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

[JoeyKnothead]

True. But he did eat kosher and had a natural diet without artificial ingredients, preservatives, additives, sweeteners, GMO, etc. Foods were freshly prepared unlike all the fast food and junk food that we eat now. Also he did do a lot of walking.

I'm sorry I missed this'n, cause it's one of the best funny replies I've ever seen. The best comedy tells the truth.

I point this out in recognition that if one can poke fun regarding, kinda, their own notions, I see that as a confidence in em, rather'n dogmatic adherence. Of course confidence alone oughtn't rule the day.


Good one

[Diogenes]

History is replete with examples of apotheosis and deification. I say 'history' rather than 'religion' or 'mythology' because that is the very issue. You carve out an exception for Jesus of Nazareth, that he is exceptional because he was a 'real' person and all the others were not. Let's assume Jesus was 'real' (although he may be a historical composite of real people). Why assume that all the other characters who became gods were not based on 'real' people?

Might need to then go back a step. I believe that Jesus was an actual person in history, not a historical composite of other people. The person, Jesus Christ, actually existed. Do you dispute this?

This is still a matter of some controversy, tho' I think the weight of authority is that there really was a prophet who existed and fit some of the descriptions in Mark and Matthew. But whatever the historical reality, those events have become encumbered with many legends and stories of suspect authenticity. It is difficult to determine which stories, parables, sermons, were rightfully attributed to Jesus. Many were written to try and fill in those 'lost years' where we have no canonical reporting of what Jesus did between the ages of 2 and 30. Infancy Gospel of Thomas is but one.
https://udayton.edu/imri/mary/c/childhood-of-jesus.php
When Constantine forced the many Bishops to gather and come up with an agreed narrative, they had many issues and 'heresies' to deal with. By compromise and pressure they finally agreed on a basic notion summarized in the Nicene Creed. Pauline theology was an important component. Naturally literature that did not fit the narrative was rejected. Luther would have liked to toss James. Others consider the anonymous 'Revelation' to be preposterous, but it fit the narrative. Who Jesus really was may be different for everyone and probably can only be determined by faith. I'd prefer not to confuse faith with truth. But the truth is largely unknowable.

[otseng]

Might need to then go back a step. I believe that Jesus was an actual person in history, not a historical composite of other people. The person, Jesus Christ, actually existed. Do you dispute this?

This is still a matter of some controversy, tho' I think the weight of authority is that there really was a prophet who existed and fit some of the descriptions in Mark and Matthew. But whatever the historical reality, those events have become encumbered with many legends and stories of suspect authenticity.

OK, I have no major problem with this then. The question is then how much of what is claimed to be true is historically accurate. Of course, we will never be 100% sure of anything that has been claimed to be true actually occurred. But, this is pretty much the case with any ancient historical figure.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #584]

I'd say it was a useful one.

I am afraid it is not. In other words, the fact that there may be, or even is, other religions with similar claims to Christianity, along with the fact, most religious folks line up with the geography of the religion they happen to adhere to, would have nothing whatsoever to do with,

A.) Whether the Christian claims would be true, or false.

B.) Whether there would be good reasons to believe the Christian claims.

The point is, the Christian claims stand, or fall on their own, and the above facts add nothing, nor do they take anything away. In other words, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Almost I'd agree, but the parallels of other religions can show (as I said) that (for example) the demi -god view of Jesus in Christianity (especially as Paul doesn't seem to be saying that) can show that such a claim can be put down to human tendency rather than true revelation and can thus undermine the credibility of the claim.

[TRANSPONDER]

That said, the influence of Christianity and its' totem figure is undeniable. We have to be very wary of the Christian ploy of trying to argue that the success or influence of Christianity somehow is evidence of its' truth.

I've never claimed that. But, what I have asked is what can account for it? There is nothing in his life that is remarkable... except for his resurrection. Others have claimed to be the messiah, performed miracles, and been good teachers. If one discounts the resurrection, what else is there to explain it?

There you go. Using the success of Christianity as evidence of its' truth (based on the resurrection). I already pointed out the success of Islam and Buddhism, so success is not evidence of it being true. I cancese that the Jesus story looks historical and may be based on fact. It also has a popular appeal some other Pana religions didn't have. None of that does a single thing to make the resurrection true.

This is unarguable as Christians generally don't argue that the book is perfect and without error or flaw.

Inerrantists do.

I can't remember the last time I came accross one. They ALL accepted that there were a few errors that didn't matter anyway.

While related to inerrancy' it is not an inerrancy argument but a reliability argument.

Yes, I would agree with this. The question is more about the reliability of the Bible. We've gone in depth with two claims of the Bible - the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem and the global flood. I've argued based on these two claims, the Bible has demonstrated to be reliable. There are non-Biblical evidence to support these claims and rational arguments to believe in it.

Fine. I say there is no valid non -biblical evidence and no good rational arguments to support Bible reliability.

Others want to deny or fiddle the science to make it seem that the Genesis story could be true.

If it's denying science by exposing all the ad hoc explanations in it, then I'm guilty.

You are indeed guilty of science -denial. You are also guilty of ignoring serious objections to the 'Flood - geology' model and coming up with confused and self contradictory ad hoc excuses for your Flood scenario and refused to see what (I'd guess) everyone else could.

Unless one denies science including history up to the tower of Babel which is about the Babylonian ziggurat (Bab-el Marduk) and has nothing to do with why humans have different languages

OK, then how did all the languages develop?

Gradually. It's rather like tectonic plate movement We have historical evidence of the evolution of English. Just as we have evidence of tectonic plate movement today. Thus the best explanation is that is how it happened in the past, not with a global flood or the Babel -scenario. I believe it's also correct that Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese and perhaps Harrappan were known to exist before the time Babel was supposed to happen and certainly Babylon (with the Tower of Bab-el -Marduk) was built far later when many nations with different languages existed. So you'll see that one doesn't need to show how languages started and diversified (though it can be theorised) but it can be shown that the Genesis account is wrong. Just as it is wrong about everything else.

[quote[ Nobody so far as I know, has noticed that John has no transfiguration.[/quote]

That's because John didn't write it.

Crafty, and evasive. The authorship has nothing to do with it. You know and so does everyone else that I'm using the convenient label to identify the gospel. Even if you don't ascribe the authorship to John or any other disciple or someone who heard the eyewitness. The point is that the Synoptic timeline between the feeding of five thousand and walking on the water has the transfiguration and the John gospel recounting the same events has no transfiguration (1). And nobody seems to have noticed it. After 1.5 + years of Bible study, how is that possible?

Atheist apologetics does argue that the nativities are not historical but invented

I can grant some of it could be, but I would doubt all of it is.

It all is, demonstrably, ALL of it. Even Luke's census of Quirinus- a true event-is used in an untrue way.

(1) and amongst the various excuses, one I've never seen is: 'Oh John didn't think it was important'. I've had one argue it was a different event. It's demonstrably the same. Another argued that Jesus told them to be quiet about it. That doesn't work either.

[TRANSPONDER]

We've gone in depth with two claims of the Bible - the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem and the global flood. I've argued based on these two claims, the Bible has demonstrated to be reliable."

I can't leave these hanging. Of course the Bible DOES contain some material based on historical fact. Plenty of it, in fact. Tyre destroyed. Yes, but not totally and forever. It continued and still exists today and efforts to argue that it is a different place, fail.

The point about the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem was not that it didn't happen, but the Bible puts a miraculous spin on it which is unreliable, not to mention that it hardly mentions the siege of Lachish. It was embarrassing that it was reduced. The argument I made was that it made no sense that Hezekiah submitted and paid tribute (just as Senaccherib says) but then afterwards laid siege to Lachish (sending officers to demand that Hezekiah surrender) and their return (after Lachish had fallen, surely), to find the king laying siege to Libnah after which they march away. Supposedly because God smote them..

It makes more sense in this order. Senaccherib laid siege to Lachish, sending officers to Jerusalem (probably after Lachish fell) to demand that Hezekiah surrender. Hezekiah submitted and paid tribute They return (after Lachish had fallen, surely), to find the king laying siege to Libnah, after which they march away. To continue the rest of the campaign with a perfectly adequate army.

This is much more sense and fits the Assyrian account, but it doesn't suit the Bible which wants to claim that God saved them. That's what's not reliable, even about historical events,.

I don't need to rehears what's wrong with your Hydroplate and Pangaea model. Others will have remembered the debunks even if you ignore them.

[Diogenes]

Returning to the original question

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

:
We don't expect any text to be inerrant, unless it claims to be both inspired by God and authoritative. If words are actually directly inspired by God AND make claims that are supernatural, that defy all our known laws of physics, then NO, we cannot trust it unless it is inerrant. A single error is sufficient to support the conclusion the Bible is not the word of a perfect, omniscient, honest God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Returning to the original question

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

:
We don't expect any text to be inerrant, unless it claims to be both inspired by God and authoritative. If words are actually directly inspired by God AND make claims that are supernatural, that defy all our known laws of physics, then NO, we cannot trust it unless it is inerrant. A single error is sufficient to support the conclusion the Bible is not the word of a perfect, omniscient, honest God.

That's true, but hardly any Bible apologists opts for God micromanaging or even dictating it. There's just too much wrong and they know it. It's rather treated as a history account telling us what God wants us to know and (human errors and all) is as reliable as any other history. This is what the debate is really about.

[otseng]

Using the success of Christianity as evidence of its' truth (based on the resurrection). I already pointed out the success of Islam and Buddhism, so success is not evidence of it being true. I cancese that the Jesus story looks historical and may be based on fact. It also has a popular appeal some other Pana religions didn't have. None of that does a single thing to make the resurrection true.

The "success" of Islam and Buddhism can hardly compare to the historical impact of Jesus in world history in terms of scope.

But, back to the main point, which is an explanation for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation.

You are indeed guilty of science -denial. You are also guilty of ignoring serious objections to the 'Flood - geology' model and coming up with confused and self contradictory ad hoc excuses for your Flood scenario and refused to see what (I'd guess) everyone else could.

Please support your claim here.

OK, then how did all the languages develop?

Gradually. It's rather like tectonic plate movement We have historical evidence of the evolution of English.

This doesn't really answer the question.

I believe it's also correct that Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese and perhaps Harrappan were known to exist before the time Babel was supposed to happen and certainly Babylon (with the Tower of Bab-el -Marduk) was built far later when many nations with different languages existed.

As for the oldest languages in the world based on the first written account:

Egyptian - 2690 BC
Sumerian - 2600 BC
Canaanite - 2400 BC
Chinese - 1200 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... n_accounts

The tower of Babel is older than these.

"Some scholars use internal and external evidence to offer 3500–3000 BC as a likely range for the date of the tower,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_ ... r_of_Babel

So, your claim would be false and the tower of Babel would precede Egyptian, Sumerian, and Chinese.

Nobody so far as I know, has noticed that John has no transfiguration.

That's because John didn't write it.

Crafty, and evasive. The authorship has nothing to do with it. You know and so does everyone else that I'm using the convenient label to identify the gospel.

My point is John was named as one of the people who witnessed the transfiguration in the other accounts. If John wrote the gospel of John, it would seem strange he would not include it. But, if John did not write the gospel of John, then it would make more sense that it is not included.

The point is that the Synoptic timeline between the feeding of five thousand and walking on the water has the transfiguration and the John gospel recounting the same events has no transfiguration (1). And nobody seems to have noticed it.

There are many things that are not recorded in all four gospels. So, not sure your point here.

It all is, demonstrably, ALL of it. Even Luke's census of Quirinus- a true event-is used in an untrue way.

Doctrinally, the only significant points would be being born (he didn't just come from the sky) and a virgin birth. I think if you could disprove these, then it would have impact on Christianity.

The point about the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem was not that it didn't happen, but the Bible puts a miraculous spin on it which is unreliable, not to mention that it hardly mentions the siege of Lachish. It was embarrassing that it was reduced.

And the Assyrian account had no spin on it?

Even if the Bible puts a miraculous spin on it (which I don't agree with), then it doesn't make it unreliable. Plus, there are many things the Bible does not mention. There's no need for it to be an encyclopedic account of the Assyrian conquest of the Israelites.

[TRANSPONDER]

Using the success of Christianity as evidence of its' truth (based on the resurrection). I already pointed out the success of Islam and Buddhism, so success is not evidence of it being true. I cancese that the Jesus story looks historical and may be based on fact. It also has a popular appeal some other Pana religions didn't have. None of that does a single thing to make the resurrection true.

The "success" of Islam and Buddhism can hardly compare to the historical impact of Jesus in world history in terms of scope.

But, back to the main point, which is an explanation for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation.

You are indeed guilty of science -denial. You are also guilty of ignoring serious objections to the 'Flood - geology' model and coming up with confused and self contradictory ad hoc excuses for your Flood scenario and refused to see what (I'd guess) everyone else could.

Please support your claim here.

OK, then how did all the languages develop?

Gradually. It's rather like tectonic plate movement We have historical evidence of the evolution of English.

This doesn't really answer the question.

I believe it's also correct that Egyptian, Sumerian, Chinese and perhaps Harrappan were known to exist before the time Babel was supposed to happen and certainly Babylon (with the Tower of Bab-el -Marduk) was built far later when many nations with different languages existed.

As for the oldest languages in the world based on the first written account:

Egyptian - 2690 BC
Sumerian - 2600 BC
Canaanite - 2400 BC
Chinese - 1200 BC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... n_accounts

The tower of Babel is older than these.

"Some scholars use internal and external evidence to offer 3500–3000 BC as a likely range for the date of the tower,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_ ... r_of_Babel

So, your claim would be false and the tower of Babel would precede Egyptian, Sumerian, and Chinese.

Nobody so far as I know, has noticed that John has no transfiguration.

That's because John didn't write it.

Crafty, and evasive. The authorship has nothing to do with it. You know and so does everyone else that I'm using the convenient label to identify the gospel.

My point is John was named as one of the people who witnessed the transfiguration in the other accounts. If John wrote the gospel of John, it would seem strange he would not include it. But, if John did not write the gospel of John, then it would make more sense that it is not included.

The point is that the Synoptic timeline between the feeding of five thousand and walking on the water has the transfiguration and the John gospel recounting the same events has no transfiguration (1). And nobody seems to have noticed it.

There are many things that are not recorded in all four gospels. So, not sure your point here.

It all is, demonstrably, ALL of it. Even Luke's census of Quirinus- a true event-is used in an untrue way.

Doctrinally, the only significant points would be being born (he didn't just come from the sky) and a virgin birth. I think if you could disprove these, then it would have impact on Christianity.

The point about the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem was not that it didn't happen, but the Bible puts a miraculous spin on it which is unreliable, not to mention that it hardly mentions the siege of Lachish. It was embarrassing that it was reduced.

And the Assyrian account had no spin on it?

Even if the Bible puts a miraculous spin on it (which I don't agree with), then it doesn't make it unreliable. Plus, there are many things the Bible does not mention. There's no need for it to be an encyclopedic account of the Assyrian conquest of the Israelites.

The success of Christianity is to be ascribed to becoming the state religion of Rome and afterwards the expansion of the West. It is arguable that it is any more convincing in the Biblical narration than the scriptures of Islam or Buddhism and is no proof as to whether the resurrection actually happened or not.

The objections to the Flood -geology hypotheses have been set out several times already. Ignore them if you wish. You quotemined my post about the spread of languages. The whole post explained that the evolution of English was a model of how other languages spread.

The article on the Tower of Babel is based on the Biblical myth (as if it was historically true). The actual tower (if indeed the Babel myth is referencing the zuiggurat of Babylon) has a different date.
Babylonia - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Babylonia
Empire of Hammurabi — c. 1792–1752 BC middle chronology, or c. 1696–1654 BC, short chronology) created a short-lived empire, succeeding the earlier Akkadian ...
‎First Babylonian Empire · ‎Babylonian religion · ‎Timeline of the Assyrian Empire

You posted:
Egyptian - 2690 BC
Sumerian - 2600 BC
Canaanite - 2400 BC
Chinese - 1200 BC

So other than Chinese the Babylonian empire with its' ziggural is later than the various languages.

The point about whether it was a person calkled John is irrelevant. The actual point is that if the Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) and the synoptics (whoever wrote those) disagree about the Transfiguration, then either John's gospel or the synoptics are unreliable in that particular respect. It doesn't help that particular point (nor other serious contradictions) to hint at other things not mentioned in the Bible.

The Assyrian account does have spin, I am sure. Or rather damage limitation. That Sennacherib had to make a big propaganda about it suggests to me that he had to present this as a great victory when it was actually a climb -down. He should have flattened Jerusalem as he did Lachish. Instead, he had to offer terms and Both the Bible and the Assyrians agree that Hezekiah accepted them. It is a question of whether the Bible is reliable in implying that the submission was before the siege of Lachish or afterwards, concluding that part of the campaign. I argue that it makes far more sense to be afterwards. The Biblical narration has been fiddled to put the spin of God smiting the Assyrians when Hezekiah surrendered and saved his city that way.

The doctrinal points of the Nativities are irrelevant to whether the stories are true or not. Historical and logical and textual consideration of the stories is relevant.