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]

The point is that one can know from the gospel contradictions that the Jesus that existed (if any) cannot credibly be as described in the Gospels. That is my pet theory and argument.

If inerrancy is dropped, then arguing from contradictions no longer is valid.

But Muslims or Islamic apologists will argue that the most populous Muslim nation - Indonesia - converted without an Islamic war.

Taxation was the other element that I mentioned. People were financially incentivized to convert to Islam.

"Starting in the 13th century Islam arrived and by the 15th century, Muslim Sultans lead a campaign against the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms in Indonesia, taking over most of the country and declared Islam as the state religion. It was at this point that Islam became the dominant religion in Indonesia, over Hinduism and Buddhism, which had been the dominant religions for centuries. Non-Muslims either agreed to pay the Jizya tax, converted to Islam or fled to other islands in Indonesia so that they could escape from Muslim rule."
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/rel ... nesia.html

But that does not make it or any other religion, true.

Never said it was. The only question I'm bringing up is why the rise of Christianity?

The thing in that these incentives only applies when Islam was the dominant religion. Obviously when Hindo -Buddhism was the dominant religion, how could Islam tax them, let alone make war on them? So you tell me what was making people convert so it came to dominate? Same with Buddhism which spread against dominant religions that did not approve of it (Hinduism and Confucianism). When Christianity got power it was a different story but when it was spreading before it got power the appeal it it's appeal, which Is agreed , but before they got power, Islam and Buddhism spread, too. That makes them no more true than the claims of Christianity - or the central one; the resurrection -claim.

Thanks for the full description of tectonic plate movement. I might add that this is still measurably going on today and causes earthquakes, Tsunamis and volcanoes I believe and that's after the underground reservoir was gone. under- plate water slides do not today account for tectonic plate movement

Yes, tectonics plates are still moving. In the FM, the flood did not occur too long ago (on the order of thousands of years ago). What I theorize is the plates are still moving due to momentum of the splitting of the plates during the flood, not from any existing underground force. This is testable with the prediction that 100 years from now, the plates will be moving slower than they are today.
[/quote]

Then you reject the science that says that liquid or liquiescent (another word I can't spell )movement of what's below the mantle or the lower mantle is the reason for tectonic plate movement and is thus the primary theory for geological formations than water, even without a catastrophically fast and massive event that does not (as I have argued) fit the geology that we see, aside that continents sliding about on water with animal populations clinging to them (as per the Creationist Pangaea -adaptation) and piling up mountain ranges (for no evident reason) as they go is really not feasible.

[mgb]

A reasoned argument should represent the available evidence, not itself be that evidence.

Evidence is anything that supports a hypothesis.

[otseng]

The only question I'm bringing up is why the rise of Christianity?

The thing in that these incentives only applies when Islam was the dominant religion. Obviously when Hindo -Buddhism was the dominant religion, how could Islam tax them, let alone make war on them? So you tell me what was making people convert so it came to dominate? Same with Buddhism which spread against dominant religions that did not approve of it (Hinduism and Confucianism). When Christianity got power it was a different story but when it was spreading before it got power the appeal it it's appeal, which Is agreed , but before they got power, Islam and Buddhism spread, too. That makes them no more true than the claims of Christianity - or the central one; the resurrection -claim.

Islam and Buddhism are not really relevant to my question. If the resurrection of Jesus did not happen, then what could account for the rise of Christianity? We can even scale back the question. If the resurrection did not happen, what could account for the dramatic change in the disciples? After Jesus was arrested, they abandoned him. They were all expecting a conquering messiah, not a conquered savior. When Jesus was crucified, not many of them are even mentioned to be at the cross. They gave up on Jesus as being their savior.

Then you reject the science that says that liquid or liquiescent (another word I can't spell )movement of what's below the mantle or the lower mantle is the reason for tectonic plate movement and is thus the primary theory for geological formations than water

Claiming that the tectonic plates is being moved by solid rock underneath is not science, rather it is an ad hoc explanation.

even without a catastrophically fast and massive event that does not (as I have argued) fit the geology that we see, aside that continents sliding about on water with animal populations clinging to them (as per the Creationist Pangaea -adaptation) and piling up mountain ranges (for no evident reason) as they go is really not feasible.

Fundamentally, the main difference in SG and the FM is deep time. It both believes all the layers were deposited underwater, existence of tectonic plates, and massive deformation and erosion of the strata occurred after all the layers were deposited. The problem is in order to support deep time, a multitude of ad hoc explanations are added (like unconformities). Looking at all the photographic evidence I've provided, the FM better accounts for the data without the need of adding numerous ad hoc explanations. I will go even further and state that wherever deep time is posited (even outside geology), ad hoc explanations are required to hold up the assumption of deep time.

[TRANSPONDER]

The only question I'm bringing up is why the rise of Christianity?

The thing in that these incentives only applies when Islam was the dominant religion. Obviously when Hindo -Buddhism was the dominant religion, how could Islam tax them, let alone make war on them? So you tell me what was making people convert so it came to dominate? Same with Buddhism which spread against dominant religions that did not approve of it (Hinduism and Confucianism). When Christianity got power it was a different story but when it was spreading before it got power the appeal it it's appeal, which Is agreed , but before they got power, Islam and Buddhism spread, too. That makes them no more true than the claims of Christianity - or the central one; the resurrection -claim.

Islam and Buddhism are not really relevant to my question. If the resurrection of Jesus did not happen, then what could account for the rise of Christianity? We can even scale back the question. If the resurrection did not happen, what could account for the dramatic change in the disciples? After Jesus was arrested, they abandoned him. They were all expecting a conquering messiah, not a conquered savior. When Jesus was crucified, not many of them are even mentioned to be at the cross. They gave up on Jesus as being their savior.

Islam and Buddhism are very relevant. They spread as well as Christianity without any of the supposed advantages, like being true of (as you seem to be hinting) the absolute conviction of the disciples somehow drove the religion. I have accepted that the apparent historicity of the gospels is an advantage, but that does not mean that the story was actually tue. The point is that the success of Christianity even with the persuasive resurrection story does not mean that the story has to be true. .

Then you reject the science that says that liquid or liquiescent (another word I can't spell )movement of what's below the mantle or the lower mantle is the reason for tectonic plate movement and is thus the primary theory for geological formations than water

Claiming that the tectonic plates is being moved by solid rock underneath is not science, rather it is an ad hoc explanation.

even without a catastrophically fast and massive event that does not (as I have argued) fit the geology that we see, aside that continents sliding about on water with animal populations clinging to them (as per the Creationist Pangaea -adaptation) and piling up mountain ranges (for no evident reason) as they go is really not feasible.

Fundamentally, the main difference in SG and the FM is deep time. It both believes all the layers were deposited underwater, existence of tectonic plates, and massive deformation and erosion of the strata occurred after all the layers were deposited. The problem is in order to support deep time, a multitude of ad hoc explanations are added (like unconformities). Looking at all the photographic evidence I've provided, the FM better accounts for the data without the need of adding numerous ad hoc explanations. I will go even further and state that wherever deep time is posited (even outside geology), ad hoc explanations are required to hold up the assumption of deep time.

It seems that you are trying to argue that the Flood scenario is as the deep time geological model but speeded up. I have already explained that such speedy catastophism would not result in the strata deformation that we see (neatly rolled strata) nor the formation of mountain chains where they are following the split of Pangaea. I already explained how a long process of strata layering, tectonic plate movement, erosion and more layering with a post mountain - build leading to a river slowly (meanders) carving a canyon over 6 million years explains what we have better than the Flood scenario which doesn't look feasible to me anyway with an underground ocean, continent -sized fountain and water -sliding continents pushing up soft strata mountains into neat rolls rather than a jumble. Never mind how Noah and his animals survived all that. And we haven't even looked as radiometric dating and fossil - distribution. The 'ad hoc' is all on your side. The waving about of photos and 'doesn't that look like a flood did it?' (while forgetting all the rebuttals I've posted) is evasive. Human first impressions are what leads to delusion. Digging into it and deciphering the clues is what corrects the delusions, and the evidence of Geology is that it was a long slow process and not a year long flood, even if to a superficial glance, it may look like it could be one hypothesis.,

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng, above= "Claiming that the tectonic plates is being moved by solid rock underneath is not science, rather it is an ad hoc explanation."

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Tectonic plate movement is because of liquid rock. I said the mantle, which was a mistake. It was the molten rock below the mantle but also I found that the mantle itself slowly acts as liquiescent. Or that's the current theory. Given that the hypothesis is still being investigated and i made some slips in relating it, you do not make yourself look good, otseng, mate, by pulling misrepresentations like that, never mind dissing science as 'ad hoc'. And we still have the evidence of dating and fossil distribution.

The evidence of faulting, earthquakes and volcanoes supports the molten rock model of tectonic plate movement which is still going on today long after the supposed Flood event was over. The geology we see does not fit your Flood explanation, which sounds improbable anyway. There is nothing to support your model of water causing continental drift which shouldn't be happening now that the Flood is (supposedly) over, yet it is measurably still going on.
You have all the evidence against a Flood model and pretty much all the evidence for Deep time. Time to stop the denial, evasion and dissing of science as 'ad hoc' and follow the evidence to swallowing that Genesis is Myth.

[Diogenes]

I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history

If Jesus, the Jesus of Matthew and Mark, were 'the most influential person in all of human history,'
more people would act according to his teachings.
Few do.

He battled hypocrisy, yet the church that bears his name is as full of hypocrites as the religious leaders he battled in his day.
They prize rules over love, then and now.

There is no doubt few act according to his teachings. But, few believe his teachings are wrong. So, the problem is not that people should not follow his teachings, but that we decide not to follow his teachings.

Generally, people mentally accept that Jesus's teachings are noble. But, practically, we don't want to do it. It's like we know we should exercise and eat healthy, but most of us don't do it. We know we should forgive others, but yet we chose to rather hold grudges. We know we should help the less fortunate, but we hoard our own wealth. We know we should love our neighbors, but we discriminate instead.

So, the problem is not with Jesus, but with us. We chose to not follow his teachings.

Fortunately though, it's not how much we follow his teachings that determines our status with God. Unlike all other religions, where our grade is based on our performance, in Christianity, our grade is based on Jesus's performance. We are accepted because of what he has done for us, not for anything we have done.

This is not to absolve us from following his teachings, but the burden of being graded based on our performance is removed. It's like having two types of free gym membership. The first type is you get to be a gym member if you come in every day, work on every machine for 30 minutes, do all the free weights with 100 reps each, run 100 laps, and swim 100 laps. You do this, then you can maintain free gym membership. But if you miss any of this, you no longer can be a gym member. The second type is someone pays for your membership, then you can do whatever you want in the gym.

Excellent arguments, but...
The issue is His influence. If few follow his teaching, that argues against his influence.

What great moral leader, from Buddha to Gandhi, advocated a morality substantially different from Jesu of Nazareth? Are Christians any more observant, are they better practitioners of that moral code than ... say... Buddhists or any of the hundreds of other moral systems that share those values?

As for "forgiveness" or 'grace' offering a free pass, a 'get out of jail free card,' I'm not sure that is a good thing. Of what moral force is a belief that says you can act abominably, then say 'sorry' and all is forgiven?

It's almost as if some conman came up with this idea: "We allow you to stay in the club [and continue to pay dues] as long as you say 'Sorry.'" I don't see how this is a selling point for Xianity.

[mgb]

Fortunately though, it's not how much we follow his teachings that determines our status with God. Unlike all other religions, where our grade is based on our performance, in Christianity, our grade is based on Jesus's performance. We are accepted because of what he has done for us, not for anything we have done.

This is not to absolve us from following his teachings, but the burden of being graded based on our performance is removed.

This teaching is very common in modern Christianity - admit Jesus is God and you are saved. But it is at variance with the gospels which clearly tell us that we must live to the highest standards of virtue and morality and that sinners risk hell. Belief alone is not enough. They will say 'Did we not cast out demons in your name?' - so they obviously believed - but Jesus will say 'Away from Me, I do not know you'.

[TRANSPONDER]

I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history

If Jesus, the Jesus of Matthew and Mark, were 'the most influential person in all of human history,'
more people would act according to his teachings.
Few do.

He battled hypocrisy, yet the church that bears his name is as full of hypocrites as the religious leaders he battled in his day.
They prize rules over love, then and now.

There is no doubt few act according to his teachings. But, few believe his teachings are wrong. So, the problem is not that people should not follow his teachings, but that we decide not to follow his teachings.

Generally, people mentally accept that Jesus's teachings are noble. But, practically, we don't want to do it. It's like we know we should exercise and eat healthy, but most of us don't do it. We know we should forgive others, but yet we chose to rather hold grudges. We know we should help the less fortunate, but we hoard our own wealth. We know we should love our neighbors, but we discriminate instead.

So, the problem is not with Jesus, but with us. We chose to not follow his teachings.

Fortunately though, it's not how much we follow his teachings that determines our status with God. Unlike all other religions, where our grade is based on our performance, in Christianity, our grade is based on Jesus's performance. We are accepted because of what he has done for us, not for anything we have done.

This is not to absolve us from following his teachings, but the burden of being graded based on our performance is removed. It's like having two types of free gym membership. The first type is you get to be a gym member if you come in every day, work on every machine for 30 minutes, do all the free weights with 100 reps each, run 100 laps, and swim 100 laps. You do this, then you can maintain free gym membership. But if you miss any of this, you no longer can be a gym member. The second type is someone pays for your membership, then you can do whatever you want in the gym.

Excellent arguments, but...
The issue is His influence. If few follow his teaching, that argues against his influence.

What great moral leader, from Buddha to Gandhi, advocated a morality substantially different from Jesu of Nazareth? Are Christians any more observant, are they better practitioners of that moral code than ... say... Buddhists or any of the hundreds of other moral systems that share those values?

As for "forgiveness" or 'grace' offering a free pass, a 'get out of jail free card,' I'm not sure that is a good thing. Of what moral force is a belief that says you can act abominably, then say 'sorry' and all is forgiven?

It's almost as if some conman came up with this idea: "We allow you to stay in the club [and continue to pay dues] as long as you say 'Sorry.'" I don't see how this is a selling point for Xianity.

otseng's argument sounds to me like the familiar one of taking the best of human moral and ethical thought and awarding the credit to religion. And if it fails, that's man's fault, not the fault of religion. It's been said (by an old work colleague of mine) that 'Christianity hasn't failed; it has never been tried'. In what respect has it not been tried ? It was the state religion of all the known world. It is near 2,00o years old. It has been argued over and any wrinkles ironed out by the best minds it can attract. It is taught everywhere in every language including Cobal B and Klingon. In what respect has it never been tried? That's what I should have said to him at the time (says ol' lightning wits ) but it look me years to think it through. What I did say at the time is that any religious or political system can argue the same. I pointed out that Communism was making the same excuse as it failed year after year 'If only people really followed the teachings, it would work'.

At least secular humanism doesn't claim that 'it would work perfectly if only people rigorously followed the rules'. But it does apply reasoning to an unreasonable society that has evolved without plan. We are a bunch of thinking monkeys and that's how we behave. We CAN reason, but we don't, because we are driven by instinct, not reason. I think we have devised a better moral system than those that existed in the past and that includes the Bible. It has some good suggestions, but none that can't be worked out by human morals and (I argue) that is where many Gospel exhortations came from (Golden rule for example - a social/moral universal basic). Others are either absurd (give all you have the poor? Then you'll be poor and they'll have to give it back). And does anyone think turning to other cheek really works?) And a lot of it is simply commercials designed to suit the new church looking for bums on seats and donations.

No. I rate the Bible (at best) as no more than any other book as regards advice on how to live (socially - aside from any Divinity - claims) and is open to question as much as any other book. I think we should stop wringing our hands over not being perfect (let alone giving up and saying God will put it all right at some later stage) and understand the primate nature that makes us act the way we do. This is hardly understood and hardly taught. We can reason and do better than being driven by evolved instinct. But this isn't taught because logical reasoning and critical thinking is not taught (in class) anywhere in the world, so far as I know.

[otseng]

I have already explained that such speedy catastophism would not result in the strata deformation that we see (neatly rolled strata) nor the formation of mountain chains where they are following the split of Pangaea.

I don't recall you explaining this. Could you refer to your post?

I already explained how a long process of strata layering, tectonic plate movement, erosion and more layering with a post mountain - build leading to a river slowly (meanders) carving a canyon over 6 million years explains what we have better than the Flood scenario which doesn't look feasible to me anyway with an underground ocean, continent -sized fountain and water -sliding continents pushing up soft strata mountains into neat rolls rather than a jumble.

I don't recall you explaining this either. Please also show where you provided evidence to back up your claims.

Never mind how Noah and his animals survived all that.

The ark of course.

And we haven't even looked as radiometric dating and fossil - distribution. The 'ad hoc' is all on your side

If you wish we can discuss radiometric dating also and compare which has more ad hoc explanations.

The waving about of photos and 'doesn't that look like a flood did it?' (while forgetting all the rebuttals I've posted) is evasive.

I've taken considerable time to address the questions posed by everyone. Whereas, many questions are left unanswered by SG. For example, who has answered the questions about the unconformities?

How can one determine if an unconformity is due to lack of deposition or due to erosion?
Why or how can erosion in an unconformity result in a layer parallel to the one below it?
If erosion occurred, was the layer above sea level when it occurred?
If it was above sea level, how did it become above sea level?

Human first impressions are what leads to delusion. Digging into it and deciphering the clues is what corrects the delusions,

Are you saying the first impression when looking at the geologic evidence is a global flood?

[otseng]

Otseng, above= "Claiming that the tectonic plates is being moved by solid rock underneath is not science, rather it is an ad hoc explanation."

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Tectonic plate movement is because of liquid rock. I said the mantle, which was a mistake. It was the molten rock below the mantle but also I found that the mantle itself slowly acts as liquiescent.

What I'm referring to ad hoc here is the solid mantle is able to move the crustal tectonic plates. Even if the mantle was "ductile" solid rock, what would cause the horizontal forces necessary to move tectonic plates? Note, these plates are not free floating like ships on water. These are continental solid rock that are all locked into place. Compare this to the FM, where the tectonic plates are broken up and are actually floating on water. Horizontal forces to move the plates in the FM are due to water gushing out of the cracks and the incline generated by the formation of the oceanic ridges. In the FM, there is a mechanism for movement. In the SG, it would require much more force to move the tectonic plates. Yet, this force is claimed to come from "convection of heat" within the earth. This is yet another ad hoc explanation.

What makes an explanation ad hoc is if an explanation does not flow out of the model, but is added to hold up a theory. As I mentioned before, once you need to add many ad hoc explanations, one needs to seriously question the model. It comes to the point where if you add enough ad hoc explanations, it becomes unfalsifiable and it can then account for anything and any evidence or argument levied against it will be countered with additional ad hoc explanations.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for people to hold to a theory that is supported by ad hoc explanations to see anything wrong with it. They see it to be the truth since nothing can assail it. As I've mentioned, we see this in the doctrine of inerrancy. And likewise, I argue it is also in SG.

The best example of a model that is held up by ad hoc explanations that was hard dislodge is the geocentric model of the universe, which I talked about In post 399. It took a long time for it to be replaced because it was able to explain any motion. But, it did so by adding epicycles. And if you add enough epicycles, you can explain any motion. Here's a great example of this: