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: 20490
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
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 #1111

Post by JoeyKnothead »

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 was in benefit of doubt mode, and even alluded to problems with fine tuning.

While I might reject supernatural explanations, I think otseng did a good job there of relating one problematic explanation with another.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6606 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

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

Post #1112

Post by brunumb »

otseng wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:25 pm
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.
There is that big IF to consider. When will we know that there is actually no viable or remotely possible explanation? One can't simply invent an explanation and call it supernatural which is basically what is happening now. The supernatural must demonstrably exist first and then, as William suggested, it really becomes part of what is natural. Something remains in the realm of the invisible until we are able to see it and then it belongs with the visible.
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: 13968
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 904 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #1113

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:57 am
otseng wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 9:25 pm
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.
There is that big IF to consider. When will we know that there is actually no viable or remotely possible explanation? One can't simply invent an explanation and call it supernatural which is basically what is happening now. The supernatural must demonstrably exist first and then, as William suggested, it really becomes part of what is natural. Something remains in the realm of the invisible until we are able to see it and then it belongs with the visible.
This has to be the truth of it.

Things of the mind are transposed into nature and therein effect natural outcomes. That is the only natural manner in which the invisible becomes visible.
The mind [things of] is always within "the realm of the invisible" however, - as is evident - such still 'belongs with the visible' because the visible acknowledges that the realm of the invisible exists and is functioning within the realm of the visible.

If - at any stage of The Game a god-being emerges from the invisible into the visible, we can examine the event scientifically.

Until then, there is no event to examine...but there are still events of the mind to examine...and Cosmic Mind is not off the table just because it is largely invisible as any object other than nature itself...

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20490
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 #1114

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:48 pm Abiogenesis is more than a plausible theory.
No, not really. But, not relevant for discussions here.
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
Beliefs and theories come and go. And pointing to erroneous beliefs held by people thousands of years ago would not be relevant to beliefs held by modern people.

Further, even in scientific theories, there is a wasteland of discarded or deficient theories that were once widely held. See Superseded theories in science.
Isn't it more likely that the remaining mysteries will also eventually have natural explanations, obviating the need to invoke the supernatural?
Maybe, maybe not. But if your claim is "science will eventually have an answer", then that is just science of the gaps.

What if there is never a scientific answer for something? At what point will a naturalist admit there is no scientific answer?
brunumb wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 4:57 amThe supernatural must demonstrably exist first and then, as William suggested, it really becomes part of what is natural.
By definition, the supernatural cannot demonstrably be shown to exist. It is not empirically observable or measurable. Again, let's take the multiverse. It would be impossible to measure or observe it. Do scientists outright throw it out because it cannot be demonstrably shown to exist?

Let me state that I'm not advocating giving a supernatural explanation for everything we don't have an answer for. Just because I cannot find my matching sock after I dry my clothes doesn't mean it was stolen by something from the upside down.

What I am advocating is looking at all the evidence and if the preponderance of evidence points to something, then it is a viable explanation, even if it is supernatural explanation. This is the approach I've been taking all along in this thread.

And to reiterate, the scientific method does not state the supernatural does not exist. It only assumes the supernatural does not exist. Probably 99.9999% of all things can be explained naturalistically. But, not 100%. For those few cases that cannot (and most likely never will be explained) naturalistically, then the supernatural cannot be ruled out.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20490
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 #1115

Post by otseng »

The Greeks were perhaps the most advanced in terms of cosmology of all ancient cultures. We're not really sure if the ANE cultures actually believed the universe to be shaped like a snowdome, but we do know the Greeks believed the universe was comprised of the Earth in the center of giant spheres.
Although there is no material evidence of much of the work done by Greek philosophers between 600-300 BC, it is believed that Anaximander (c. 610 BC–c. 546 BC) described a cyclical Earth suspended in the center of the cosmos surrounded by rings of fire, and that Philolaus (c. 480 BC–c. 405 BC) the Pythagorean described a cosmos in which the stars and ten bodies including the planets, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and counter-Earth (Antichthon) circle an unseen central fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_astronomy
Looking at the night sky the ancient Greeks found two primary kinds of celestial objects; the fixed stars and the wandering stars. Think of the night's sky. Most of the visible objects appear to move at exactly the same speed and present themselves in exactly the same arrangement night after night. These are the fixed stars. They appear to move all together. Aside from these were a set of nine objects that behaved differently, the moon, the sun and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter each moved according to a different system. For the Greeks these were the wandering stars.

In this system the entire universe was part of a great sphere. This sphere was split into two sections, an outer celestial realm and an inner terrestrial one. The dividing line between the two was the orbit of the moon. While the earth was a place of transition and flux, the heavens were unchanging. Aristotle posited that there was a fifth substance, the quintessence, that was what the heavens were made of, and that the heavens were a place of perfect spherical motion.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding ... -cosmology
By the time of Plato and Aristotle, the consensus view among educated Greeks was the Two-Sphere Model of the universe (as Thomas Kuhn later called it): A spherical earth, fixed at the center of the universe, surrounded by an enormous celestial sphere, holding the stars and spinning around us once a day. The sun, moon, and planets were presumably somewhere in between, carried around in their circles by similar mechanisms.
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/ ... nicus.html
Around the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE the Greeks, under the influence of Aristotle who argued that the heavens must be perfect and that a sphere was the perfect geometrical figure, exchanged this for a spherical Earth surrounded by solid spheres. This became the dominant model in the Classical and Medieval world-view, and even when Copernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the system he included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

We might scoff at their "naive" beliefs, but based on their observations, this model of the universe could not be refuted until thousands of years later with advanced methods of measurement.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

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

Post #1116

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 6:56 pm
Diogenes wrote: Mon Jul 11, 2022 10:48 pm Abiogenesis is more than a plausible theory.
No, not really. But, not relevant for discussions here.
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
Beliefs and theories come and go. And pointing to erroneous beliefs held by people thousands of years ago would not be relevant to beliefs held by modern people.

Further, even in scientific theories, there is a wasteland of discarded or deficient theories that were once widely held. See Superseded theories in science.
Isn't it more likely that the remaining mysteries will also eventually have natural explanations, obviating the need to invoke the supernatural?
Maybe, maybe not. But if your claim is "science will eventually have an answer", then that is just science of the gaps.

What if there is never a scientific answer for something? At what point will a naturalist admit there is no scientific answer?
You are not seriously comparing religious belief with science are you?

Of course science discards theories, no matter how widely held. That is the nature of science, that is the honesty of science; to admit mistakes and move on as more data is received and studied. Religion literally casts its claims in stone. It brags about never changing. It's practitioners have routinely and proudly murdered non believers and even members of their own community for saying the 'wrong' things.

Both the Bible and the Quran very clearly describe the 'snow globe' image of Earth you mention, and place it in the center of the universe, unmoving. The Church for thousands of years, long after this myth was disproved, gave various sanctions for telling the truth. [note: Galileo]
So stubborn is this tendency that even today, and on this forum, some Christian apologists insist the Bible never did describe a flat Earth.
Science celebrates new theories. Religion condemns them.

Image
https://webb.nasa.gov/index.html

__________________________
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
__ Stenger

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7862
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 3466 times

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

Post #1117

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Jul 13, 2022 8:28 pm The Greeks were perhaps the most advanced in terms of cosmology of all ancient cultures. We're not really sure if the ANE cultures actually believed the universe to be shaped like a snowdome, but we do know the Greeks believed the universe was comprised of the Earth in the center of giant spheres.
Although there is no material evidence of much of the work done by Greek philosophers between 600-300 BC, it is believed that Anaximander (c. 610 BC–c. 546 BC) described a cyclical Earth suspended in the center of the cosmos surrounded by rings of fire, and that Philolaus (c. 480 BC–c. 405 BC) the Pythagorean described a cosmos in which the stars and ten bodies including the planets, the Sun, the Moon, the Earth, and counter-Earth (Antichthon) circle an unseen central fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_astronomy
Looking at the night sky the ancient Greeks found two primary kinds of celestial objects; the fixed stars and the wandering stars. Think of the night's sky. Most of the visible objects appear to move at exactly the same speed and present themselves in exactly the same arrangement night after night. These are the fixed stars. They appear to move all together. Aside from these were a set of nine objects that behaved differently, the moon, the sun and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Saturn and Jupiter each moved according to a different system. For the Greeks these were the wandering stars.

In this system the entire universe was part of a great sphere. This sphere was split into two sections, an outer celestial realm and an inner terrestrial one. The dividing line between the two was the orbit of the moon. While the earth was a place of transition and flux, the heavens were unchanging. Aristotle posited that there was a fifth substance, the quintessence, that was what the heavens were made of, and that the heavens were a place of perfect spherical motion.
https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding ... -cosmology
By the time of Plato and Aristotle, the consensus view among educated Greeks was the Two-Sphere Model of the universe (as Thomas Kuhn later called it): A spherical earth, fixed at the center of the universe, surrounded by an enormous celestial sphere, holding the stars and spinning around us once a day. The sun, moon, and planets were presumably somewhere in between, carried around in their circles by similar mechanisms.
https://physics.weber.edu/schroeder/ua/ ... nicus.html
Around the 4th to 3rd centuries BCE the Greeks, under the influence of Aristotle who argued that the heavens must be perfect and that a sphere was the perfect geometrical figure, exchanged this for a spherical Earth surrounded by solid spheres. This became the dominant model in the Classical and Medieval world-view, and even when Copernicus placed the Sun at the centre of the system he included an outer sphere that held the stars (and by having the earth rotate daily on its axis it allowed the firmament to be completely stationary).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmament

We might scoff at their "naive" beliefs, but based on their observations, this model of the universe could not be refuted until thousands of years later with advanced methods of measurement.
Science fills the gaps. It always has. It is Bible apologetics that relies upon gaps (as well as, as we have seen before, denial of what science has found) to keep the credible possibility of a god open.

Science does indeed re-examine and change ideas in the face of new data. But no scientific Theories have been discarded since the Ptolemaic theory was replaced by the Copernican. Newton, Darwin, Einstein all are as valid as ever. If only Bible dogma could say the same.

If there is no scientific answer, then Nobody knows. It doesn't help the Theist case. The 'naturalist' case doesn't need help. It has already been validated.

Science is not a Belief -system. It is not science -Dogma. The multiverse is argued for by mathematics. It isn't proven, but it is a hypothesis like many others, the Higgs - Boson rather famously, which might have been there or might not and it was. Not accepting even compelling hypotheses until validated is the sound method of science. If only Bible -apologetics would do the same.

Yes. It is too easy to scoff at Ptolemy, and the efforts to make the geocentric system work. Einstein did the same in trying to make nature work without Quantum. But No, we should value what advances they made rather than sneer at what they got wrong. And certainly not use it to try to create some science -bashing apologetic.

And even if the sneering at science for closed mindedness, relying on hoped for answers, always changing its' mind and looking down on earlier scientists and their limits, was true, it still would not change the fact that the validations of science has undercut Religion, the Holy Books and The Bible, and Christian apologetics has nothing left but a few gaps for God, science denial, and a wasteland of dead claims like The Flood, I/C, the 2nd census, Kalam, argument from the eye, the ending of Mark got lost, Tyre was never rebuilt, Mary's genealogy, Fatima (sometimes :D ), Aquinas, seashells on mountains, extra Biblical verification, the disciples would not die for a lie, T Rex ate grass and Mules disprove speciation.

Science moves on from its' errors; Bible apologetics refuses to admit them.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20490
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 #1118

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:31 pm You are not seriously comparing religious belief with science are you?
My point is in any area of knowledge, ideas come and go, regardless if it is religion, science, culture, politics, etc. I'm simply refuting your point that if some idea changes from the past, then that area of knowledge has no value.
That is the nature of science, that is the honesty of science; to admit mistakes and move on as more data is received and studied.
Ideally, yes. Practically, ideas have a lot of momentum, and it takes a long time to dislodge ideas, even scientific ones.
Religion literally casts its claims in stone. It brags about never changing.
This is a misunderstanding of religion. Some things change and some things remain the same.
It's practitioners have routinely and proudly murdered non believers and even members of their own community for saying the 'wrong' things.
Religious people are not the only ones guilty of this.
Both the Bible and the Quran very clearly describe the 'snow globe' image of Earth you mention, and place it in the center of the universe, unmoving.
We'll have to do a deep dive into this in a later post.
The Church for thousands of years, long after this myth was disproved, gave various sanctions for telling the truth. [note: Galileo]
The Galileo affair is much more complicated than it's typically portrayed by skeptics. Since this is related to cosmology, we'll deep dive into this later as well.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20490
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 #1119

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 7:36 pm But No, we should value what advances they made rather than sneer at what they got wrong.
I agree. And this should apply to religion as well.
And certainly not use it to try to create some science -bashing apologetic.
To be clear, I'm not bashing science. But, science is not the ultimate source of truth that should be immune from criticism. And I would say the same goes for religion as well.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

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

Post #1120

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:19 pm
Diogenes wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 2:31 pm You are not seriously comparing religious belief with science are you?
My point is in any area of knowledge, ideas come and go, regardless if it is religion, science, culture, politics, etc. I'm simply refuting your point that if some idea changes from the past, then that area of knowledge has no value.
That is the nature of science, that is the honesty of science; to admit mistakes and move on as more data is received and studied.
Ideally, yes. Practically, ideas have a lot of momentum, and it takes a long time to dislodge ideas, even scientific ones.
Religion literally casts its claims in stone. It brags about never changing.
This is a misunderstanding of religion. Some things change and some things remain the same.
If your claim is valid, what are the key 'things' about evangelical 'Christianity' that have changed the last 1000 years or so? Is Jesus no longer seen as co-equal with God? Are miracles no longer seen as genuine events? Have the Ten Commandments been altered?
Some Christians now admit there are natural forces that produce the weather and other natural phenomena, yet they still cling to the idea that God controls the weather, that he acts in 'mysterious ways.'
In short, how have things changed? What are those important changes that Christianity now accepts?

Perhaps the better question is, "What changes have taken place in Christian theology that were not based on new scientific discoveries, or on a better understanding of history?
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

Post Reply