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

[otseng]

You may be able to correct me.But Moses would hardly have gone through a Hebrew circumcision -rite.

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant to Abraham and Moses was a descendant of Abraham. Logically then he would've been circumcised.

Though despite the tribe being rigorous in this Abrahamic rite, they were sacrificing people and donkeys in the Hyksos burials..unless you concede that they aren't Hebrew at all.

Where were they sacrificing people?

Donkeys have been found buried, but it's conjecture they were sacrificed. But, even if they were sacrificing donkeys, it does not really show either they were or were not Hebrews.

Again, I've never said all the Hyksos were Hebrews. The Hebrews were a subset of the Hyksos, so there were other customs found that were practiced by the non-Hebrews.

The point is that I don't know how Moses is supposed to know that he was a Hebrew at all.

If he was circumcised, it would've been evident to Moses.

I already pointed out the anachronism of the Philistines even before the Philistines appeared. I don't recall you addressing that other than some vague excuses about people making mistakes or errors.

Philistines is not really relevant to our discussions, but here's a rebuttal on it:

As with most allegations brought against the Scriptures, those who claim that the Philistine nation was not around in Abraham’s day are basing their conclusion on at least one unprovable assumption—namely, that the Philistines living in the days of the patriarchs were a great nation, similar to the one living during the time of the United Kingdom. The evidence suggests, however, that this assumption simply is wrong. The Bible does not present the Philistines of Abraham’s day as the same mighty Philistine nation that would arise hundreds of years later. Abimelech, the king of Gerar, is portrayed as being intimidated by Abraham (cf. Genesis 21:25). Surely, had the Philistine people been a great nation in the time of the patriarchs, they would not have been afraid of one man (Abraham) and a few hundred servants (cf. Genesis 14:14). Furthermore, of the five great Philistine city-states that were so prominent throughout the period of the Judges and the United Kingdom (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza—Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 6:17), none was mentioned. Rather, only a small village known as Gerar was named. To assume that the Bible presents the entire civilization of the Philistines as being present during Abraham’s day is to err. In reality, one only reads of a small Philistine kingdom.

https://apologeticspress.org/philistine ... -fact-671/

Your point about stone blocks is putrid. Since the workforce did haul stone blocks, that is a reasonable analogy of how, even if the Bible story differed, you could make that fit just as well, the point being that it is Not evidence that the Exodus story is true just because you can get it to fit the history.

You need to make a reasonable argument instead of simply saying my rebuttal is putrid. What exactly is your argument that stone blocks is more reasonable than bricks?

[otseng]

If they got something right, it was by accident.

Sure, if it was a single thing the Bible mentions and it happens to be correct, it could be accidental. But, as more and more things happen to align with the facts, it cannot simply be attributed to luck. The Bible could just be coincidentally correct that the universe had a beginning, fine-tuning of the universe, earth is a special creation, humans are a special creation, a global flood happened, all languages originated after the tower of Babel, Exodus account aligns with archaeology, etc. But, to believe it was all coincidences takes more faith than to believe the Bible is truthful.

[TRANSPONDER]

You may be able to correct me.But Moses would hardly have gone through a Hebrew circumcision -rite.

Circumcision was a sign of the covenant to Abraham and Moses was a descendant of Abraham. Logically then he would've been circumcised.

When I say correct me if I'm wrong, I don't need to be instructed in the rite but on whether or not Moses would have been circumcised before being discarded in a reed -boat.

Though despite the tribe being rigorous in this Abrahamic rite, they were sacrificing people and donkeys in the Hyksos burials..unless you concede that they aren't Hebrew at all.

Where were they sacrificing people?

Donkeys have been found buried, but it's conjecture they were sacrificed. But, even if they were sacrificing donkeys, it does not really show either they were or were not Hebrews.

Again, I've never said all the Hyksos were Hebrews. The Hebrews were a subset of the Hyksos, so there were other customs found that were practiced by the non-Hebrews.

As I recall burials were found during the excavations at Avaris. They showed human and donkey - burials. Please show the reason that donkey -burials are not obviously funerary.

So, yes, it seems clear that the Hyksos were not Hebrews as such and the point is that you have failed to show anything that supports a Hebrew element at all.

The point is that I don't know how Moses is supposed to know that he was a Hebrew at all.

If he was circumcised, it would've been evident to Moses.

If. . Let me look, since you seem disinclined. Ok Moses was discarded at 3 months so one can argue that it would have been circumcised. Which would explain why the finder identified it as a Hebrew child. Ok That one is cleared up and couldn't you have done that instead of pussyfooting around?

I already pointed out the anachronism of the Philistines even before the Philistines appeared. I don't recall you addressing that other than some vague excuses about people making mistakes or errors.

Philistines is not really relevant to our discussions, but here's a rebuttal on it:

As with most allegations brought against the Scriptures, those who claim that the Philistine nation was not around in Abraham’s day are basing their conclusion on at least one unprovable assumption—namely, that the Philistines living in the days of the patriarchs were a great nation, similar to the one living during the time of the United Kingdom. The evidence suggests, however, that this assumption simply is wrong. The Bible does not present the Philistines of Abraham’s day as the same mighty Philistine nation that would arise hundreds of years later. Abimelech, the king of Gerar, is portrayed as being intimidated by Abraham (cf. Genesis 21:25). Surely, had the Philistine people been a great nation in the time of the patriarchs, they would not have been afraid of one man (Abraham) and a few hundred servants (cf. Genesis 14:14). Furthermore, of the five great Philistine city-states that were so prominent throughout the period of the Judges and the United Kingdom (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, and Gaza—Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 6:17), none was mentioned. Rather, only a small village known as Gerar was named. To assume that the Bible presents the entire civilization of the Philistines as being present during Abraham’s day is to err. In reality, one only reads of a small Philistine kingdom.

https://apologeticspress.org/philistine ... -fact-671/

It is relevant for the reason I said - it did not exist until after Ramesses III and I have explained this before. I do not care what the Bible says. Archaeology and history seems to indicate that after Ramesses III defeated the sea peoples, one tribe (the Pelestet) were settled in Gaza and became the Philistines. So for Moses to avoid them they had to be there and that means that the exodus had to be after the time of the early Ramessids. Which rather scuppers your placing of the exodus in the 18th dynasty. The archaeology appears to indicate pottery of a type imitating Helladic types which Sea peoples of Aegean origin would know.

Your point about stone blocks is putrid. Since the workforce did haul stone blocks, that is a reasonable analogy of how, even if the Bible story differed, you could make that fit just as well, the point being that it is Not evidence that the Exodus story is true just because you can get it to fit the history.

You need to make a reasonable argument instead of simply saying my rebuttal is putrid. What exactly is your argument that stone blocks is more reasonable than bricks? (/quote]

I explained it Stone blocks or metal - working or basket -weaving, whatever the Bible might have said it was, you could have pointed to such an activity in Egypt and made the putrid argument that this somehow proves the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

Following the Sea Peoples' defeat, Ramesses III allegedly relocated a number of the pwrꜣsꜣtj to southern Canaan, as recorded in an inscription from his funerary temple in Medinet Habu,[18] and the Great Harris Papyrus.[19][20] Though archaeological investigation has been unable to correlate any such settlement existing during this time period,[21][22][23] this, coupled with the name Peleset/Pulasti and the peoples' supposed Aegean origins, have led many scholars to identify the pwrꜣsꜣtj with the Philistines.[24]

Typically "Philistine" artifacts begin appearing in Canaan by the 12th century BCE. Pottery of Philistine origin has been found far outside of what would later become the core of Philistia, including at the majority of Iron Age I sites in the Jezreel Valley; however, because the quantity of said pottery finds are light, it is assumed that the Philistines' presence in these areas were not as strong as in their core territory, and that they probably were a minority which had assimilated into the native Canaanite population by the 10th century BCE" .[Wiki]


It is interesting that the Bible itself says the Philistines came from Caphtor (Egyptian Keftiu, recognisable in Egyptian art as Minoan Cretans) but this knocks on the head to idea of dealings between Abraham and the Philistines, unless all of Abraham Joseph and Moses is places after the time of Ramesses III

So that point about anachronism in Exodus looks even worse than I thought. I don't see how you are going to get around that other than with science -denial.

[JoeyKnothead]

As a matter of policiy, I usually avoid debating them smarter me, but here we go...

If they got something right, it was by accident.

Sure, if it was a single thing the Bible mentions and it happens to be correct, it could be accidental.

I was being facetious, but you compel me to retract. That there, I'd reject any notion that if the Bible's correct on some stuff, it must be correct on all the stuff - not that you're saying such.

But, as more and more things happen to align with the facts, it cannot simply be attributed to luck. The Bible could just be coincidentally correct that the universe had a beginning,

I'm unaware of anyone, cept maybe The Barbarian being old enough (said with loving respect) to tell of witnessing the universe having a "beginning". More to the point, our most logical conclusion here is to note the universe has the appearance of expanding from an initial state.

fine-tuning of the universe,

Are you also astounded at the ability of puddles to hold just enough water to be em a puddle?

Our most reliable data shows clearly the majority of the universe is not conducive to life.

earth is a special creation,

Bell bottoms'll come back in style before you put anything other'n pride to that claim.

humans are a special creation,

And this'n. Actually, let's put this to its own OP...

Humans're a special creation

a global flood happened,

Zzyzx, who I miss a whole bunch, destroyed this claim here.

all languages originated after the tower of Babel,

Has it even been established this tower ever existed?

Exodus account aligns with archaeology, etc.

I do agree that some biblical tales may reflect reality. However, Gone With the Wind also uses historical data in support of its fictional tale.

But, to believe it was all coincidences takes more faith than to believe the Bible is truthful.

I seek to understand why I oughta hold me faith in your claims here.

I make no claims regarding "coincidence", other'n to note how coincidentally it is, some folks'll make em up stuff. (Absolutely not a slur against you - I'll tell it in court, you speak your truth without ever playing games with it.)

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #945]

More to the point, our most logical conclusion here is to note the universe has the appearance of expanding from an initial state.

The "initial state" seems to be out of the reach of being described in any accurate or meaningful manner.
In that, it is no more or less better than the idea of an exclamation "let there be light" from an Intelligent Source being the Initial State.

[TRANSPONDER]

I find it remarkably ingenuous for Otseng to point to a Bible full of spin, fallacy and legend just as we find in other writings then and now, and from what I see, Only that and without the honest intention to recount true history. Sometimes they are put in places and times and are often based on real events. Often this isn't the case. 'Pharaoh' in Exodus is not identified and Bible apologists have to guess which one. That does not make it wrong of course, and if one can get it to fit, it can be presented as 'evidence' (an equivocation where what is merely 'Data' is argued to be 'proof').

But as we have seen the evidence is rather against the Exodus, as it is against Babel, Eden, the Flood, or the creation -claim. The Assyrian siege of Jerusalem works better as per the Assyrian account than the Biblical and the prophecy of Tyre is demonstrably wrong, Daniel is demonstrably of the date just before the Maccabean revolt and while we're about it there's lots wrong with the NT as well.

The appeal to heaps of evidence in the Bible that must prove it true (as 'coincidence' doesn't explain it) is the old Bible apologist fallacy of 'a shedload of bad evidence does not mount up to good evidence'. I have shown (I trust) that Otseng actually has nothing. Not even 'coincidences'. The three color coal cannot honestly be shown to be anything to do with Joseph's many color coat, nor that cylinder seal shown to be anything to do with the Hebrews.

There is not a shred of evidence that put Hebrews in Hyksos Avaris. A on the other hand the objections to the Biblical case gets ignored, put off to some later date or answerewd with some irrelevance, like the date for the appearance of Philistia being countered by posting what the Bible says which doesn't address the point. It is a blind. In this case it actually raised more problems with the Bible if not only Moses but Abraham was supposed to have been involved with the Philistines.

So, bottom line, a lot of false claims,fantasies, and true events or places spun so much as to have a lie like a pill in bacon do not add up to evidence For the Bible but against it, and the strawman that it can't be 'coincidence' (implying that it is evidence for the Bible that that skeptics have to dismiss when it is evidence against the Bible that apologist have to dismiss) is in fact impudence, asserting a validated claim that actually hasn't a scrap of good evidence for it.

I oughtn't to labour this behind Otseng's back, but this business of losing a case and then claiming to anyone who will listen that they really won it, is quite saucy.

[Diogenes]

If they got something right, it was by accident.

Sure, if it was a single thing the Bible mentions and it happens to be correct, it could be accidental. But, as more and more things happen to align with the facts, it cannot simply be attributed to luck. The Bible could just be coincidentally correct that the universe had a beginning, fine-tuning of the universe, earth is a special creation, humans are a special creation, a global flood happened, all languages originated after the tower of Babel, Exodus account aligns with archaeology, etc. But, to believe it was all coincidences takes more faith than to believe the Bible is truthful.

"Fine tuned Earth", "special creation, [Earth and homo sapiens], "global flood" are all claims you cannot prove. You cannot prove them because they are not true. None of those are even facts, they are attitudes, ways of looking at whatever has happened over the 4 Billion + history of the Earth and declaring that whatever happened, was planned to have happened just that way. Essentially each of those phrases represent circular reasoning because they rest upon the claim there was a god who planned it all, exactly as it turned out.

... including plague, pestilence, famine, torture, birth defects, a host of debilitating, painful diseases and mosquitoes.

Naturally some of the stories in the Bible will correspond to some degree with archaeology, but the same can be said of many ancient histories. This is the same Bible that pictures the Earth as flat an immovable with the Sun going around it once a day.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #945]

More to the point, our most logical conclusion here is to note the universe has the appearance of expanding from an initial state.

The "initial state" seems to be out of the reach of being described in any accurate or meaningful manner.
In that, it is no more or less better than the idea of an exclamation "let there be light" from an Intelligent Source being the Initial State.

Plenty fair. Though one's gotta ponder what did it that thinking.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #949]

The "initial state" seems to be out of the reach of being described in any accurate or meaningful manner.

In that, it is no more or less better than the idea of an exclamation "let there be light" from an Intelligent Source being the Initial State.

Plenty fair. Though one's gotta ponder what did it that thinking.

That is a journey in itself and provides me with lifetime of interesting subjective experience re my own way of interreacting with and finding out about such a thinker...