How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3988 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #201

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Did somebody mention a claim of a muslim who had never heard of Jesus getting some input from him? For one thing, Muslims know about Jesus. He plays a part in Muslim teaching. So that's suspicious from the start. Second, it is not unknown for claims to be made of some supposed non - Christian to have had a revelation and been converted. There are a lot of conversion - stories out there as rival religions play the 'this person converted ...so maybe you should, too.
I tried to find out about the Buddhist monk who had some kind of Jesus revelation. It all sounded very fishy, but I couldn't find out a thing about him, his antecedents or how he learned to speak English so well.
otseng wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:51 pm ..again clipped so as to see what was to me....
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:25 pm excuse the clip just to the response to me, specifically.
No need to state this. This is normal course for debates here.
I'd Thought you were defending the Bible as reliable enough fact. Maybe I got you wrong.
I said this...
otseng wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 3:00 pmI believe in the authority of the entire Bible and accept many of the fundamentalist/conservative interpretations of the Bible (literal 6 days of creation, literal Adam/Even, global flood, virgin birth, miracles of Jesus, bodily resurrection, etc).
Pretty much all the major doctrines of Christianity I accept. Minor doctrines such as eschatology I'm agnostic and don't really have a position.
Then we are back to square 1. if this stuff is taken to be fact then myth and metaphor is irrelevant to the discussion, and if those are demonstrably not true, then there is no basis for believing the claims of any Bible -based religion. And if there is on evidence and reason no reason to prefer the apologetics explanations or excuses (1), then only reason to do so is Faith -based. And that should at least be admitted.

If you argue for Bible reliability, metaphor is not part of the conversation. if you were to concede that the Bible is man -made, if evidence and reason count for anything, then Myth and metaphor just means that it is another man made book of Myth and has no more authority (in reason, though - regrettably, they have much authority in actuality) than any book of fantasy, sci fi or fairy tales.

(1) excuses such as The reason there is no temple cleansing in John except before the baptism is because there were two and he just didn't think the one during Holy Week was worth mentioning. Really not very probable is it? No more than why Luke has no anointing at Bethany but something similar in Galilee and indeed the recent apologetic of the Marys splitting up when rushing back to the disciples is not very likely but is an attempt to explain why one said they saw Jesus and one didn't see it. And Matthew says 'they' met him anyway. Just as the Genealogy contradictions are explained 'on is the line of Mary. But both are specifically the line of Joseph. Desperate attempts to wriggle out of serious contradiction. Ignorance of what the Bible says or misrepresentation? It's not a sin to lie in religion to convince people, that's clear enough.

These contradiction pile up and make the case that the Bible is not factually true, just as the evidence piles up that the Creation and Flood are not true. If you insist they are, it is Faith that is talking, not evidence and reason.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #202

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:25 amFor one thing, Muslims know about Jesus. He plays a part in Muslim teaching.
That's true. Yet, for a Muslim to convert to Christianity is not a simple decision. It can result in drastic consequences. So, for a Muslim to believe a dream about Jesus couldn't just be from last night's kebabs.
In the most radical Muslim families, a convert is locked in a room and given three days to return to Islam. If they refuse, they are slaughtered. If they escape, they will be hunted by family for years. If children are involved when a husband comes to Jesus, they are considered bastards because they no longer have a Muslim father. They are either given to another family member or killed.

In a less religious family, the convert may be taken to the imam, who may lead the family in beating the believer. If the convert is a woman, her family may force her to marry a Muslim cousin to avoid shame and scandal. Many have been restrained with ropes, burned with acid or hot oil, and subjected to electric shocks. Sometimes families commit converts to mental institutions, thinking that leaving Islam is a sign of insanity. Others are forced to leave the home, family, and the community they know.

In all cases it is a perilous passage. Following Jesus definitely costs a former Muslim.
https://advancingnativemissions.com/fac ... christian/
Then we are back to square 1. if this stuff is taken to be fact then myth and metaphor is irrelevant to the discussion, and if those are demonstrably not true, then there is no basis for believing the claims of any Bible -based religion.
That is why definitions are important. If you define a myth as something that is not factually true and I do not define it that way, then we'll be speaking past each other. I use the term myth in a more general sense and not limiting it to just a fictional story. I simply define myth as a religious narrative.
Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial: many adherents of religions view their own religion's stories as true, and therefore object to those stories being characterized as myths, while seeing the stories of other religions as being myth. As such, some scholars label all religious narratives as myths for practical reasons, such as to avoid depreciating any one tradition because cultures interpret each other differently relative to one another.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

Yes, the Biblical myth contains non-historical things, but it as well contains things/events that actually existed/occurred. But, whether a narrative is historical or not, it contains truth, whether it is a spiritual truth, a lesson, a principle, or an illustration.
Desperate attempts to wriggle out of serious contradiction. Ignorance of what the Bible says or misrepresentation? It's not a sin to lie in religion to convince people, that's clear enough.
With these example you gave, how does any of these things directly impact any major doctrine? You argue if someone has a small "lie", then everything is unreliable. But, how do you know that they are intentionally fabricating a fictional story meant to deceive? You've acknowledged the gospels are consistent in the core doctrine. I argue it is the main message they are trying to communicate, not that they need to have every exact detail correct and perfectly match other existing accounts. I can even grant they might've used artistic license in their accounts. But, I would not classify that as lying.
just as the evidence piles up that the Creation and Flood are not true. If you insist they are, it is Faith that is talking, not evidence and reason.
Well, of course I would highly disagree with this. IMO, evidence and reason would strongly support both of these.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1354
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 896 times
Been thanked: 1306 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #203

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:53 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:25 amFor one thing, Muslims know about Jesus. He plays a part in Muslim teaching.
just as the evidence piles up that the Creation and Flood are not true. If you insist they are, it is Faith that is talking, not evidence and reason.
Well, of course I would highly disagree with this. IMO, evidence and reason would strongly support both of these.
What examples can you present as "evidence and reason" that support either a world wide flood as depicted in Genesis or their creation story? I agree with the earlier point that "myths" can include some historical/factual basis that may have inspired a myth, but it is an enormous leap to conclude "evidence has piled up" supporting anything close to these particular myths.

Certainly there is much evidence of many regional flood events for as long as we've had records, written or geologic. But a worldwide flood with animals on a boat for a year? Nada. As for the general creation story, among other problems, WHICH creation story from Genesis? The Elohim version or Yahweh's? The one where man is created last or the one where he is created first, and then the animals?

All cultures have creation myths. What are the details of, for example, the Jahwist version that features a talking serpent and woman being created from a man's rib, do you find "piles of evidence" for support?
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3994
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1745 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #204

Post by POI »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:31 am
otseng wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:53 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:25 amFor one thing, Muslims know about Jesus. He plays a part in Muslim teaching.
just as the evidence piles up that the Creation and Flood are not true. If you insist they are, it is Faith that is talking, not evidence and reason.
Well, of course I would highly disagree with this. IMO, evidence and reason would strongly support both of these.
What examples can you present as "evidence and reason" that support either a world wide flood as depicted in Genesis or their creation story? I agree with the earlier point that "myths" can include some historical/factual basis that may have inspired a myth, but it is an enormous leap to conclude "evidence has piled up" supporting anything close to these particular myths.
If I'm not mistaken, I attempted to travel the same road with this interlocutor, and it went nowhere :( If I recall, this poster stated that the more (s)he investigated this flood claim, the more it looked to be supported with evidence. I then asked for the presented evidence, and also asked that (s)he 'steelman' the already given counter arguments for these given 'evidences'. This is where we left off :(

Maybe you'll have better luck?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3988 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #205

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 8:53 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Oct 31, 2021 10:25 amFor one thing, Muslims know about Jesus. He plays a part in Muslim teaching.
That's true. Yet, for a Muslim to convert to Christianity is not a simple decision. It can result in drastic consequences. So, for a Muslim to believe a dream about Jesus couldn't just be from last night's kebabs.
In the most radical Muslim families, a convert is locked in a room and given three days to return to Islam. If they refuse, they are slaughtered. If they escape, they will be hunted by family for years. If children are involved when a husband comes to Jesus, they are considered bastards because they no longer have a Muslim father. They are either given to another family member or killed.

In a less religious family, the convert may be taken to the imam, who may lead the family in beating the believer. If the convert is a woman, her family may force her to marry a Muslim cousin to avoid shame and scandal. Many have been restrained with ropes, burned with acid or hot oil, and subjected to electric shocks. Sometimes families commit converts to mental institutions, thinking that leaving Islam is a sign of insanity. Others are forced to leave the home, family, and the community they know.

In all cases it is a perilous passage. Following Jesus definitely costs a former Muslim.
https://advancingnativemissions.com/fac ... christian/
Then we are back to square 1. if this stuff is taken to be fact then myth and metaphor is irrelevant to the discussion, and if those are demonstrably not true, then there is no basis for believing the claims of any Bible -based religion.
That is why definitions are important. If you define a myth as something that is not factually true and I do not define it that way, then we'll be speaking past each other. I use the term myth in a more general sense and not limiting it to just a fictional story. I simply define myth as a religious narrative.
Since the term myth is widely used to imply that a story is not objectively true, the identification of a narrative as a myth can be highly controversial: many adherents of religions view their own religion's stories as true, and therefore object to those stories being characterized as myths, while seeing the stories of other religions as being myth. As such, some scholars label all religious narratives as myths for practical reasons, such as to avoid depreciating any one tradition because cultures interpret each other differently relative to one another.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth

Yes, the Biblical myth contains non-historical things, but it as well contains things/events that actually existed/occurred. But, whether a narrative is historical or not, it contains truth, whether it is a spiritual truth, a lesson, a principle, or an illustration.
Desperate attempts to wriggle out of serious contradiction. Ignorance of what the Bible says or misrepresentation? It's not a sin to lie in religion to convince people, that's clear enough.
With these example you gave, how does any of these things directly impact any major doctrine? You argue if someone has a small "lie", then everything is unreliable. But, how do you know that they are intentionally fabricating a fictional story meant to deceive? You've acknowledged the gospels are consistent in the core doctrine. I argue it is the main message they are trying to communicate, not that they need to have every exact detail correct and perfectly match other existing accounts. I can even grant they might've used artistic license in their accounts. But, I would not classify that as lying.
just as the evidence piles up that the Creation and Flood are not true. If you insist they are, it is Faith that is talking, not evidence and reason.
Well, of course I would highly disagree with this. IMO, evidence and reason would strongly support both of these.
Let's put the points here rather than fiddle about with individual quotes. Yes. Though Muslims know about Jesus, to have a conversion experience needs more. The Believer will see it as evidence that Christianity is real. The conversions from Christianity to Islam..well, they just weren't Real Christians, were they? Until one has heard the conversion story, we can't be sure what really happened. As I may have mentioned, a story about a Buddhist monk who converted to Jesus apparently out of the Blue really called for a bit of digging into the fellow's antecedents. We have to beware of the Strobel Syndrome.

Deconverting to atheism isn't too good for a Muslim either. But I have heard many phone ins and some rumbles about Imams being worried about the increase in doubt and question amongst the Faithful. Though I doubt that Dawkins appears to them in dreams. They just doubt it for Reasons.

We are only talking past each other if we ignore the Real point - did something in the Bible happen or not (on all evidence and reason)? If not, it is not reliable, no matter what you mean by 'Myth'. Illustrations, lessons, reflections of human condition is - as I have said - 'No more than any other book'. They are only 'more' or truer than True if Something More (aka God) is behind them. And what reason is there to suppose any such thing? Which god? Which book? There is no reason whatsoever to credit any divine input let alone any particular god, religion or Book, unless what's in the book looks factually reliable. That's the point, not some impalpable verifying entity floating about behind it.

Some things actually occurred, you say. As I've mentioned, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem occurred. But the Biblical claim that God smote the Assyrians is not credible. In fact the Bible admits that Hezekiah caved in and paid tribute, but that isn't connected with the claim that God smote the Assyrian army out of sight. I don't seriously doubt myself that Jesus did get crucified by the Romans, but I do seriously doubt that Plate had his arm twisted by Caiaphas, that Jesus rose from the dead (in solid form, anyway) or indeed the wine on a stick, which I once thought factual, but might possibly be a fulfilment of scripture. But John records it and I believe only Matthew dug out the prophecy, so who knows? But the point is, even if that's true, it is evidence for a drug/swoon, disciples nab body story, not a resurrection from death - story. So you see that debunking of events is solid debunk enough, but debunking the Biblical Spin put on actual events persons and places is just as significant.

And trying to put a mythical spin on it is some kind of teaching point made by God using a tall story doesn't impress me and I propose, should not impress anyone else. Let it stay on the ancient mythology shelf with the Bhaghavad Gita and Epic of Gilgamesh. It is enough to try to disentangle history without dragging extra myth into it.
You are doing yourself no good by pretending that I am making a big deal about small things. I have indicated biggies and serious reasons to doubt the Bible events. Nor do you help your case by pretending that it's irrelevant because it doesn't impact on Doctrine. Doctrine is irrelevant until one can say that the reason to believe any of the Bible claims are fairly based on factuality.
Just to take one point (and not for the first time) Luke clearly changes the angelic message at the tomb. Ok. In isolation one could excuse that, but Luke is discredited over bigger things. So no Clean Hands. But this is significant alteration of the Bible scripture to suit his own narrative. Call it lying or no, it's not doing his case any good, nor yours.

Evidence and reason does not support the Creation or Flood. I can see that this will become a debate at some time. I recall that both of us have debated this at length in the past. I can only say that Creationism (or Genesis -literalism at least) has lost ground over this, having to rewrite its' case several times to try to make the Belief fit the facts. Just the efforts to fit all the 'kinds' on the Ark led to suggesting juveniles or even eggs and finally a sort of super -speed evolutionary process from a basic proto -'kind' (Baryma) from which all the other species super-evolved. It's basically evolution speeded up, so why not take the pressure off and say - 'ok, it took millions of years, not just a thousand'. And don't forget the old Creationist objection: "Evolution isn't true - there wouldn't be enough time". Though that was one I could never make sense of.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #206

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:31 am But a worldwide flood with animals on a boat for a year? Nada. As for the general creation story, among other problems,
Diagoras has said discussing the flood is not necessary...
Diagoras wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:09 pm The whole ‘Flood thing’ only came up because it appears to be a central plank of your personal belief. To be honest, I’d much rather we stuck to the ‘problem’ of written vs. direct communication, which seems to offer more scope for an interesting debate.
But, if others really want to get into this, I guess we can.
What are the details of, for example, the Jahwist version that features a talking serpent and woman being created from a man's rib, do you find "piles of evidence" for support?
I've never claimed either of these has piles of evidence for.
POI wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:52 am If I'm not mistaken, I attempted to travel the same road with this interlocutor, and it went nowhere :( If I recall, this poster stated that the more (s)he investigated this flood claim, the more it looked to be supported with evidence. I then asked for the presented evidence, and also asked that (s)he 'steelman' the already given counter arguments for these given 'evidences'. This is where we left off :(

Maybe you'll have better luck?
I assume you're referring to me. I'm hesitant to get into debating the flood for a few reasons. One is that is not really directly relevant to the OP. Another is it is a huge topic and I've spent a long time debating this in A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?. So, it's not like I'm unable to engage in this debate. Another reason is there are more relevant arguments that should be covered.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:31 pm Though Muslims know about Jesus, to have a conversion experience needs more. The Believer will see it as evidence that Christianity is real.
The point is addressing if anybody is directly hearing from God now. What can account for multiple accounts of Muslims having dreams of Jesus and being willing to suffer severe consequences for conversion? Does it prove Christianity is true? I don't claim that. But, if the reports are true, then I think it's a reasonable position that they all heard directly from God.
As I've mentioned, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem occurred. But the Biblical claim that God smote the Assyrians is not credible. In fact the Bible admits that Hezekiah caved in and paid tribute, but that isn't connected with the claim that God smote the Assyrian army out of sight.
It might be difficult to retrace what actually happened. Both sides have their own version which might not be completely objective.
but I do seriously doubt that Plate had his arm twisted by Caiaphas,
You mean Pilate crucified Jesus only because of arm twisting from Caiaphas? I would doubt that also.
but I do seriously doubt ... Jesus rose from the dead (in solid form, anyway)
If you can demonstrate this, then this would be a serious objection. Can you elaborate?
Doctrine is irrelevant until one can say that the reason to believe any of the Bible claims are fairly based on factuality.
You've already claimed "I don't seriously doubt myself that Jesus did get crucified by the Romans". So, here's one thing you do accept as factual. We both also agree not everything is factual in the Bible. But, what we differ on is where to draw the line on accepting the Bible as reliable based on how much is historically factual. I believe the line should be drawn on core doctrine. From what I gather, you assert the Bible must practically entirely be factually correct to be reliable. But, how would you really know what happened historically? Is the Assyrian's account of the siege of Jerusalem 100% true? How would one know?
Just to take one point (and not for the first time) Luke clearly changes the angelic message at the tomb.
Yes, I agree there are different accounts of what happened at the tomb.
There is some confusion between this account and that of the other gospels. In Matthew 28 only a single angel is mentioned. Mark 16 refers to a young man, presumably an angel, sitting on the right side. In Luke two men, identified as angels in Luke 24:23, appear standing next to the women. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible argue that these multiple accounts are explained by Mary making multiple trips to the tomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:12

I do not attempt to "harmonize" these different accounts by explanations such as "we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb." That explanation could be true, but having to match up everything so each account is literally true is not necessary for me. It's possible for testimony to be given in a courtroom from different witnesses to differ, but they all saw the same event.
Evidence and reason does not support the Creation or Flood. I can see that this will become a debate at some time.
Yes, it looks like it will eventually have to be discussed.
I recall that both of us have debated this at length in the past.
We did? I don't recall that.
I can only say that Creationism (or Genesis -literalism at least) has lost ground over this, having to rewrite its' case several times
Well, I would argue secular cosmology has changed more times and has actually come around to being closer to what the Bible says.

As stated by Robert Jastrow, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3988 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #207

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:22 am
Diogenes wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:31 am But a worldwide flood with animals on a boat for a year? Nada. As for the general creation story, among other problems,
Diagoras has said discussing the flood is not necessary...
Diagoras wrote: Wed Oct 27, 2021 5:09 pm The whole ‘Flood thing’ only came up because it appears to be a central plank of your personal belief. To be honest, I’d much rather we stuck to the ‘problem’ of written vs. direct communication, which seems to offer more scope for an interesting debate.
But, if others really want to get into this, I guess we can.
What are the details of, for example, the Jahwist version that features a talking serpent and woman being created from a man's rib, do you find "piles of evidence" for support?
I've never claimed either of these has piles of evidence for.
POI wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 11:52 am If I'm not mistaken, I attempted to travel the same road with this interlocutor, and it went nowhere :( If I recall, this poster stated that the more (s)he investigated this flood claim, the more it looked to be supported with evidence. I then asked for the presented evidence, and also asked that (s)he 'steelman' the already given counter arguments for these given 'evidences'. This is where we left off :(

Maybe you'll have better luck?
I assume you're referring to me. I'm hesitant to get into debating the flood for a few reasons. One is that is not really directly relevant to the OP. Another is it is a huge topic and I've spent a long time debating this in A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?. So, it's not like I'm unable to engage in this debate. Another reason is there are more relevant arguments that should be covered.
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Nov 01, 2021 6:31 pm Though Muslims know about Jesus, to have a conversion experience needs more. The Believer will see it as evidence that Christianity is real.
The point is addressing if anybody is directly hearing from God now. What can account for multiple accounts of Muslims having dreams of Jesus and being willing to suffer severe consequences for conversion? Does it prove Christianity is true? I don't claim that. But, if the reports are true, then I think it's a reasonable position that they all heard directly from God.
As I've mentioned, the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem occurred. But the Biblical claim that God smote the Assyrians is not credible. In fact the Bible admits that Hezekiah caved in and paid tribute, but that isn't connected with the claim that God smote the Assyrian army out of sight.
It might be difficult to retrace what actually happened. Both sides have their own version which might not be completely objective.
but I do seriously doubt that Plate had his arm twisted by Caiaphas,
You mean Pilate crucified Jesus only because of arm twisting from Caiaphas? I would doubt that also.
but I do seriously doubt ... Jesus rose from the dead (in solid form, anyway)
If you can demonstrate this, then this would be a serious objection. Can you elaborate?
Doctrine is irrelevant until one can say that the reason to believe any of the Bible claims are fairly based on factuality.
You've already claimed "I don't seriously doubt myself that Jesus did get crucified by the Romans". So, here's one thing you do accept as factual. We both also agree not everything is factual in the Bible. But, what we differ on is where to draw the line on accepting the Bible as reliable based on how much is historically factual. I believe the line should be drawn on core doctrine. From what I gather, you assert the Bible must practically entirely be factually correct to be reliable. But, how would you really know what happened historically? Is the Assyrian's account of the siege of Jerusalem 100% true? How would one know?
Just to take one point (and not for the first time) Luke clearly changes the angelic message at the tomb.
Yes, I agree there are different accounts of what happened at the tomb.
There is some confusion between this account and that of the other gospels. In Matthew 28 only a single angel is mentioned. Mark 16 refers to a young man, presumably an angel, sitting on the right side. In Luke two men, identified as angels in Luke 24:23, appear standing next to the women. Those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible argue that these multiple accounts are explained by Mary making multiple trips to the tomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_20:12

I do not attempt to "harmonize" these different accounts by explanations such as "we see that there was one angel outside and two on the inside of the tomb." That explanation could be true, but having to match up everything so each account is literally true is not necessary for me. It's possible for testimony to be given in a courtroom from different witnesses to differ, but they all saw the same event.
Evidence and reason does not support the Creation or Flood. I can see that this will become a debate at some time.
Yes, it looks like it will eventually have to be discussed.
I recall that both of us have debated this at length in the past.
We did? I don't recall that.
I can only say that Creationism (or Genesis -literalism at least) has lost ground over this, having to rewrite its' case several times
Well, I would argue secular cosmology has changed more times and has actually come around to being closer to what the Bible says.

As stated by Robert Jastrow, "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Again answering all the points to me.

At the moment these 'multiple accounts of Muslims having dreams of Jesus' are a claim without backup. No way to tell what happened or whether it happened. Muslims do convert (there was one notable muslim converted to Hinduism in Indonesia recently) and others convert to Islam. Visions or claims of visions can't be taken at face value.

Of course there's spin on both sides of the account of the Assyrian siege. But The Bible actually agrees with the Assyrian version. Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and Hezekiah was able to do a deal with the Assyrians and pay tribute, which was a bit of a face - loss for Assyria. The Bible agrees this but separates it from the account of the siege that claims that the Assyrian army was smitten by God. Virtually vanished.

The Gospels ..let me check... Luke says that Pilate was inclined to release Jesus but the Sanhedrin (Caiaphas was High priest) pressured him. Though it was a (claimed) public outcry that did for Jesus. John says it was the Chief priests and officers shouted for crucifixion (that is Caiaphas taking the lead) and otherwise 'the Jews' doing it. In Mark it is the 'Chief priests' egging the crowd on and pretty much the same in Matthew. So the 'Chief priests' which presumably would mean the Sadducee party of the Sanhedrin with Caiaphas at the head would be putting the pressure on Pilate, who wanted to release Jesus.

That the accounts of the resurrection of Jesus in solid form contradict means (I argue) that the accounts are fabricated. That means that there was no original story (Mark does not have one at all) they all broadly agree on, which broad agreement we find in the crucifixion. Therefore I credit the crucifixion (as an agreed story at least) but not the accounts of the solid body resurrection. The visions of the 12 and the 500 all at once I'm inclined to credit whatever those sightings actually were. But if the Gospel resurrection stories aren't true, they are not the sightings referred to in 1 Corinthians.

You are missing the point about the message at the tomb in Luke. It isn't about how many angels there were and John doesn't mention any angels or message at all until after the women report back to the disciples, so he contradicts that whole event. But the point is that Luke must have has the angelic message that the disciples would see Jesus in Galilee, but Luke changes it to what he told them in Galilee. He is altering it because he knows from Paul's letters that they did not go to Galilee but stayed in Jerusalem, and he alters to message to fit.

I recall that you said you'd debated the flood at length. So have I, though not with each other.

I disagree that secular cosmology has come closer to the Bible, which has a Flat circular earth ringed by mountains with a dome over it with celestial bodies trundling around on the inside. Rather it is Biblical cosmology has been reinterpreted to try to get it to fit 'secular cosmology'.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #208

Post by otseng »

I came across an interesting video by Tim Mackie about the origin and authority of the Bible. As co-founder of The Bible Project, he has demonstrated more than a little knowledge of the Bible.

For Christians, the authority of the Bible is centered on Jesus.

"when we say the Bible is authoritative what we mean when we say that is Jesus is the risen King"
"Jesus has authority over me and that authority is expressed to me through the scriptures"


Most peoples' view of the Bible disregards the idea that the Bible is a human book. He illustrates how we should view the Bible by Drawing Hands by M. C. Escher.

Image

"The Bible is both a human book and a divine book. It's a human book it that was written by people."
"Somehow in our modern context that this has been framed as an either/or and I just think that's totally unnecessary and it's totally unhelpful and will lead you down dead ends."


He does not explicitly state this, but what a human book means to me is it will be subject to errors, just like all other human books are subject to. Accounts can have inconsistencies, things can be exaggerated, memories can fail, authors can add artistic license material, etc. But, the important thing is the core message. Historical accuracy on the trivialities is not the point of the Bible. The person of Jesus, his message, his example, and his resurrection is the core.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2052 times
Been thanked: 812 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #209

Post by benchwarmer »

otseng wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:26 am But, the important thing is the core message. Historical accuracy on the trivialities is not the point of the Bible. The person of Jesus, his message, his example, and his resurrection is the core.
Yet how does one know what the core is and that it is not itself somehow corrupted? I think the basic objection in this thread is that given all the errors we find in the Bible, how does one determine what's true anymore within the text? There has to be some method or it's all just hopeful guessing isn't it?

An often used example is the Spider-Man comics. Within them we can find truths. For example, there is a real city called New York. The method used to determine this part is true is by looking on a map and/or visiting New York (or whatever other method one may choose - videos, pictures, etc). The point is, we can use some observable evidence to pick out which parts of the Spider-Man universe might be based on truth.

What method should be use to determine if the core message (as you gave) of the Bible is uncorrupted and is in fact the core message?

The person of Jesus: All we have are the gospels and a couple mentions from historians of the time. All of this can easily be dismissed if we want to be uncharitable. The gospels are clearly intertwined with copying and revision going on and the mentions from historians are scant and easily just repeating what Christians were saying. The real person of Jesus is lost to history.

His message: Again, all we have are the gospels. How do we really know what His message is if clearly the gospels are in disagreement with each other on various points.

His example: Same. How do we really know what His example was? We can only read what the gospel authors wrote. There is nothing else to fact check it with.

His resurrection: Same. A physics defying event that has to be taken on faith in the gospel stories. Even if there was some grand miracle by God, we have no other accounts to fact check the gospel authors with. Before saying "the gospels themselves are fact checking each other" I think we all know they are not. If anything, each gospel is an attempted 'fact fixing' of previous written and oral accounts.

In short, we have no outside corroboration from other sources. Even a source from a competing religion or purely secular that at least corroborates something about the stories even if the final conclusion is wildly different. i.e. someone watched a religious leader get nailed to a cross and then mentions there was a big hoopla afterwards about how the guy supposedly got up and walked away. Anything. We have nothing that I'm aware of.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3994
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1745 times
Been thanked: 1190 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #210

Post by POI »

otseng wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:22 am I assume you're referring to me. I'm hesitant to get into debating the flood for a few reasons. One is that is not really directly relevant to the OP.
The OP states:

"For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
"

I'm not harping on insignificant errors. I'm going after the biggies... Such as "the flood", a "Tower of Babel", "the Exodus", etc... I trust we agree that a claim for a God provided global flood is not insignificant?

Further, would it be logical to surmise that if it should turn out that a God provided flood did not take place, when the Bible clearly states that it did, this would be a rather large blow to the credibility to the claim of an all knowing God?
otseng wrote: Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:22 am Another is it is a huge topic and I've spent a long time debating this in A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?. So, it's not like I'm unable to engage in this debate.
Well, this is not my first rodeo either :) I trust we can at least partially agree that one can streamline their points, the more you argue for the same position? Rather than me sifting through pages of a debate, give me some highlights? And in turn, why the counter arguments to these given highlights do not hold water for you?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Post Reply