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]

Babes and sucklings in the temple.
Look at the passage in Matthew and compare it with Psalms. In the OT it is strength and not praise as the Septuagint had it. Thus I said 'Matthew has Jesus quoting the Septuagint and contradicting the OT.'

Matthew 21 16 . “Do you hear what these children are saying?” they asked him.
“Yes,” replied Jesus, “have you never read, “‘From the lips of children and infants you, Lord, have called forth your praise?”
17 And he left them and went out of the city to Bethany, where he spent the night.

Psalm 8.1 O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens.2 Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou ordained strength because of thine enemies, that thou mightest still the enemy and the avenger.

Psalm 8 Septuagint or the end, concerning the wine-presses, a Psalm of David. O Lord, our Lord, how wonderful is thy name in all the earth! for thy magnificence is exalted above the heavens.
2Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings hast thou perfected praise, because of thine enemies; that thou mightest put down the enemy and avenger.
3For I will regard the heavens, the work of thy fingers; the moon and stars, which thou hast established.

Psalm 8 (Qurman)

http://dssenglishbible.com/psalms%208.htm

Ah. That may change my mind back. lines 1 and 2 are just dots, never mind that missing bits have been filled in using the Bible. So it may be that we don't know whether The Qumran Psalm 8 agreed with the OT or the New.
So my suggestion that Qumran WILL agree with the OT if the fragments are located, while the NT agrees with the Septuagint and thus Jesus could not have made that quote would appear to be valid again.

[otseng]

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.

I don't think this point can be emphasized enough. The Bible is unique as a religious text that sets itself in the background of historical events, people, and places. In many passages, it's easy to fall asleep reading through these verses. Sometimes you wonder, "Why did the writers think it was so important to be so specific with names of people and places?" But, one thing it does allow for is for us to compare the Biblical claims with archaeology. It is like the Bible is a giant picture. And archaeology is like a box of puzzle pieces. When we find a piece, we can see if it fits on the picture. If it fits, then it affirms the Biblical claims.

We can compare this to what the Bible was not written as. It was not written simply as a set of doctrinal statements, a set of rules, and a set of sayings. Though the Bible does contain this, it is not the majority of the text. And even interspersed in these are references to historical reality.

Another interesting aspect of the Bible is its honesty in accounts. Typically, any work of history will only paint a positive picture of themselves and a negative picture of everyone else. And they will not record anything that is embarrassing. For example, the Assyrian account does not explicitly state why Sennacherib left Jerusalem. But, the Bible does not hold back in relating embarrassing accounts. The sins of Israel is a constant theme in the Old Testament. Israelite Kings were full of weaknesses. Failures of the apostles were common. The chief of the apostles, Peter, denied Jesus three times. Women were the first to see the risen Jesus and not the apostles. We could go on and on. But, rather than being a weakness of the Bible, it is actually a strength. It demonstrates the Bible strives to be honest. And thus it lends to it being a reliable source.

I bring up honesty when dealing with archaeology because we need to realize other cultures are typically not as honest in their accounts. That's not to say the Bible is always completely honest either, but I would say it would be more honest than others since it contains embarrassing accounts.

[TRANSPONDER]

Honesty is the last thing I find in the Bible. I don't even find much credible morality, nor history. Not even in the case of a validated event like the Assyrian siege. It is fairly stated that Hezekiah submitted and agreed to bear whatever Sennacherib put upon him, which tribute is listed in the Assyrian account. But that is taken out of the context of the actual siege (in which the reduction and sack of Lachish is hardly mentioned) and it is stated plainly that Jerusalem survived because God smote the Assyrians, not because Hezekiah agreed to the Assyrian terms for surrender.

Anyone who trusts the Bible is asking to be deceived, probably willingly, or possibly with evangelical prompting. I find either distressing and distasteful.

[otseng]

Honesty is the last thing I find in the Bible. I don't even find much credible morality, nor history.

I believe the differences in opinion is our levels of standards when judging the Biblical text. I'm only applying the Bible as compared to any other ancient text. So, compared to any other ancient text, it stands out in accuracy, reliability, truthfulness, honesty, and even morality. And in addition, it's a text that is applicable and relevant for today.

Not even in the case of a validated event like the Assyrian siege.

The major points of the Biblical account is pretty much uncontroversial. It is only the minor points that are in dispute.

BTW, you have not answered my previous question:

If you do not accept the distinction of what is major and what is minor are doctrinal and non-doctrinal points, then where do you draw the line of what is a major point (which would invalidate the reliability of the Bible) and what is a minor point (which would not invalidate the reliability of the Bible)?

[Diogenes]

One of the most significant Biblical archaeological discoveries is the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls in a remote Judean Desert cave in 1947 is widely considered the greatest archaeological event of the twentieth century."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls

"Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is among the more important finds in the history of modern archaeology."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dead-Sea-Scrolls

This discovery affirms the reliability of the transmission of the Old Testament. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one could argue the Old Testament could've been corrupted with transmission errors since the oldest copy in existence was the Leningrad Codex, which dated to around 1008 AD.
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive

Really? Some experts show just the opposite, that scribes felt free to rewrite scripture without indicating they had.
"Scribes who copied texts frequently added, changed or omitted content – without giving any indication in the manuscript that they had done so.”
https://news.ku.edu/2020/07/09/how-dead ... -literally

If anything, the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' showed us the Bible is not the 'holy word of god' in some absolute or inerrant sense, but:

"While we have far more evidence to work with, if the Scrolls taught us anything about Old Testament scripture, it is generally true that the older the manuscripts the more varied they become. Simply put: human scribes were not photocopiers and no two manuscripts are the same. Scribes copied texts but also interpreted them."
https://relevantmagazine.com/current/ho ... istianity/

This is exactly the opposite of what scholars like F.F. Bruce contended decades ago when trying to show the reliability of the "oral traditions" that became the 'Gospels.' It turns out the texts of the books of the Bible are just as unreliable and flexible as any other ancient writings. Yet many Christians continue to treat the Bible as if it came to us directly from God in some magical and perfect way as the absolute "Word of God."

[TRANSPONDER]

Honesty is the last thing I find in the Bible. I don't even find much credible morality, nor history.

I believe the differences in opinion is our levels of standards when judging the Biblical text. I'm only applying the Bible as compared to any other ancient text. So, compared to any other ancient text, it stands out in accuracy, reliability, truthfulness, honesty, and even morality. And in addition, it's a text that is applicable and relevant for today.

Not even in the case of a validated event like the Assyrian siege.

The major points of the Biblical account is pretty much uncontroversial. It is only the minor points that are in dispute.

BTW, you have not answered my previous question:

If you do not accept the distinction of what is major and what is minor are doctrinal and non-doctrinal points, then where do you draw the line of what is a major point (which would invalidate the reliability of the Bible) and what is a minor point (which would not invalidate the reliability of the Bible)?

I believe I have dealt with both points; we have to make judgements when evaluating , not just antique records of events, but even current ones. Extra - Biblical corroboration of events is one thing, but can show that it needs re - evaluation. The Assyrian campaign against the Babylonian coalition, including Jerusalem, The 'prophecy' in Daniel which seems rather retrospective history Spun as prophecy and doesn't quite fit what the extra - Biblical accounts of the Persian taking of Babylon seems to be. And the prophecy of Tyre that well fits the end of Alexander's taking of Tyre (the island reduced, the causeway a place for drying nets) but it was rebuilt and very quickly.

I also think I dealt with the matter of doctrines; they are irrelevant. Bible reliability is what's the point here, whether it is to do with doctrine or not. If the Bible goes down the plug- hole, the doctrines go with it.

[otseng]

Really? Some experts show just the opposite, that scribes felt free to rewrite scripture without indicating they had.
"Scribes who copied texts frequently added, changed or omitted content – without giving any indication in the manuscript that they had done so.”
https://news.ku.edu/2020/07/09/how-dead ... -literally

We can verify whether the Dead Sea Scrolls are similar to the Masoretic by looking at the differences for ourselves.

Transponder gave a good site for us to see the differences:

http://dssenglishbible.com

Let's look at the differences in Gen 1...

(Italic is Masoretic, bold is Dead Sea Scrolls)

Scrolls 1Q1, 4Q2, 4Q483 have no significant differences.

Scroll 4Q7:
Gen 1:5 God called the light day daytime

Scroll 4Q8:
Gen 1:9 God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place collection, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

Scroll 4Q10:
Gen 1:9 God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And the waters under the sky were gathered together to their place, and the dry land appeared.

The differences above do not change any of the basic meaning.

And the rest of Genesis as well have trivial differences.

[otseng]

If you do not accept the distinction of what is major and what is minor are doctrinal and non-doctrinal points, then where do you draw the line of what is a major point (which would invalidate the reliability of the Bible) and what is a minor point (which would not invalidate the reliability of the Bible)?

I believe I have dealt with both points; we have to make judgements when evaluating , not just antique records of events, but even current ones. Extra - Biblical corroboration of events is one thing, but can show that it needs re - evaluation.

Of course we have to make judgments when evaluating.

Let me put it this way. Both you and I consider claims made in the Bible to be either major or minor points. Major points would significantly impact the reliability of the Bible (we agree the resurrection falls into this). Minor points would not impact the reliability of the Bible (how many angels at the tomb would be an example). I believe why the Assyrian army left attacking Jerusalem is a minor point, whereas you seem to indicate it's a major point. It is such an example that I'm addressing. So the question is what objective criteria would distinguish between a major point and a minor point?

I also think I dealt with the matter of doctrines; they are irrelevant. Bible reliability is what's the point here, whether it is to do with doctrine or not. If the Bible goes down the plug- hole, the doctrines go with it.

I'm trying to avoid endless back and forths about arguing over minor points. To do that, there needs to be some agreed upon objective criteria on what constitutes a major point and a minor point. Doctrine would be the objective criteria for me to distinguish between a major point and a minor point. What objective criteria do you propose?

[TRANSPONDER]

Really? Some experts show just the opposite, that scribes felt free to rewrite scripture without indicating they had.
"Scribes who copied texts frequently added, changed or omitted content – without giving any indication in the manuscript that they had done so.”
https://news.ku.edu/2020/07/09/how-dead ... -literally

We can verify whether the Dead Sea Scrolls are similar to the Masoretic by looking at the differences for ourselves.

Transponder gave a good site for us to see the differences:

http://dssenglishbible.com

Let's look at the differences in Gen 1...

(Italic is Masoretic, bold is Dead Sea Scrolls)

Scrolls 1Q1, 4Q2, 4Q483 have no significant differences.

Scroll 4Q7:
Gen 1:5 God called the light day daytime

Scroll 4Q8:
Gen 1:9 God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place collection, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.

Scroll 4Q10:
Gen 1:9 God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And the waters under the sky were gathered together to their place, and the dry land appeared.

The differences above do not change any of the basic meaning.

And the rest of Genesis as well have trivial differences.

I agree. The only indication that the Dead sea scrolls differed from the Masoretic text (and therefore our own OT) was this suggestion that the Qumran Psalm 8 followed the Septuagint (and therefore the NT). But now it seems there is reason to believe that the Qumran scrolls agree with the OT, and neither the OT nor the Dead seas scrolls support the NT quite from Psalm 8, which appears to quote from the Greek Septuagint.

The point is that the writers of the NT seem to have read the OT material in Greek, not Hebrew.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you do not accept the distinction of what is major and what is minor are doctrinal and non-doctrinal points, then where do you draw the line of what is a major point (which would invalidate the reliability of the Bible) and what is a minor point (which would not invalidate the reliability of the Bible)?

I believe I have dealt with both points; we have to make judgements when evaluating , not just antique records of events, but even current ones. Extra - Biblical corroboration of events is one thing, but can show that it needs re - evaluation.

Of course we have to make judgments when evaluating.

Let me put it this way. Both you and I consider claims made in the Bible to be either major or minor points. Major points would significantly impact the reliability of the Bible (we agree the resurrection falls into this). Minor points would not impact the reliability of the Bible (how many angels at the tomb would be an example). I believe why the Assyrian army left attacking Jerusalem is a minor point, whereas you seem to indicate it's a major point. It is such an example that I'm addressing. So the question is what objective criteria would distinguish between a major point and a minor point?

I consider it a major or at least significant point. If one part of the OT said Assyria has 10.000 troops and another made it 100.000 troops, I would consider that a minor disagreement. While disproving divine hands -on micromanaging it would leave the Bible reliable as a record of facts. Now, the record of the siege of Jerusalem by Assyria is historical, but what's significant is that it is evidence of Spin, in that Hezekiah surrendering and paying tribute is covered up (as is the sacking of Laschish) and the impudent claim is made that God smote the Assyrians and (by implication) Hezekiah did not have to submit or pay tribute. If you put the submission and tribute in place and drop the 'smiting' (as a polemical lie to boost the religion) then the Bible agrees with the Assyrian record.

I also think I dealt with the matter of doctrines; they are irrelevant. Bible reliability is what's the point here, whether it is to do with doctrine or not. If the Bible goes down the plug- hole, the doctrines go with it.

I'm trying to avoid endless back and forths about arguing over minor points. To do that, there needs to be some agreed upon objective criteria on what constitutes a major point and a minor point. Doctrine would be the objective criteria for me to distinguish between a major point and a minor point. What objective criteria do you propose?

Doctrine is to me irrelevant in discussing whether the Bible is reliable report of facts, historical or scientific. If the Bible is caught out in a major lie I would see it as irrelevant if not dishonest to say it didn't matter to Bible credibility simply because it did not impinge on matters of doctrine. As I say, if the Bible goes down the tube, it takes Christian doctrines with it.