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

[mgb]

One gospel account (I forget which) says Jesus appeared in a 'different form'. As spirit? Btw, I read some time ago that the story of the resurrection is unlikely to be invented because the main witnesses were women. The thing is, women at the time were not seen as trustworthy. That is why they were not allowed to witness in court. So, if you were making up a story you would not have women as witnesses. But the witnesses are women and this suggests an honest account of what happened.

On the other hand, if women were considered as untrustworthy there might have been a good reason for that. The women may have been completely mistaken, or even lied about what they saw for whatever reason. One can speculate until the cows come home but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

You don't understand. I am not talking about the women who witnessed the resurrection. I am saying that women in general were not trusted to tell the truth. So, if someone wants to make up the story of the resurrection why would they have women witnesses when men were considered to be more trustworthy?

[brunumb]

You don't understand. I am not talking about the women who witnessed the resurrection. I am saying that women in general were not trusted to tell the truth. So, if someone wants to make up the story of the resurrection why would they have women witnesses when men were considered to be more trustworthy?

I know what you meant. But, if women in general were not trusted to tell the truth there must have been a reason why. If the resurrection tale is not completely made up, any part contributed by women needs to be considered as possibly false for that reason.

[JehovahsWitness]

...Incorrect facts is not the same as statements that contradict each other.

If by "contradict each other" ...

you mean that : the statements cannot possibly BOTH be true*, then you are wrong, they are NOT contradictory in that sense.

* see above

If you simply mean the statements are different, then yes, but so what?

[mgb]

One gospel account (I forget which) says Jesus appeared in a 'different form'. As spirit? Btw, I read some time ago that the story of the resurrection is unlikely to be invented because the main witnesses were women. The thing is, women at the time were not seen as trustworthy. That is why they were not allowed to witness in court. So, if you were making up a story you would not have women as witnesses. But the witnesses are women and this suggests an honest account of what happened.

On the other hand, if women were considered as untrustworthy there might have been a good reason for that. The women may have been completely mistaken, or even lied about what they saw for whatever reason. One can speculate until the cows come home but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

You don't understand. I am not talking about the women who witnessed the resurrection. I am saying that women in general were not trusted to tell the truth. So, if someone wants to make up the story of the resurrection why would they have women witnesses when men were considered to be more trustworthy?

Now you are saying women can't be trusted because they are women. There is no obvious reason to mistrust these women.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is a fair point. In fact it's 'the principle of embarrassment' implying that it is true, because if it was made up, they wouldn't have written it that way.

Now, there is an argument about the value (or not) of womens' testimony in court. I recall that two women were worth the value of one man in testimony. Well, that would explain why there had to be two women. But the point you made still remains: why have womens' testimony at all?

Well suppose you are a Christian 2nd c writer having to concoct a resurrection -story. After the burial, the disciples are together moping about Jesus. 'Didn't he say he'd rise again on the third day? That's today'.

'So where is he then?' "Well if he rose again he'd be....in the tomb, bashing on the rock door! Come on!'

So rushed they to the tomb wherein Arimathea had shovethed him on the Friday night and saithed they to the tomb guard after they had kickethed them awake:

"Come, roll aside the rock door that we may enter."

"Can't do that. There's an edict about messing about with tombs'.

But as the eleven arguethed with the tomb guard, the ground shook and an angel descended; and tooketh the tomb guard to to their heels. And the angel, after rolling back the rock door, hoiked he himself thereon and lighteth he one up.

"Thank's mate, owe you one."

And The Lord cameth forth rubbing his back. "About time! Hang on... I have to sprinkle the trees..."

Or something like that. No need for women at all. Of course it could be argued that the writers did not even want to hint that the disciples were expecting a resurrection, because that is the Rumour that was bothering Matthew. The tomb - guard was inserted to scotch the rumour that the disciples expected a resurrection and stole the body to fake it. It has to be borne in mind, though that by the time the Tomb guard had arrived, Jesus would have been long gone (removed by Arimathea) and the tomb closed again. Which works in a scenario of a plot to save Jesus but not with a plot to fake a resurrection, or they'd have left the tomb open.

And that's where we came in. That nobody else reports a tomb guard makes it pretty obvious that Matthew made it up to stifle the rumours of a fake resurrection. So what we have is an empty and open tomb and no reason for the disciples to go there. They know the women will go first thing with their ointments and spices and can be left to discover the open tomb. So value of testimony or not, there's the plot with the need for the women to see the empty tomb and run to the disciples.

But the writer will run into another problem. Why would the women go there without the disciples to open the tomb? The gospels skip over this by it suddenly occurring to the Marys that they won't be able to get in (1) but it was Magically open anyway (the less said about Matthew's explanation, the better). So we get a glimpse of a story invented to provide evidence of resurrection - the tomb was empty, but the story about it doesn't quite work, does it? So given that John contradicts the angelic message, the disciples (so the story goes) had no thought of an empty tomb or resurrection (2) until the women alert them. John is clear that nobody even suspected a resurrection and (aside from Jesus appearing to Mary) they don't believe it until Jesus floats in through the door.

This wipes out the appearance of Jesus to the women in Matthew, and we can discard the 'appearance to Simon' which isn't explained and nobody else hints at - except Paul in I Corinthians which (though I think it was visionary), Luke tries to fiddle into the Resurrection -story. We can discard that along with the Trip to Emmaeus episode, which I suspect was just to shift attention away from Jerusalem so that Jesus can appear to Simon while nobody is looking.

So, given that Mark had NO ending, Matthew's trip of the disciples to Galilee can be scrapped, we have John and Luke confirming the appearance of Jesus that very night, for all that they contradict quite a bit. I would rather not speculate here, but I think there is a case for suspecting that the Empty Tomb is a made up claim which doesn't work as a feasible story but requires that Jesus be gone (risen) and anyone but the disciples should discover that.

I'd say that, all gospels agreeing it, there is a case that it is no more than a (very early) Christian claim for a solid -body version of an otherwise spirit - resurrection. The body itself walked.

(1) the Gospel of Peter has them shrug their shoulders and resolve, if they can't move the door, they'll just smash their jars of Girlygunk on the rock - door like they were Launching the tomb on a voyage.

(2) this is another thing that bothered me about the gospels - the disciples had to be repeatedly told the prediction of resurrection, but they should Never understand it. Any hint or suggestion that they might plot something Must be put out of court.

[mgb]

I'd say that, all gospels agreeing it, there is a case that it is no more than a (very early) Christian claim for a solid -body version of an otherwise spirit - resurrection. The body itself walked.

I suspect that the resurrection was a vision of the spirit of Jesus (He appeared in a 'different form'). But this was not strong enough for the story so they had to have a physical resurrection to add more meat to the story. Christianity is a myth that is an echo of the truth. This myth - like a Trojan Horse - was the 'packaging' that delivered Christ's essential teaching to the gentiles. And so we have Christianity in its modern form.

But where was God in all of this? I think he allowed things to happen the way they did because these events were useful. They created a powerful story that helped Christianity spread.

Without this story it might have been much harder for Christianity to spread into the Roman Empire and the land of the gentiles. All grist for the mill and all's well that ends well. God uses everything!

[otseng]

Yes indeed, the burden of proof is on the one making the claim; i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.
Since this is an extraordinary claim, a claim that defies everything we know of science and the physical laws of the universe, we do indeed circle back to the issue of inerrancy because to make such an otherwise absurd, anti-knowledge claim, the words of 'scripture' must come from a god AND be inerrant. On what other authority can an otherwise crazy claim be justified?

I'm not claiming science can explain the resurrection. It's a supernatural event so there is no physical law of the universe that can explain it.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science, by definition, only deals with naturalistic explanations. It assumes that only the natural world exists and only naturalistic explanations can be used. It says nothing about supernatural causation and if it can or cannot happen. So, it is basically stacking the deck to impose science to be able to explain the resurrection. It is saying, "You cannot use a supernatural explanation to explain the resurrection. The resurrection did not have a natural explanation. Therefore the resurrection did not happen." The fundamental flaw is the assumption that a supernatural explanation cannot happen.

Now, skeptics might balk at using a supernatural explanation to explain things since we live in the modern times and everything has been explained by naturalistic causes. Actually, scientists have already entered into the world of the "extranatural" with string theory, multiverse, and the big bang theory -- extra dimensions are posited, a multitude of undetectable universes are posited, and an unknown causation of our universe that is expanding into another dimension.

[otseng]

Yes. for sure Paul (if you believe he was a real person and author of at least the epistles up to about Ephesians) was claiming that Jesus rose from the dead but with a Pharisee -resurrection mindset. That is, they lay in tombs with the spirit 'fallen asleep' until the Last days when they would be awoken to be judged. Jesus was taken up directly to heaven, either in the body or the spirit. Paul remarks rather deprecatingly about Jesus in the flesh, which suggests that he didn't rise in a new heavenly body, which the resurrection stories don't describe anyway (they describe the old one with the dents and scrapes) , but in the (messianic- not divine) spirit, which would try again later. Which is what we get from the gospels.

For your argument, what specific verses are you referring to?

I argue that..hang on...yes the One Corinthian, 15....the appearance to Paul was visionary (after all the others) and that is what is described as being seen by the others. It does not match the Gospel account.

I would disagree 1 Cor says it was a "visionary" resurrection.

1Cor 15:3-4 (KJV)
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

We don't know exactly what occurs during the resurrection, but it's not simply a visionary one.

They are concocted stories on their own evidence, even if a demonstrable example of fabrication did not already exist in the nativities, and were moreover burdened with other contradictions, such as the death of Judas, the penitent thief, the announcement in the Temple, no Transfiguration in John, the Sermons, Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6 and 11- 17 inclusive.....

Sounds like the argument from inerrancy to me...

Evidently Walt Brown places it in the Atlantic with the Atlantic ridge depicted as something to do with it. But when I try to make it animate in my head, It just doesn't look workable.

In the FM, it actually matches up quite well. While you're at it, look at what's proposed in the SG model and see which one looks more workable.

(1) the worst Sci Fi episode I ever saw was a 'Space Family Robinson' episode where a comedian dressed as a carrot ran Robby the Robot through a discombubulator, and, when he came out unscathed, the Carrot explained with a smile that he had been protected from the discombubulatory rays by love. I put my head in my hands and moaned 'Oh Christ, nooo' and I was only 9 at the time.

If you're talking about the original Lost in Space episodes, yes, kinda corny. However, I was pretty impressed with the Netflix Lost in Space series. I originally started watching it with my 8 year old, which he later stopped watching with me. But, I got hooked on it and it's actually quite interesting.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. for sure Paul (if you believe he was a real person and author of at least the epistles up to about Ephesians) was claiming that Jesus rose from the dead but with a Pharisee -resurrection mindset. That is, they lay in tombs with the spirit 'fallen asleep' until the Last days when they would be awoken to be judged. Jesus was taken up directly to heaven, either in the body or the spirit. Paul remarks rather deprecatingly about Jesus in the flesh, which suggests that he didn't rise in a new heavenly body, which the resurrection stories don't describe anyway (they describe the old one with the dents and scrapes) , but in the (messianic- not divine) spirit, which would try again later. Which is what we get from the gospels.

For your argument, what specific verses are you referring to?

I argue that..hang on...yes the One Corinthian, 15....the appearance to Paul was visionary (after all the others) and that is what is described as being seen by the others. It does not match the Gospel account.

I would disagree 1 Cor says it was a "visionary" resurrection.

1Cor 15:3-4 (KJV)
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

We don't know exactly what occurs during the resurrection, but it's not simply a visionary one.

They are concocted stories on their own evidence, even if a demonstrable example of fabrication did not already exist in the nativities, and were moreover burdened with other contradictions, such as the death of Judas, the penitent thief, the announcement in the Temple, no Transfiguration in John, the Sermons, Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6 and 11- 17 inclusive.....

Sounds like the argument from inerrancy to me...

Evidently Walt Brown places it in the Atlantic with the Atlantic ridge depicted as something to do with it. But when I try to make it animate in my head, It just doesn't look workable.

In the FM, it actually matches up quite well. While you're at it, look at what's proposed in the SG model and see which one looks more workable.

(1) the worst Sci Fi episode I ever saw was a 'Space Family Robinson' episode where a comedian dressed as a carrot ran Robby the Robot through a discombubulator, and, when he came out unscathed, the Carrot explained with a smile that he had been protected from the discombubulatory rays by love. I put my head in my hands and moaned 'Oh Christ, nooo' and I was only 9 at the time.

If you're talking about the original Lost in Space episodes, yes, kinda corny. However, I was pretty impressed with the Netflix Lost in Space series. I originally started watching it with my 8 year old, which he later stopped watching with me. But, I got hooked on it and it's actually quite interesting.

I'll try to pick out the particular verses in Paul that suggests he had a Pharisee (sleeping dead coming to life) resurrection in mind. I think we discussed it before but I argued that Paul putting his appearance of Jesus last suggests it was long after the end of crucifixion week and after the '500 at once' had seen the resurrected Jesus. That Paul sees those appearances as no different to his suggests that they were visionary, too. further, the order of appearances in Corinthians doesn't match the gospels, and of course the contradictory nature of the gospel appearances implies (I argue) that there was no coherent resurrection story to begin with, which leaves us with the I Cor. appearances a claim without a solid -body story. That's why I suggests that they were visionary is a valid alternative to insisting that the resurrection stories are reliable and that I Corinthians supports them.

You can call it 'Inerrancy' or whatever you like, so long as you bear in mind that it's arguing that the contradictory nature of the the resurrection accounts makes them unreliable beyond even the crucifixion accounts. Which are certainly not 'inerrant'. That is, inerrancy itself does not necessarily make the accounts non -credible, to some degree.

I already looked at the Walt Brown model and I have said that I don't see how it works when taken from a neat little diagram and plonked in between America and Africa, pushing them apart (that would put the Rockies in the east, not the west). Aside from which I explained why a catastrophic Flood scenario does not fit with the geology that we see; millions of years of tectonic - plate movement does and that is moreover verified as a mechanism going on today, as is strata -deposit while there is No evidence (that I have seen) for an underground ocean reservoir. Not your underground water pockets from deep drilling, as I explained, for claiming the Atlantic mountain chain as caused by a fountain.

Yes the original was a bit corny. It was these people stranding on a desert planet with a monster of the week lined up to stroll on stage. I didn't catch the remakes though I saw the Film - once.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'd say that, all gospels agreeing it, there is a case that it is no more than a (very early) Christian claim for a solid -body version of an otherwise spirit - resurrection. The body itself walked.

I suspect that the resurrection was a vision of the spirit of Jesus (He appeared in a 'different form'). But this was not strong enough for the story so they had to have a physical resurrection to add more meat to the story. Christianity is a myth that is an echo of the truth. This myth - like a Trojan Horse - was the 'packaging' that delivered Christ's essential teaching to the gentiles. And so we have Christianity in its modern form.

But where was God in all of this? I think he allowed things to happen the way they did because these events were useful. They created a powerful story that helped Christianity spread.

Without this story it might have been much harder for Christianity to spread into the Roman Empire and the land of the gentiles. All grist for the mill and all's well that ends well. God uses everything!

Obviously I'm going to say that it works as well or better if it never happened at all and visions is just another word for imagination. It can hardly be God doing it as why would he arrange for people to have contradictory visions?

I also argue that the 'essential teachings' were Paul's and not Jesus'. The gospels were written to put Paul's teaching further Gentilized by the Greek Christians with Jesus turned from a messiah into a demi -god and Paul's hostility towards his opponents turned (with some ongoing anti -Judaism on the part of the Greeks) into a venom towards the Jews.

The rest is claiming that success proves truth. If that were so, Islam to claim to be true and not Christianity.