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]

But Archaeology has moved on and it's being recognised that the Bible is a polemical document not to say Mythical in parts and cannot be trusted, which is the topic

The next major body of evidence of the reliability of the Bible is archaeology. Out of everything presented so far in this thread, this is perhaps the strongest evidence to uphold the truthfulness of the Bible. There is so much here that there are even college degrees in this area. Needless to say, we can only briefly cover biblical archeology in this thread.

Here is a sampling of colleges that have a degree in biblical archeology:

- Newburgh Theological Seminary & College of the Bible
- Wheaton College
- Trinity Southwest University
- Veritas International University
- Lipscomb University
- Shepherds Theological Seminary
- Emmaus Bible College
- Nelson Glueck School of Biblical Archaeology

Plus there are a host of others in the field of Near East archaeology, Palestinian archaeology, and Israel archaeology.

Even with a large body of archaeological evidence, I do not claim archaeology will prove, or even support, all the claims in the Bible. But, I will claim that archaeology confirms and aligns with many claims of the Bible.

One thing interesting about the Bible is it is based on the context of history. Many sections of the Bible are set in the background of historical events, places, and people. So, it is possible to then confirm its validity through historical methods (written records and archaeology). This makes the Bible stand out among other religious scriptures since it is empirically testable. The Bible is not set in mythical lands or fictional characters or imaginary events. It is set in places you can actually go visit and dig and find things that corroborate the Biblical accounts.

All I can see here are baseless claims (a truckload of bad evidence does not mount up to good evidence). Your appeal to Real Events is not helping you case. Whether based on real events like the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, borrowed legends like Ut Napishtim's Ark, or disputed events like the existence of Jesus at all or demonstrably fabricated stories like Eden, the nativity and indeed the resurrection, none of the Bible -0 none of it - is reliable.

It does no good pointing to real places and even people. Jericho is real enough, but the 'Biblical archaeology' does not support the collapse of the walls story. No more than it supports the prophecy of Tyre. The problem with Biblical archaeology is that it too often gets done with a Biblical bias. It takes a non Biblical Archaeologist to debunk the nonsense. The apparent non existence of Nazareth (and indeed Bethlehem) in either 1st c is Biblical archaeology that Biblical archaeologists don't like. A degree in religious bias is still religious bias. (1)

You do the best case for Young Earth and Genesis literalism that I have seen in a long while, but (aside even that fact that it really all is science -denial) the evidence doesn't really support it, One can even make up ad hoc excuses for Precolumbian MesoAmerican civilisation looking indigenous and even the Olmec and preceramic Peruvian origins demonstrably Not owing anything to Mesopotamia can be claimed to become influenced by the dispersed people of Babel when Pyramid -building began about 1800 BC with the Olmecs, when they presumably all began speaking Native American as they'd all been speaking Adunaic up to then.

Yes, just like the tomb slabs in Egypt (named mastabas by the muslims...they're obsessed) can be claimed to have been piled up into pyramids when the Mespotamians arrived. "Thank heavens you've arrived! We could work out why we'd all started speaking a different language." But it makes better sense when platforms had smaller ones put on top, in Egypt as in Mesopotamia and with the Olmecs just as with the Peruvians. Same idea independently.

No, really it all works better if you don't try to fit it to Genesis which even if the Flood and an a tower of Babel (before Babylon) was true, it really couldn't be true in the matter of the God -claim. The Flood couldn't be total unless you scrub the Chinese Flood legend (which it isn't) and no god even if it existed could be so bothered by a ziggurat that he'd curse his people to fall into confusion.

But thanks for helping to understand the puzzle of dating fossil fuels. While organic, at such ancient dates they are hardly datable. Just like DNA in human remains of early hominids, it is too old to be usable. For these ancient dates, radiometric rock dating is more useful.

You needn't bother to thank me for explaining the T-Rex soft tissue (which is actually fossilised soft tissue (2) so you won't repeat tosh that damages your credibility again. You never have, so why start now.

(1) I must relate my experience in reading an excellent book on Matthew; very scholarly, very erudite. Until he got to the two donkeys and then he became as dismissive as a Genesis literalist. He would not accept that Matthew was wrong in saying it was two donkeys, and gave no explanation other than hinting that it required some interpretation. But Interpreting it will show that 'Matthew' (whoever he was) could not have been there to see it, and he could not read Hebrew or even have known his scripture or he would not have made the error. That rather shocked me to see how easily a fine Bible scholar could slip into denialist Biblefaith. So don't wave Biblescholars at me, they don't do your credibility, theirs or the Bibles' any good.

(2) So you won't make the error of posting 'Hadrosaur mummy'. Which is a solid stone fossil dinosaur that that preserved the skin in a stone fossil cast. It is NOT organic material.

[TRANSPONDER]

Radiocarbon in Dinosaur Fossils: Compatibility with an Age of Millions of Years

https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article/ ... ility-with

The recent discovery of radiocarbon in dinosaur fossils has the potential to generate much puzzlement, because radiocarbon has a half-life too short for measurable amounts of original radiocarbon to remain in fossils that are millions of years old. Taking advantage of the popularity of dinosaurs, young-Earth creationist (YEC) authors now proclaim in an ever-increasing number of books and DVDs that radiocarbon in dinosaur fossils demonstrates that the dinosaur fossils must be only thousands, not millions, of years old (Helfinstine & Roth, 2007; Wilson et al., 2007; Lyons & Butt, 2008; Isaacs, 2010a, b; Woetzel, 2012; Thomas, 2013, 2014; Clarey, 2015; Institute for Creation Research, 2015). Many of the other dinosaur-based anti-evolution arguments from YEC authors are less worrisome, because they are plainly absurd (e.g., Senter, 2012, 2013a, 2013b, 2017a, 2018, 2019; Siebert, 2013; Senter & Wilkins, 2013; Senter & Klein, 2014), but the absurdity in the YEC arguments based on radiocarbon is less plain. That is because students and science educators often lack knowledge of the finer details of radiocarbon dating and the fossilization process that show how radiocarbon in dinosaur bones is consistent with an age of millions of years. Appropriate responses to such YEC arguments are therefore not always at hand. Here, I present an overview of the relevant details, to arm science educators and their students with the information they need to recognize such YEC misinterpretations as incorrect.

Also of interest:
Dinosaur soft tissues preserved as polymers
by Mary Caperton Morton
Wednesday, February 13, 2019

https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/d ... -polymers/

Thank you. The relevant explanatory point is here:

"Radiometric dating of Mesozoic strata using radioisotopes other than radiocarbon (e.g., 238U/206Pb, 235U/207Pb, 87Rb/86Sr, 40K/40Ar, 40Ar/39Ar) shows that the sediments that entomb Mesozoic fossils are 65–251 million years old (Gradstein et al., 2004), which means that the fossils that they entomb are that old – far too old for any measurable amount of original radiocarbon to remain in the fossils. So how is it that measurable radiocarbon is indeed present in the fossils? The answer is that although the fossils have lost their original radiocarbon, they have since accumulated new radiocarbon, which yields a falsely young radiocarbon “age.” Well never mind YECV -bods. I was only groping towards that myself. At that age, the only measurable Carbon is contaminant carbon. Potassium /Argon radiometric dating is more suitable.

[YHWH Alone]

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.

The Bible doesn't have to be inerrant (without error), in order to guide you to YHWH and His Kingdom. If the Bible even has one scribal error, it's not inerrant. Some of the most conservative Christian scholars (i.e. Evangelical scholars), admit that the Bible has at the very least, "scribal errors". That in and of itself does not render the Bible useless or unable to guide one to YHWH. For example, let's say you're my neighbor and you ask me where I got the fruit trees that are in my backyard. Every day you see me out there picking fruit from my fruit trees and you would like to also have your own fruit trees. So I write you the address of the plant nursery where I bought the fruit trees:

"457 SW 1st Ave, in front of the store that sells horse saddles"

I hand you the written address and you go to that address, but there's a problem. When you get there it's not a plant nursery, it's a farmer's market. There's no store selling horse saddles anywhere. However, you're not an idiot, so you're going to look around, perhaps even ask people at the farmer's market if there's a plant nursery nearby. Well, you didn't have to ask anyone, all you did was look to your right and there you saw a big sign that says "Homestead Plant Nursery" and if that wasn't enough, there's another sign that says "WE SELL FRUIT TREES". This plant nursery is not at 457 1st Ave, it's at 467 1st Ave, on 46th St, not 45th St. It's a block away from the address I gave you. You walked a block to the plant nursery and you notice that across the street there's a barbecue grill called THE HORSE SADDLE. It's not a store that sells horse saddles, it's a barbecue restaurant grill, with tables outside. People are eating barbecue ribs at the Horse Saddle. I was wrong, I gave you the wrong address, with errors (errant) but nonetheless, you still found the plant nursery that sells the fruit trees. Right? You now have fruit trees in your backyard, yielding fruit.

I could've given you a perfectly written, "inerrant" address, to a store that sells plastic, artificial plants for offices. The address is perfectly written, it's inerrant, but it takes you to a store that sells dead plants and trees. Plastic trees that don't bear fruit, because they're dead and artificial. Which address do you prefer? A perfectly written address that leads you to a store that sells dead trees or an errant, imperfectly written address that guides you to the plant nursery that sells the real trees, that bear fruit? Which address do you prefer? Just because the Bible is errant, imperfect, doesn't imply that it can't lead you to where you want to go.

[TRANSPONDER]

Back on topic. And yes - inerrant doesn't mean the Bible couldn't be as reliable (with caution) as any other book recording ancient events. It does mean (rather) that God is not doing hands on, which you'd expect if there was a god there who cared about the message being given to the world. The point being, - not far from where we were on the tower of Babel, even if it was an actual event - if God isn't keeping His Book in order and the events don't seem to back up a religious claim (Of Sumerian gods being angry about the tower, never mind the Jewish god) errancy, never ming being wrong, tends to demolish the religious claims, doesn't it?

Just as I said to Otseng, even if there was a massive Flood around 3,700 BC, but it wasn't Total, that would mean that the Bible claim about the reason for it wasn't true, no? So even if the history is right, the god -claims aren't.
Just as with Tyre. It was knocked over by Alexander. Built a causeway out to the Island and took it. The prophecy is that it would never be rebuilt, but it was. The present day city covers mainland, causeway and Island.
History true, Prophecy wrong, God debunked.

[otseng]

inerrant doesn't mean the Bible couldn't be as reliable (with caution) as any other book recording ancient events.

If people accept the Bible as reliable as any other book recording ancient events, I'd be happy with that. The question though next is are those claims historically true? I think this is the fundamental issue.

There is a range of possible positions on this:

Absolute minimalist (1) - Nothing in the Bible actually occurred. Everything written does not refer to any actual location, people, or event. Everything should be read figuratively.

Minimalist (2) - Some places and people could exist, most do not. Most events did not happen, esp events that invoke a supernatural explanation. Many names, places, numbers, events have been altered and are a result of legends evolving over time.

Moderate (3) - About half of all historical claims are true and half are false. There would be an equal mixture of events, places, and names that actually correspond with reality and that are entirely fictional.

Maximalist (4) - Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect.

Absolute maximalist (5) - Everything in the Bible actually occurred. Every fact and detail claimed in the Bible is true. All narratives should be taken literally.

I place myself as a maximalist (4).

What would you place yourself as?

It does mean (rather) that God is not doing hands on, which you'd expect if there was a god there who cared about the message being given to the world.

Depends on what you mean as "hands on". God does not need to be directly interacting all the time in events or in the creation of the Bible.

The approach I've been using all along in this thread is arguing for the reliability of the Bible without resorting to any supernatural explanation for claims made in the Bible or the origin of the Bible itself.

Two claims that I've argued for is a global flood and the tower of Babel. In neither have I appealed to any supernatural causation. Yes, the Bible describes God interacting in these events, but it's possible to back up these events using empirical evidence.

The point being, - not far from where we were on the tower of Babel, even if it was an actual event - if God isn't keeping His Book in order and the events don't seem to back up a religious claim (Of Sumerian gods being angry about the tower, never mind the Jewish god) errancy, never ming being wrong, tends to demolish the religious claims, doesn't it?

Since I'm not an inerrantist, I do not need to literally interpret it as God being worried about man doing something that would threaten God. I interpret the passage as there was one language in the world, people were creating the tower of Babel, multiple languages originated from the tower of Babel. I believe this was a main point of the passage. The main point was not don't build a high tower otherwise God will feel threatened.

Just as I said to Otseng, even if there was a massive Flood around 3,700 BC, but it wasn't Total, that would mean that the Bible claim about the reason for it wasn't true, no? So even if the history is right, the god -claims aren't.

I've also pointed out a global flood is something that was important for me. It's not a doctrinal position and it's not important for Christian belief for others.

[TRANSPONDER]

inerrant doesn't mean the Bible couldn't be as reliable (with caution) as any other book recording ancient events.

If people accept the Bible as reliable as any other book recording ancient events, I'd be happy with that. The question though next is are those claims historically true? I think this is the fundamental issue.

There is a range of possible positions on this:

Absolute minimalist (1) - Nothing in the Bible actually occurred. Everything written does not refer to any actual location, people, or event. Everything should be read figuratively.

Minimalist (2) - Some places and people could exist, most do not. Most events did not happen, esp events that invoke a supernatural explanation. Many names, places, numbers, events have been altered and are a result of legends evolving over time.

Moderate (3) - About half of all historical claims are true and half are false. There would be an equal mixture of events, places, and names that actually correspond with reality and that are entirely fictional.

Maximalist (4) - Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect.

Absolute maximalist (5) - Everything in the Bible actually occurred. Every fact and detail claimed in the Bible is true. All narratives should be taken literally.

I place myself as a maximalist (4).

What would you place yourself as?

I would say that Minimalist would best fit my view. Bearing in mind that this is NOT 'most placed did not exist, some did' because you could trash that by 'proving' that most places existed. That would be a strawman of my position which is that Nanareth, Bethlehem, the Magi, Herod, The Census of Quirinus were all real places (if not existing in the 1st c), persons and events. But the story that was concocted using those elements (particularly Luke who - I am Maximumalist about - used events in Josephus to construct his Nativity) was demonstrably concocted and reliably false.

It does mean (rather) that God is not doing hands on, which you'd expect if there was a god there who cared about the message being given to the world.

Depends on what you mean as "hands on". God does not need to be directly interacting all the time in events or in the creation of the Bible.

The approach I've been using all along in this thread is arguing for the reliability of the Bible without resorting to any supernatural explanation for claims made in the Bible or the origin of the Bible itself.

Two claims that I've argued for is a global flood and the tower of Babel. In neither have I appealed to any supernatural causation. Yes, the Bible describes God interacting in these events, but it's possible to back up these events using empirical evidence.

The point being, - not far from where we were on the tower of Babel, even if it was an actual event - if God isn't keeping His Book in order and the events don't seem to back up a religious claim (Of Sumerian gods being angry about the tower, never mind the Jewish god) errancy, never ming being wrong, tends to demolish the religious claims, doesn't it?

Since I'm not an inerrantist, I do not need to literally interpret it as God being worried about man doing something that would threaten God. I interpret the passage as there was one language in the world, people were creating the tower of Babel, multiple languages originated from the tower of Babel. I believe this was a main point of the passage. The main point was not don't build a high tower otherwise God will feel threatened.

Just as I said to Otseng, even if there was a massive Flood around 3,700 BC, but it wasn't Total, that would mean that the Bible claim about the reason for it wasn't true, no? So even if the history is right, the god -claims aren't.

I've also pointed out a global flood is something that was important for me. It's not a doctrinal position and it's not important for Christian belief for others.

Then it's alternative history rather religious belief? Are you saying that of course the Tower of Babel ..collapse I suppose, was the origin of different languages, but of course God wasn't anything to do with it. The Bible merely records an actual event.

It's very much like the Flood. If one accepts the many Flood legends as implying that it was NOT a total Global wipe-out of God's creation (apart from the chosen who survived, China where the great Yu controlled it and Egypt where it din't really affect anyone .... I suppose you don't have a place for Atlantis in there? ... it doesn't bother you that the doctrinal and religious point is completely debunked so long as the Bible is to be relied upon as recording an actual event?

[Diogenes]

The Bible doesn't have to be inerrant (without error), in order to guide you to YHWH and His Kingdom. If the Bible even has one scribal error, it's not inerrant. Some of the most conservative Christian scholars (i.e. Evangelical scholars), admit that the Bible has at the very least, "scribal errors". That in and of itself does not render the Bible useless or unable to guide one to YHWH.

Many apologists make this distinction, between 'scribal' errors and other more material errors. This is a specious distinction. If this perfect and all powerful God could somehow make the men he 'inspired' to bring correct ideas and principles in the Bible without error, he could also have inspired the scribes to copy perfectly. Thus it is a false distinction to claim the words (in the sense of their true meanings and intent) are perfect whereas any errors must be attributed to the scribes, not the authors.

Furthermore, there are nutty ideas and absurd impossibilities, not to mention failed prophesies, that cannot be explained by a misplaced jot or tittle.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This inerrancy argument really gets overdone. One might argue that God wanting to ensure that His Book is correct would take steps to ensure that it was as correct as possible.

Of course copyists who were not 'inspired' could make mistakes, but then God could simply ensure that the errors corrected themselves. We wouldn't have a Jefferson Bible - it would have restored the bits he cut out (wouldn't that convince atheists - if the Bible always corrected itself). But this doesn't happen. The Bible gets altered just as if a god wasn't there.

So ok the argument is a different one. 'Inspiration' is irrelevant. Reliability is relevant. The claims become valid not because the Bible is God's word, but because it records true events, give or take human error.

That's why ever since I started doing apologetics, one or two angels was never a worthwhile argument. The Nativity being demonstrably concocted, is a relevant argument and cannot just be dismissed as 'human error'. And using the 'witness testimony' analogy that Bible apologists like to use, the 'clean hands' principle applies; when two witnesses are found telling tall stories, the credibility of the rest of their testimony comes under scrutiny, and we find (if we bother to look) that the resurrection accounts also contradict, just as badly.

And that (as otseng pointed out) has implications for dogma even if the Nativity doesn't. But then as Otseng is pointing up above, Dogma isn't the issue if the Flood and Tower of Babel, even if real events, actually debunk the Doctrinal aspect. They could not have happened for the reason the Bible says. Just as, if the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem is true (and the evidence proves that it is) the doctrinal aspect (God smote the Assyrians) is (arguably) false. Just as if the conquest of Tyre was true (it historically was) the prophecy is false, just as if the census of Quirinus was true (Josephus tells us it was) that it was the reason for Jesus to be born if Bethlehem is false, and just as, if the Crucifixion is true (and I think it is) it makes better sense if the disciples really did take the body and intended to from the time Jesus was arrested.

[Diogenes]

inerrant doesn't mean the Bible couldn't be as reliable (with caution) as any other book recording ancient events.

If people accept the Bible as reliable as any other book recording ancient events, I'd be happy with that.

I could accept the Bible "as reliable as any other book" that claims to record fantastic or supernatural events that are impossible according to known science. But books that claim the Sun (or Earth) stood still, that donkeys and snakes talk, that gods and devils walk around in human form, or other such fantastic tales are in their own category. We do not expect acceptance of such volumes when comparing them to other ancient historical accounts that do not make absurd claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is again the problem of assessing books that purport to record actual events. My Test case here is the Jugurthine war which reads like a perfectly respectable history, but it records a miracle that saves a Roman legion in the desert. The inclination is to simply throw it out because 'Miracles don't happen'. Because it didn't involve BibleGod and it's really a can of worms to make it the work of Jesus no matter what god they prayed to, Christians would probably dismiss it as a tall tale, too. This is always the problem historians have in evaluating what is reliable and what is dodgy. The problem with religious books is that they are innately biased from the start. It's not a question of a well intentioned history into which some magical myths have crept, but a book written to convince us that the magical myths are reliable history.

cue: "The Bible is not a history book."

"Ok then it's just a book of magical myths."