How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #801

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Ok. That's all fine, except the suggestion that archaeology distorts the evidence to not support the Bible. Science does not have he agenda other than to interpret the findings so as to stand up to question by peers. Biblical archaeology does appear to have an agenda to make a case for the Bible. Already we saw the mention of a 4 room (supposedly Israelite) house in Themes, south Egypt, and a later Iron age one (presented as stylistically related) in the later Iron age. That's really selecting the dots to fit the Biblical picture.

However, your picture of Semites (Canaanites) before 'Moses' having non - Jewish beliefs and customs fits Canaanites that have no relation to Israel.

I have to correct my memory about the dynasties. It seems that the 14th was the Egyptian delta state and the Canaanite immigration eventually took over the East of the delta as the 15th dynasty under Hyksos (foreign) kings, one of whom engineered a pretext for invasion of the South on the grounds that the hippos down at No - Amun (Thebes) kept him awake with their bellowing. And they did, for a time, conquer all Egypt because they had chariots and the Egyptians didn't. After Ahmose I defeated them and kicked them out, a Chariot arm became a principal feature of the Pharonic army. The mention of Chariots in the Exodus tale puts it after that date apart from the reference to the Philistines, which has to date it after Ramesses V, who was later than Merneptah (who we recall mentioned smiting Israel during his Canaanite campaign) and he followed Ramesses II. Unless you want to dismiss the reference to Philistia as anachronistic. But it does appear as integral to the Exodus story. It's to avoid them that Moses went into Sinai at all. The Hyksos were pushed back to Gaza before the Philistines were ever settled there. More reason to see the Hyksos as no more than garbled Mesopotamian history used (to be polite about it) by the writers (in, I suspect, Babylon) in the two 'creation' books.

As to archaeology, apart from Semitic features, which are fine related to Canaanites rather than Israelites (the Jewish sounding names and script merely being Canaanite names and script the Israelites adopted when the occupied Canaan), Hyksos kings doesn't match Hebrews being slaves.

I already mentioned the 'storm papyrus' (which I recall was Ahmose I saying how he restored Egypt after the devastation of the Hyksos) which has nothing to do with the supposed plagues, and the Wyatt claim for the Moses site in Saudi Arabia, which I think can be discredited fairly handily. So that's all the 'archaeology' I know that is used to support the Exodus. Unless you want to reference the 'Habiru' and the 'Semitic traders' tomb - painting.

So again, I'd argue that there is little to support the Exodus and much against it.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #802

Post by TRANSPONDER »

My memory failing again.It was Ramesses II not V that defeated the sea peoples (eighth year of Ramesses III - 1175 BCE).and (there is persuasive evidence) settled one of the '9 bows'(the Peleset) in Gaza,where they became the Philistines and eventually the Romans referred to it as Palestine.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #803

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Feb 27, 2022 10:28 pmThat's all fine, except the suggestion that archaeology distorts the evidence to not support the Bible.
All I'm saying is that everyone has biases, whether they realize it or not. The entire Hyksos narrative has shown to reveal biases and distortions. Egyptians were biased in their accounts and historians were biased to readily accept what they said, even though it was unsupportable. I'll prove that in my next post. I believe the excavations at Tell El-Dab'a also show biases. There is currently no archaeological work being done and good luck with further work being done there otherwise additional evidence might be revealed to support the Bible.
Science does not have he agenda other than to interpret the findings so as to stand up to question by peers.
In principle, yes. In actuality, it's not always that way.
Biblical archaeology does appear to have an agenda to make a case for the Bible.
Of course. And your point?
Already we saw the mention of a 4 room (supposedly Israelite) house in Themes, south Egypt, and a later Iron age one (presented as stylistically related) in the later Iron age. That's really selecting the dots to fit the Biblical picture.
Not sure what you are arguing for, but a four room house in Thebes indicates Israelite influence throughout Egypt, which further disproves any claim Israelites were not in Egypt.
However, your picture of Semites (Canaanites) before 'Moses' having non - Jewish beliefs and customs fits Canaanites that have no relation to Israel.
I'll present evidence later linking to the 12 tribes of Israel that was found at Tell El-Dab'a.
Hyksos kings doesn't match Hebrews being slaves.
I'll get to slavery later. Right now, I'm just presenting the Canaanites (which would include the 12 tribes of Israel) entering Egypt.
I already mentioned the 'storm papyrus' (which I recall was Ahmose I saying how he restored Egypt after the devastation of the Hyksos) which has nothing to do with the supposed plagues, and the Wyatt claim for the Moses site in Saudi Arabia, which I think can be discredited fairly handily. So that's all the 'archaeology' I know that is used to support the Exodus. Unless you want to reference the 'Habiru' and the 'Semitic traders' tomb - painting.
I'll get to all those later too.
So again, I'd argue that there is little to support the Exodus and much against it.
Sure, provide your evidence and arguments to support that.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #804

Post by otseng »

Image
Statue head of an Asiatic man from Avaris, 12th-13th dynasty
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... uched).jpg

The only written record of the Hyksos is from Josephus recording what Manetho wrote over a thousand years after the Hyksos dynasty. Manetho portrayed the Hyksos as invaders that conquered through hostile military campaign.
One of the earliest sources describing the dynasty dates to the third century B.C., when a priest named Manetho penned a comprehensive history of history of Egypt. Manetho’s work was later transcribed in fragments by another historian, Josephus. Written long after the Hyksos’ actual reign, the tome claims that the invaders brought an army “sweeping in from the northeast and conquering the northeastern Nile Delta,” according to the paper.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180975354/
Tutimaeus [0]. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions. Above all, he fortified the district to the east, foreseeing that the Assyrians, as they grew stronger, would one day covet and attack his kingdom.
http://www.touregypt.net/manethohyksos.htm

Even though there is no corroborating evidence to support this account and it's based on what someone said of what someone said about something over a thousand years before he was born, historians have taken this account as reliable.
For decades, the writings of the Ptolemaic Egyptian historian, Manetho, influenced the popular and scholarly interpretations of the Hyksos. Preserved in Josephus’s Contra Apionem I, Manetho presented the Hyksos as a barbaric horde, “invaders of an obscure race” who conquered Egypt by force, causing destruction and murdering or enslaving Egyptians. This account continued in Egyptian texts from the Second Intermediate Period and New Kingdom. As Egyptology developed, years of debate over the extent of destruction and the ethnicity of the “Hyksos people” transpired.
https://www.arce.org/resource/hyksos

"Until the excavation and discovery of Tell El-Dab'a (the site of the Hyksos capital Avaris) in 1966, historians relied on these accounts for the Hyksos period."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

Excavations at Tell el Dab’a have shown it was propaganda.
Along with nearby archaeological investigations, it became apparent that no sound evidence supported the invasion tale. Instead, the excavations at Tell el Dab’a demonstrated that immigrants from Southwest Asia (the Levant) had been relocating to the Eastern Nile Delta for centuries, with this immigration peaking in the mid-12th dynasty through the early Second Intermediate Period. Examination of religious architecture, deities, burial practices, food and artifacts such as weapons and toggle pins all indicated a large population of West Asian individuals. In fact, many of these elements combined Egyptian practices with that of the immigrants, suggesting Tell el Dab’a was a culturally blended community featuring intermarriage and peaceful coexistence.
https://www.arce.org/resource/hyksos

The Egyptians had a systematic campaign to expunge and recast the Hyksos as a barbaric invader. Archaeological evidence shows it was historical revisionism.

Tell El-Dab'a was not initially populated by a military invasion, but started with small numbers occupying the area.

"The Hyksos dynasty, then, was likely the result of an immigrant uprising, not a hostile outside invasion.

It is fascinating to see corroborating evidence from a new direction which demonstrates that men from the Levant did not settle at Tell el-Dab’a in large numbers at the start of the Hyksos period—which is what one might expect to see in the wake of a huge military invasion,” Deborah Sweeney, an Egyptologist at Tel Aviv University who was not involved in the study, tells Haaretz."
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-ne ... 180975354/

Image

The land that the Hyksos settled in, Goshen, was prime real estate in Egypt.

"Goshen is described as the best land in Egypt, suitable for both crops and livestock."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_of_Goshen

How could a foreign people settle into valuable territory and live in peaceful coexistence with the Egyptians? Why did the Egyptians seem to willingly allow this?

Highly doubtful Egyptians would just freely allow foreigners to come in and take over highly valuable land without a fight. However, if the Joseph account is true, then it would make sense. because it was allowed from the Pharaoh himself.

Gen 47:5-6 (KJV)
5 And Pharaoh spoke unto Joseph, saying, Thy father and thy brethren are come unto thee:
6 The land of Egypt [is] before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell; in the land of Goshen let them dwell: and if thou knowest [any] men of activity among them, then make them rulers over my cattle.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #805

Post by TRANSPONDER »

That's all ok. There are plenty of examples of people moving into other countries as traders, settlers and even becoming the rulers. The Islamicization of Malaya and Indonesia is a case in point and as soon as they got power, they began to make war on the other states. Just what appears to have happened in the Delta. Manetho wrote long after the events but is a useful source, though with the Pharonic viewpoint and Josephus used the source and appears to have given it a Jewish twist. Even so,the Attack of Ahmose on the Hyksos capital seems to have a historical value.

But all that said, this is about the Canaanite dynasty and trying to relate that to Hebrews and the story of the Exodus is another discussion. Bottom line, the Hyksos seem to have been non Hebrew and sometime before Israel even appeared, so the archaeology suggests

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #806

Post by otseng »

Here are dates according to the Bible...

1Kgs 6:1
1 In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.

"The conventional dates of Solomon's reign are about 970–931 BCE, normally given in alignment with the dates of David's reign."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon

So, given these dates, the year the Israelites came out of Egypt is 1446 BC (970 - 4 + 480).

There is not a consensus on the dating of the Pharaohs at this time, but it could be Amenhotep II or Thutmose III of the 18th Dynasty during the time of the Exodus.
As usual, different resources provide different time frames for Amenhotep II's reign. While the Chronicle of the Pharaohs by Peter A. Clayton gives his reign lasting from 1453 until 1419 BC, The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt provides a reign between 1427 until 1400 BC.
http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/amenhotep2.htm
Thutmose III reigned from 1479 BC to 1425 BC according to the Low Chronology of Ancient Egypt. This has been the conventional Egyptian chronology in academic circles since the 1960s,[9] though in some circles the older dates 1504 BC to 1450 BC are preferred from the High Chronology of Egypt.[10] These dates, just as all the dates of the Eighteenth Dynasty, are open to dispute because of uncertainty about the circumstances surrounding the recording of a Heliacal Rise of Sothis in the reign of Amenhotep I.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thutmose_III

Bible says they were in Egypt for 430 years.

Exod 12:40
40 Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, [was] four hundred and thirty years.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).

During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC
Amenemhat III - 1818–1770 BC

Also want to add the caveat that Egyptian dating is not precise.

"It will be clear that much of the chronology of Egypt is uncertain. Groups of Egyptologists and even individual scientists disagree about many details, which has resulted in a variety of dates. Of course, about the most recent years the discrepancies are less than for dates that are further away."
https://www.alexanderancientart.com/chronology-eg.php

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #807

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Ok. So you are going with Amenhotep II of the 18th dynasty with the Exodus around 1446 BC. He's a good enough candidate for the Pharaoh whose heart was hardened (when he was himself inclined to let the Hebrews go, but that wasn't in the Plan, and never mind his free will). And there's even a case for his first born son (Who would have been Amenhotep III if he'd become the next king) not succeeding while Thutmose did, as well as Amenhotep not being the first born of his father, so they would both have escaped that curse, .

And they had chariots by then and if there's a question of how Amenhotep escaped drowning in the Red Sea, one may suggest that the hing hung back while sending his chariots in pursuit. So, apart from explaining that point away and of course the loss of his chariots not affecting his campaigns (chariots were time consuming and expensive to replace as well as training replacement charioteers) and one has to explain that away as well (he only took a portion of his 1,000 chariots which one would have to explain as being enough to herd the million or so Hebrews back to Egypt).

So a couple of pros and cons aside, he will do very well. Of course, you can forget about the Hyksos as their dynasty was 1751-1630. They and their 4 -room houses were pushed out of Egypt at the start of the New Kingdom and were over and done with as a problem for Pharoah fifty years before Amenhotep II and - just as in the dating argument with the Nativities - entirely the wrong mileu. So we can forget about the Hyksos; which I'd suggests is a relief as their dynasty, kings, Egyptian - style religion and chariot - army is so unlike the supposedly enslaved Hebrews that a later Ramesses - type predecessor is better.

Of course this is still before the Philistines even appeared on the map, so you have the problem of the anachronistic mention in the Exodus, and I still have the more -than coincidental Sargon in the bulrushes borrowing for Moses, which is another argument for making this retrospective history rather than a reliable Bible record of events. And with all the Biblical spin that makes it unreliable.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #808

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Thanks for the thanks (they seem hard to come by,these days). The above post of mine has a hidden point: in fact, Two.

(1) it is near impossible to 100% disprove a Biible - claim as one can always make a case for it being true.One can Interpret evidence, invent evidence or deny evidence. Take the identification of the Pharaoh (1) with Amenhotep II. Then the Hyksos have to go; and all that 'evidence'about the Land of Goishen and four roomed houses becomes no evidence for Exodus. And also the case for Ramesses II and his new capital made of bricks, his obvious arrogance and his many chariots or whatever 'evidence' can be mustered, by those who have argued for his as the Pharaoh of Exodus. The point is that evidence that seems to fit the Bible - claim only works if you start with Faith in the Biblical narrative to start with.

(2) I think I may have covered it above. The Biblical apologetic method of selecting bits of 'evidence' to support the Bible claim is really a cheat. It is pseudo - science;it is the apologetics of cult -think. It appears first in Paul (Romans) picking bits of OT scripture out of context to support his claims, though they are nothing to do with it, through the Egyptian census order (which debunks the nativity of Luke rather than conform it) to all the 'evidence'for the Hyksos being Moses' Israelites going out of the window once one selects a New Kingdom king as 'Pharaoh' and it was really selecting bits of archaeology out of context that looked a bit like Exodus.

So 100% disproof is usually impossible but there is every case forpointing to

(a) an alternative explanation for Exodus (written in Babylon and not actually reliable)

(b) some points (anachronistic mention of the Philistines and the similarity of Moses to Sargon in the Bulrushes and perhaps Ahmose I) suggest that an alternative 'theory'to taking the Exodus as reliable record is pretty much demanded.
(1) I might mention this is roughly synoptic with 'king', being derived from "Paro", meaning 'great house'denoting rulership and government

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #809

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 6:42 amThe Biblical apologetic method of selecting bits of 'evidence' to support the Bible claim is really a cheat.
This is a tacit admission that the evidence that I've presented does support the Bible. It must be wrong so I somehow I must be "cheating".

All the evidence I've produced so far anyone can go verify for themselves. If the evidence is wrong, present the counter-evidence.

To be clear, I'm not proving the Bible is true. I'm refuting any claims there is no archaeological evidence to support the claims of the Bible and that there does exist archaeological evidence to lend credence to the Biblical narrative. I'm not claiming either that everything in the Bible is true or needs to be confirmed archaeologically. Sure, there could be a biased presentation of facts, but it will not be wholesale fabrication (like scholars believing the Exodus account was invented during the Babylonian exile) or complete historical revisionism (like Egyptians making up the history of the Hyksos).

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3981 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #810

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 9:11 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Mar 02, 2022 6:42 amThe Biblical apologetic method of selecting bits of 'evidence' to support the Bible claim is really a cheat.
This is a tacit admission that the evidence that I've presented does support the Bible. It must be wrong so I somehow I must be "cheating".

All the evidence I've produced so far anyone can go verify for themselves. If the evidence is wrong, present the counter-evidence.

To be clear, I'm not proving the Bible is true. I'm refuting any claims there is no archaeological evidence to support the claims of the Bible and that there does exist archaeological evidence to lend credence to the Biblical narrative. I'm not claiming either that everything in the Bible is true or needs to be confirmed archaeologically. Sure, there could be a biased presentation of facts, but it will not be wholesale fabrication (like scholars believing the Exodus account was invented during the Babylonian exile) or complete historical revisionism (like Egyptians making up the history of the Hyksos).
It is a very explicit 'admission' that all the 'evidence' you produce is intended to support the Bible (as distinct from finding out whatever the evidence does indicate). That's the built -in cheat. I demonstrated that clearly by showing that opting for'evidence'supporting Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of Exodus totally debunked the 'evidence' you fished out to support the Hyksos as the Israelites of the Exodus, and just as an apologists wangling 'evidence' for Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of Exodus. Each wangle debunking the other, quite aside from whether their mutual destruction through equally invalid wangles must destroy their credibility as valid arguments, would debunk the Amenhotep claim and Hyksos -claim. If two are thus debunked, they are all debunked.

Are you getting this? Does this get through to you? Do you see that pointing to the verification of the evidence you fiddled out is not the point, but how you try to make it support a Biblical claim, but a post later you trash it with a different one? And you didn't notice, or ignored it.I had to point it out and you still ignored it, instead, dickering about what's cheating or not? Do you see it now, what starting with the Faith - claim and wangling the (verifiable) evidence to fit is what you are doing wrong?

Do Bible skeptics do the same? I don't think so.I once accepted that Exodus or something like it really occurred. And (haven't we heard this before ;) ?) Bible claims to prove the God -claims true, not just the events, opened up the debate that led me to realise that not only was there no valid evidence for it but strong reasons to doubt it.

Post Reply