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: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #1101

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Jun 28, 2022 9:19 am If that's so, everything that was posted here about it is a waste of everyone's time.
I post arguments based on evidence and logical reasoning. I'll let readers decide who's posts are a waste of everyone's time.
(Wiki)Iron Age
Tell es-Sultan remained unoccupied from the end of the 15th to the 10th–9th centuries BCE, when the city was rebuilt.[41][40][42] Of this new city not much more remains than a four-room house on the eastern slope.[43] By the 7th century, Jericho had become an extensive town, but this settlement was destroyed in the Babylonian conquest of Judah in the late 6th century.[41]
Not sure what you're trying to argue for by posting this. Are you refuting any claims I've made?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

End of discussion on archaeology

Post #1102

Post by otseng »

I've been busy with teaching VBS all last week and also just got covid (first time!). So, this would be a good stopping point as any in discussing archaeology and the Bible.

I started discussing the Bible and archaeology on page 72. That's 40 pages on this topic alone. And in terms of the data, it was just an introduction. Most of the Biblical archaeology work is done in Israel and I just recently started getting into that. As I said, schools have degrees on this subject and we could spend forever on this topic.

I've never really done such an in-depth research on this topic before and now, I'm even more convinced of the reliability of the Bible.

After I've recovered from covid, we can tackle the next subject regarding the reliability of the Bible - cosmology.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Start discussing cosmology

Post #1103

Post by otseng »

otseng wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 10:44 pm
Diogenes wrote: Wed Mar 30, 2022 12:43 am None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims. The Earth isn't even the center o,f the solar system.. The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG. This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.'
Let's table this. We can get back to cosmology after archaeology.
OK, moving on to Biblical cosmology now.

First off, we've been assuming in this thread the Bible was written by man, so there's nothing novel by stating "This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.'"

I want to approach this topic first with the question, what were the cosmological views of the Ancient Near East cultures?

And a quick word before we jump into this topic. I mentioned before we cannot impose our modern standards on the Bible. Likewise, we shouldn't impose our modern view of cosmology on others and look down on how earlier cultures viewed the cosmos. As CS Lewis termed it, that would be chronological snobbery.

Finding out how ancient cultures view the heavens is a fairly large topic. In fact, it's an entire discipline in itself.
Archaeoastronomy (also spelled archeoastronomy) is the interdisciplinary[1] or multidisciplinary[2] study of how people in the past "have understood the phenomena in the sky, how they used these phenomena and what role the sky played in their cultures".[3] Clive Ruggles argues it is misleading to consider archaeoastronomy to be the study of ancient astronomy, as modern astronomy is a scientific discipline, while archaeoastronomy considers symbolically rich cultural interpretations of phenomena in the sky by other cultures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy

Though we do not completely understand the cosmologies of the ANE cultures, we do know myth and stories were the commonly accepted approach to cosmology for ancient civilizations.

"Another motive for studying the sky is to understand and explain the universe. In these cultures myth was a tool for achieving this, and the explanations, while not reflecting the standards of modern science, are cosmologies."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoastronomy

Mesopotamian cosmology
There are no specific written records explaining Mesopotamian religious cosmology that survive today. Nonetheless, modern scholars have examined various accounts, and created what is believed to be an at least partially accurate depiction of Mesopotamian cosmology.[11] In the Epic of Creation, dated to 1200 BC, it explains that the god Marduk killed the mother goddess Tiamat and used half her body to create the earth, and the other half to create both the paradise of šamû and the netherworld of irṣitu.[12] A document from a similar period stated that the universe was a spheroid, with three levels of šamû, where the gods dwelt, and where the stars existed, above the three levels of earth below it.[13]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_M ... n_religion

Babylonian cosmology
In contrast to the world view presented in Mesopotamian and Assyro-Babylonian literature, particularly in Mesopotamian and Babylonian mythology, very little is known about the cosmology and world view of the ancient Babylonian astrologers and astronomers.[16] This is largely due to the current fragmentary state of Babylonian planetary theory,[4] and also due to Babylonian astronomy being independent from cosmology at the time.[17] Nevertheless, traces of cosmology can be found in Babylonian literature and mythology.

In Babylonian cosmology, the Earth and the heavens were depicted as a "spatial whole, even one of round shape" with references to "the circumference of heaven and earth" and "the totality of heaven and earth". Their worldview was not exactly geocentric either. The idea of geocentrism, where the center of the Earth is the exact center of the universe, did not yet exist in Babylonian cosmology, but was established later by the Greek philosopher Aristotle's On the Heavens. In contrast, Babylonian cosmology suggested that the cosmos revolved around circularly with the heavens and the earth being equal and joined as a whole.[18] The Babylonians and their predecessors, the Sumerians, also believed in a plurality of heavens and earths. This idea dates back to Sumerian incantations of the 2nd millennium BCE, which refers to there being seven heavens and seven earths, linked possibly chronologically to the creation by seven generations of gods.[19]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia ... #Cosmology

Egyptian cosmology
The Egyptian pantheon was filled with deities who inhabited the heavens but whose influence was experienced on earth. In the Pyramid Texts of the Old Kingdom, which first appeared on the interiors of the pyramids of the kings of the Fifth Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (c. 2500–2350 BCE), we learn that the Egyptians regarded the sky as a dwelling place of their gods and a location connected to the afterlife. Just as their daily life depended upon the Nile River, the Egyptians envisioned this heavenly realm as a landscape that divine beings navigated in sacred boats.

The Egyptians had several elaborate myths describing the origins of their world. Each of these creation stories was centered at a different city in ancient Egypt.
https://www.glencairnmuseum.org/newslet ... cosmic-egg

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 902 times
Been thanked: 1628 times
Contact:

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

Post #1104

Post by William »

otseng: I mentioned before we cannot impose our modern standards on the Bible. Likewise, we shouldn't impose our modern view of cosmology on others and look down on how earlier cultures viewed the cosmos. As CS Lewis termed it, that would be chronological snobbery.

Finding out how ancient cultures view the heavens is a fairly large topic. In fact, it's an entire discipline in itself.

[Replying to otseng in post #1103]

I think this ties in with modern knowledge re the way things were said can be aligned with the way things have since proven to be.

Even in modern times, there is tendency to describe things from the subjective center of consciousness...from which all else flows around about.

Even that we do not know if consciousness has such a center - the only thing matching the concept, is the Self.

But what is the Self, that we dare proclaim it the center of everything?

If we call it "GOD" we blaspheme, for there is only One GOD and you and I are not IT, according to the teachings of...

:?:

Is there a center to every object in this universe?

Give thanks to the Lord, for he is good;
his love endures forever.
Let Israel say:
His love endures forever.”
Let the house of Aaron say:
“His love endures forever.”
Let those who fear the Lord say:
“His love endures forever.”
When hard pressed, I cried to the Lord;
he brought me into a spacious place.
The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?
The Lord is with me; he is my helper.
I look in triumph on my enemies.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.
It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in princes.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

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

Post #1105

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:48 am ...
...
If all the evidence points to an explanation that is a supernatural origin, then why should it not be a possible answer? We see this in scientists proposing a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
...
Good one.

I'm not bothering with "fine tuning", I'm just saying the overall idea is a bit of a hammer.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 902 times
Been thanked: 1628 times
Contact:

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

Post #1106

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:20 pm
otseng wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:48 am ...
...
If all the evidence points to an explanation that is a supernatural origin, then why should it not be a possible answer? We see this in scientists proposing a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
...
Good one.

I'm not bothering with "fine tuning", I'm just saying the overall idea is a bit of a hammer.
The hammer, anvil and stirrup—also known as the malleus, incus, and stapes, respectively, and collectively, as "middle ear ossicles"—are the smallest bones in the human body...sometimes the things we have to include on our list of things to listen out for, include things that cannot be heard in the usual manner.

eta;

It doesn't seem the kind of thing that any GOD would do
Everybody wants to rule the world syndrome
The situation we find ourselves lost within
Is there a center to every object in this universe?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6602 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

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

Post #1107

Post by brunumb »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:20 pm
otseng wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:48 am ...
...
If all the evidence points to an explanation that is a supernatural origin, then why should it not be a possible answer? We see this in scientists proposing a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
...
Good one.

I'm not bothering with "fine tuning", I'm just saying the overall idea is a bit of a hammer.
I'm inclined to disagree. The evidence never really points to an explanation relying on the supernatural. The supernatural is usually invoked when there is no current natural explanation for the phenomenon or the natural explanation is merely not accepted. So far the supernatural has been no more than a placeholder while we wait for our knowledge and understanding of reality to catch up and provide a natural explanation. No supernatural explanation of any phenomenon has survived to date.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 13936
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 902 times
Been thanked: 1628 times
Contact:

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

Post #1108

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:39 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 3:20 pm
otseng wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 8:48 am ...
...
If all the evidence points to an explanation that is a supernatural origin, then why should it not be a possible answer? We see this in scientists proposing a multiverse to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
...
Good one.

I'm not bothering with "fine tuning", I'm just saying the overall idea is a bit of a hammer.
I'm inclined to disagree. The evidence never really points to an explanation relying on the supernatural. The supernatural is usually invoked when there is no current natural explanation for the phenomenon or the natural explanation is merely not accepted. So far the supernatural has been no more than a placeholder while we wait for our knowledge and understanding of reality to catch up and provide a natural explanation. No supernatural explanation of any phenomenon has survived to date.
I'm inclined to agree. The idea of 'supernatural' just muddies the waters.

Even if we did exist within a creation and there was a Cosmic Mind, and these were proven by human science to being the case, all that this would do is move the idea of such being 'supernatural' into such being 'natural'.

In that, just because we might be existing within a creation, and just because it may be nestled within another universe, shouldn't mean that it is somehow an unnatural thing compared to our own.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #1109

Post by otseng »

brunumb wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 7:39 pmThe supernatural is usually invoked when there is no current natural explanation for the phenomenon or the natural explanation is merely not accepted.
And that is the general crux of the argument. If there is no current viable natural explanation (and none that are even remotely possible), then a supernatural causation is a plausible explanation.
So far the supernatural has been no more than a placeholder while we wait for our knowledge and understanding of reality to catch up and provide a natural explanation.
Note that this only applies when one assumes naturalism, which science does assume (or at least it's supposed to).
No supernatural explanation of any phenomenon has survived to date.
Actually, there are several examples of supernatural explanations that have survived. But, we can get into some those as we get deeper into cosmology.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

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

Post #1110

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:25 pm If there is no current viable natural explanation (and none that are even remotely possible), then a supernatural causation is a plausible explanation.
Many of the 'events' that require a supernatural explanation simply did not happen, or there is no evidence they occurred, except for religious 'scripture' or other ancient myths, myths that arose long before the scientific method or other empirical system.

Evolution explains the origin of the species. Abiogenesis is more than a plausible theory.
"If there is no current viable natural explanation," let us have patience.
There is a long list of natural phenomena that were once attributed to the gods. They now have scientific explanations:
Lightning
Earthquakes
Rain
Hail
Snow
Floods
Volcanoes
Origin of man
Origin of stars and planets
Radiation from rocks
Electricity
...
The list is endless.
One by one natural phenomena once attributed to gods has been explained by science.
Isn't it more likely that the remaining mysteries will also eventually have natural explanations, obviating the need to invoke the supernatural?
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Post Reply