT be the Bible to show that a global flood occurred. So, in terms of your ranking for discussing the flood, the Bible would not even be on the list. In effect, it would be like any other debate in the Science & Religion subforum.

The fact remains, if the bible is the word of god, it shouldn't have errors. If it does, it's either not the word of god or god isn't perfect.

The Bible is not God and it's not even a book written by God. Therefore, your statement is not a fact.

Besides the existence of God and importance of Israel there don't seem to be any core teachings and doctrines throughout the bible as a whole, just believers' various ideas about what its 'true purpose' is...

I posted about the basic message of the Bible in post 19:
"The Bible is actually quite consistent in the basic message that God created us sinless, mankind has sinned, sin is a barrier to God, God has removed that barrier through Jesus Christ, and we can have a relationship with God through faith in Him."

I would doubt there's much deviation from this among any group of Christians, at least among all that I've encountered.

Basically no-one follows Jesus' example and teachings to forsake all they have, give their possessions to the poor, stop working for money to work for God instead and trust in Him for their daily bread... so that pretty much leaves Christian communities themselves as the defining characteristic of the religion.

If the standard is our behavior, then all of us fall short.

If it turned out that the stories of the resurrection and miraculous early church were among the points of biblical errancy - that Christianity was a religious movement not so different from others - would you still be arguing that the bible should be considered 'authoritative' then? Why?

I've already stated if the resurrection is falsified, then the Bible would lose all its authority. Not only would I concede in this debate, I might as well stop operating this forum as well.

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course the four are consistent in the core doctrine - they are Christians, so why wouldn't they?

Then if they are Christians, why would they want to invent tales on top of the core doctrines that they all agree on?

The need of Jesus to be God from Birth, not just from the baptism (as well as fulfilling the OT prophecy) led to the invention of the two contradictory nativities

Could you cite the passages that you're referring to?

Can you show that the Septuagint was used by Jews?

"Greek scriptures were in wide use during the Second Temple period, because few people could read Hebrew at that time. The text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted more often than the original Hebrew Bible text in the Greek New Testament[10][11] (particularly the Pauline epistles)[12] by the Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek Church Fathers. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"300 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew bible, which Christians consider the Old Testament, was translated into Koine Greek. The title of this translation was called the Septuagint. It is this translation that was used by the Paul, the Apostles, and the early church. "
http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/the ... ly-church/

"Since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, the Septuagint was popular among Jews living under Roman rule. Many of the early Christians didn’t know Hebrew, so they naturally embraced this popular Greek translation as well."
https://overviewbible.com/septuagint/

If you read Romans, it is clear what Paul is arguing - the Law is a requirement for Jews. It is not a requirement for Gentiles. It is a burden for Jews as it just gives them more to sin about. Gentiles are free of that. Becoming God's people is through Righteousness, not the Law. The Law cannot save, only Jesus can save. All this is perfectly clear in Romans. Mind, in later letters, he seems to argue that Jesus can even make Jews free of the Law, but that's something else. But the end point is that the Gospel arguments about good deeds counting more than ritual cleanliness and Sabbath observance is absolutely in line with Pauline preaching. Now, it also looks like Paul was in conflict with the Jews about converting Gentiles without regard to Jewish Law - not even the Noahide ones. Acts 21 21 shows that the writer (I am sure Luke writing a biographical novel based on Paul's letters) was aware of this. I also think this was Paul in conflict with Jesus' own followers, who were still observant Jews. If so it of course means that Jesus did not teach his own followers or anyone else to sideline Jewish Law. If so, it follows that none of the gospels (other than a basic story) is what Jesus taught but is what the Christian writers invented, using common text or just their own invented material. That's my argument and I think there are clues that support it. It explains the contradictions, it explains the nonsense. It explains everything.

Interesting theory. Not sure if I have time to get into debating this though in this thread and since it is only your theory.


...clip...

If they are Christians it is blindingly obvious why they would want to invent tales - as they demonstrably did; because the original story did not suit them and so had to be altered and embellished.

The two nativities. I'm sure you don't need chapter and verse from me.

The Septuagint as I'm sure you know was commissioned as a translation by Ptolemy for the library. Now the question is, was there OT scripture in Greek before then? From all I've heard the Jews were very fussy about what they regarded as the words of God. If any Jews learned in the scriptures read it, they read it in Hebrew.

However, the question is really Matthew who is supposed to be the Tax collector (Levi) who could read Greek and might not have read Hebrew. My point is that evidently he couldn't because if he could, and understood he scriptures either in Greek, aramaic or Hebrew, he wouldn't have made the mistake about the virgin and the two donkeys and we've done all the Mexico jokes.

So whether you are trying a diversion or are simply missing the point, how many Jews were able to read both Greek and Hebrew or just Greek, is not the point. It's whether Matthew understood the Jewish scriptures Evidently he only understood them as a Greek who read them in Greek looking for prophecies and had no background understanding of the Torah.

As to Romans I must try to do a post overviewing Paul and pointing up his argument - and argument it is, but just a read through, paying attention to his argument - makes it clear that he is saying that Adam sinned, But Abraham was righteous, but not because of the Law, because it wasn't yet given, but because of Faith in God. The Law, Paul argues, was given because of the hard -heartedness of the Jews. They were given rules (commandments, rites and duties) they had to follow.

But Gentiles are not subject to this Law but can be naturally righteous as Abraham was. Indeed if they become circumcised, they have to observe the whole law and it is a burden to the Jews (Paul says, echoed by Luke in Acts 15.10). Paul does a bit of sleight of hand here as (to emulate Abraham) Gentiles need only have Faith in God and they can be saved without Jewish Law or custom. But Paul switches Faith in God to Faith in Jesus (as risen messiah) which isn't the same thing at all. But then Paul is crafty all through.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to otseng in post #164]

The Bible is not God and it's not even a book written by God. Therefore, your statement is not a fact.

Please pay closer attention to what people say, as I said:
"The fact remains, if the bible is the word of god, it shouldn't have errors. If it does, it's either not the word of god or god isn't perfect.
But it does. So that means god's not perfect or it's not the word of god.
Christians don't want god to be imperfect, therefore, the bible isn't the word of god."

To what 'fact' are you referring?

[Mithrae]

Besides the existence of God and importance of Israel there don't seem to be any core teachings and doctrines throughout the bible as a whole, just believers' various ideas about what its 'true purpose' is...

I posted about the basic message of the Bible in post 19:
"The Bible is actually quite consistent in the basic message that God created us sinless, mankind has sinned, sin is a barrier to God, God has removed that barrier through Jesus Christ, and we can have a relationship with God through faith in Him."

If all we had was the Tanakh - two thirds of the canon - we probably wouldn't consider any of those to be major or consistent messages. We'd read about God's various covenants with Noah, with Abraham, with Moses, Joshua and David, and probably understand "sin" simply as breaking the particulars of such a covenant (the word itself apparently coming from "a primitive root; properly, to miss"); not as some kind of ultimate metaphysical taint or barrier, and least of all one requiring human sacrifice to remove!

Off the top of my head I rather suspect that we wouldn't consider any of those points to be major or consistent themes even if we added the synoptic gospels into the mix. When asked the big question "What must I do to have eternal life?" Jesus didn't tell the guy to just have 'faith' in him or in God, he told him to sell all his possessions and give to the poor. Similarly in the parable of the sheep and goats or the good Samaritan; Jesus apparently thought that it was all about expressing love for one another by providing the material needs of even the least among us. Maybe he just didn't understand that it was actually about purifying a metaphysical taint by saying "Lord, Lord"?

Basically no-one follows Jesus' example and teachings to forsake all they have, give their possessions to the poor, stop working for money to work for God instead and trust in Him for their daily bread... so that pretty much leaves Christian communities themselves as the defining characteristic of the religion.

If the standard is our behavior, then all of us fall short.

There's a bit of a difference between just 'falling short' and choosing to reject the clear example and teachings of the guy the religion was named after. There are some folk who do as Jesus said, basically (at least in part) a Christian variation on freeganism, but it's obviously a vanishingly small fraction of a percent of Christians. Christianity is defined by Christians... not by Christ, and certainly not by a written anthology of disputed contents which most Christians haven't even been able to read! Imagine trying to tell someone they're just a 'cultural Hindu' if they find community, context, ethics, peace and transcendence from their religion but don't believe all the stories about Krishna or consider the Bhagavata Purana 'authoritative.'

If it turned out that the stories of the resurrection and miraculous early church were among the points of biblical errancy - that Christianity was a religious movement not so different from others - would you still be arguing that the bible should be considered 'authoritative' then? Why?

I've already stated if the resurrection is falsified, then the Bible would lose all its authority. Not only would I concede in this debate, I might as well stop operating this forum as well.

If the purpose of this forum (or your purpose in running it) were promoting one version of Christian doctrine, sure. If its purpose were exchanging information and learning new things, then surely you'd be glad to have discovered something new?

Of course it's a pretty safe goalpost you've got there. A global flood is falsifiable to a point of near certainty, and obviously has been falsified - despite some folks' reluctance to admit it - but small scale events from ancient history will always be pretty uncertain one way or the other, beyond reasonable generalizations like "resurrections are astronomically improbable" and "Pauline/Christian doctrine looks more like a post hoc consequence of an emerging resurrection legend rather than a consistent theme following from the Tanakh or even Jesus' own ministry." Absolute falsification may be impossible, but at what level of confidence do you think a resurrection conclusion could be rationally reached? Do you think you could convince a fair sceptic that there's even a 20% plausibility of the resurrection having occurred? By your own standards, whatever the number may be that would be the upper limit for confidence in the 'authority' of the bible. As others have noted one can always just choose blind faith in biblical 'authority,' but if we're talking about reasonable opinions (as you have claimed) then the authority of the bible is no better than the proof of the resurrection... which isn't saying much... and may be even worse.

As you said earlier regarding biblical inerrancy, and as Tam responded regarding 'authority,' the resurrection could be true even if the bible is not authoritative: On the other hand, it seems the bible cannot be authoritative if the resurrection is not true, meaning it's irrational to accept the conclusion of biblical authority any more than the extent of rational proof for the resurrection.

[Diagoras]

Eventually Jesus will come back again and there will be a time coming where the saints will commune directly with God.

[Rev 21:3]

But until then, the best method of communication for those that don't hear from God directly would be a written record.

It's been two thousand years. Over the course of history, that's could be as many as eight hundred generations.

Over the course of this thread, I thought we'd come to an agreement that God communicating directly with more than one person at a time was well within his power, and could be considered 'optimal' in the sense of clarity, and trustworthiness of the message imparted. Some may choose to ignore or disobey the message, but then that's also true of a written record.

The evidence you supply for a 'future time of direct communication with God' comes from a sub-optimal (written) source. The Bible contains multiple failed (or at best, hopelessly ambiguous and open to widely different interpretations) prophecies. These texts haven't substantially changed over those hundreds of generations, so for all the millions of Christians living in the tenth, eleventh, ... and all the way up to the twentieth century - their story of Jesus returning remained just that - a story.

They had no direct communication with God.

God hasn't bothered to correct a written record that teases about the Revelation being 'just around the corner' for eight hundred generations.

If your question is should I believe in the Bible or modern science, then it depends on the evidence, which is ultimately what we should consider for any argument.

Yes. And the first step I'm suggesting in assessing the evidence is to look at its source.

If I'm arguing for the flood, a good source would NOT be the Bible to show that a global flood occurred. So, in terms of your ranking for discussing the flood, the Bible would not even be on the list.

<bolding mine>

Is that because of lack of evidence? Do you consider the Bible's account to be generally trustworthy though - even if it doesn't go into details? In other words, we should be able to perform some scientific experiments to test things like water rates and volumes, sedimentary fossil deposition, etc, based on what the Bible says.

And crucially - like any good scientist - we should look to falsify the hypothesis, and only retain it if no-one can do so.

[otseng]

I only care about whether on internal or external evidence, it is reliable as a record of events.

That's what I care as well.

How can the Bible be regarded as authoritative and inspired when it contains passages like this from Joshua 10:

Is there any doctrine of Christianity based on this passage? Yes, it's easy to find passages that we don't understand and then say, "I don't understand it, so the Bible is wrong." And we could go on forever in this thread if were to argue over every passage we don't understand. However, I am willing to look at passages that impact core doctrines of Christianity.

If they are Christians it is blindingly obvious why they would want to invent tales - as they demonstrably did; because the original story did not suit them and so had to be altered and embellished.

I do not discount the possibility of them altering recollection of events (whether it be intentional or not). But, as you mentioned, "the the four are consistent in the core doctrine". They did not alter the basic message, but in the details they do have variations.

If any Jews learned in the scriptures read it, they read it in Hebrew.

I believe the scholars and students did read it in Hebrew, but as I've evidenced, it was the Greek that was commonly used by the people.

he wouldn't have made the mistake about the virgin

As for the prophecy of the virgin birth, actually I believe it's more clear in the Greek than the Masoretic.

As to Romans I must try to do a post overviewing Paul and pointing up his argument

Sure, as long as in it's in a separate thread since it's not relevant here.

[Replying to otseng in post #164]

The Bible is not God and it's not even a book written by God. Therefore, your statement is not a fact.

Please pay closer attention to what people say, as I said:
"The fact remains, if the bible is the word of god, it shouldn't have errors. If it does, it's either not the word of god or god isn't perfect.
But it does. So that means god's not perfect or it's not the word of god.
Christians don't want god to be imperfect, therefore, the bible isn't the word of god."

To what 'fact' are you referring?

"if the bible is the word of god, it shouldn't have errors."

[nobspeople]

[Replying to otseng in post #169]

Don't forget I also said:
"The fact remains, if the bible is the word of god, it shouldn't have errors. If it does, it's either not the word of god or god isn't perfect."
They sentences shouldn't be read separately, less one gets the wrong idea.
Which of the last two options one wants to choose is up to the individual, I suspect.