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 #1121

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 9:25 pm
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.
Religion is not so much making advances but trying to explain away what science has undermined, where it isn't simply being denied.
Diogenes wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:16 pm
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?
Or indeed religion has had to play catch -up with changes in society, so as not to be left without supporters.

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 #1122

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:16 pm If your claim is valid, what are the key 'things' about evangelical 'Christianity' that have changed the last 1000 years or so?
We were talking about religion and now you're specifically asking about "evangelical Christianity"? Anyways, this is not entirely relevant to discussions about cosmology and I can see it can go way off into the weeds. But, I will point out one thing that at least I'm trying to change which is relevant to this thread, that is removing the idea that evangelical Christians need to adhere to inerrancy in order to accept that the Bible is authoritative and reliable.
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?
I do not see the relevance of this to the discussions of cosmology. I'm only one person with limited time and as I've attempted to do in this thread, I only have time to deep dive into one topic at a time. And cosmology in itself is a huge topic which will probably take up just as much pages as other topics I've discussed so far.

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 #1123

Post by otseng »

Jewish cosmology was not something entirely novel, but it had some similarities to ANE cosmologies.
Most students of the Bible are probably aware that the Old Testament authors followed the cosmological model used in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... -theology/

It is not likely their portrayal of the universe was attempting to only make metaphysical claims. That is, they were not attempting to describe what the universe actually is. Instead, they were using metaphorical language to convey symbolic meanings.
The first thing to say about Jewish cosmology is that it is not interested in the physical properties of the cosmos per se but only in relation to the fate of man, and hence is decidedly anthropocentric in its outlook. It views the universe, created by God, dualistically as consisting of two opposite elements, heaven and earth. Heaven, the spiritual world, is the diametrical opposite of earth, the material world: it is a world of light, perfection, goodness, wisdom and eternal life, whereas the earth is a world of darkness, imperfection, wickedness, ignorance and death.
https://brewminate.com/jewish-cosmology ... n-context/

The "scientific" approach to cosmology only started during the time of the Greeks, even though they also had some religious views in their cosmology. So, it would be anachronistic to impose the early Hebrews needed to approach cosmology with a scientific mindset.
The ancient Hebrews had a very imperfect conception of the structure of the universe. Gen. i. was not written to be a scientific treatise. It was to impress and to express the twin-doctrine of God's creative omnipotence and of man's dignity as being destined on earth to be a creator himself.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... -cosmogony

One thing that stands out in the Jewish cosmology though is showing the contrast of the Hebrew God with the ANE gods. And most likely this was one of the main purposes of the Biblical cosmology.
It would probably be correct to say that the most striking difference between Ancient Near Eastern creation narratives and the biblical one is the total absence of a theogony in the biblical Creation narrative. In fact, it does not appear anywhere in the Scripture. This is so unique that it places the biblical Creation account within a different conceptual paradigm as compared to any other creation narrative. In the context of Ancient Near Eastern theogonies and cosmogonies, the biblical Creation narrative is an exquisite anomaly.

In Ancient Near Eastern cosmogonies, evil is part of the creation process itself and is directly related to the development of a diversity of gods/goddesses from the creator god—be it through procreation or direct self-development. Creation out of chaos, according to which God had to struggle with primeval forces of disorder to establish order and harmony, is not present in the biblical Creation narrative. In contraposition to such ideas, creation is the result of God’s effortless work. The singularity of the Creator God does not allow for any other cosmogony.
https://www.perspectivedigest.org/archi ... nary-ideas

Though the Jewish cosmology was couched in a myth narrative with symbolic meaning, there does exist elements of metaphysical claims. The most obvious one being the claim there was an origin to the universe. Another being God created/designed things that exist in the universe.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 908 times
Been thanked: 1314 times

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

Post #1124

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 6:59 pm
Diogenes wrote: Thu Jul 14, 2022 10:16 pm If your claim is valid, what are the key 'things' about evangelical 'Christianity' that have changed the last 1000 years or so?
We were talking about religion and now you're specifically asking about "evangelical Christianity"? Anyways, this is not entirely relevant to discussions about cosmology and I can see it can go way off into the weeds. But, I will point out one thing that at least I'm trying to change which is relevant to this thread, that is removing the idea that evangelical Christians need to adhere to inerrancy in order to accept that the Bible is authoritative and reliable.
You are no fool, but that is "a fool's errand." The Bible is claimed to be the "Word of God." If it is the very word of god it must be inerrant. It must be perfect. It was written by a perfect god. That it contains many errors is clear, including its claim the Earth is flat. Naturally an honest, logical apologist must insist God's Word can be in error and still be 'authoritative and reliable.' What choice does he have? ... other than to admit the Bible is not trustworthy?
Diogenes wrote: 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?
Otseng wrote: I do not see the relevance of this to the discussions of cosmology. I'm only one person with limited time and as I've attempted to do in this thread, I only have time to deep dive into one topic at a time. And cosmology in itself is a huge topic which will probably take up just as much pages as other topics I've discussed so far.
We all are "only one person with limited time." We do what we can. You brought this issue up, challenging science because it changes.
Otseng wrote:
And pointing to erroneous beliefs held by people thousands of years ago would not be relevant to beliefs held by modern people.
It is certainly relevant when those erroneous beliefs are based on the Bible. If you concede the Bible has errors because the men who wrote it erred, and is therefore not reliable and trustworthy, then fine, end of argument.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1370
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 908 times
Been thanked: 1314 times

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

Post #1125

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 7:34 pm Jewish cosmology was not something entirely novel, but it had some similarities to ANE cosmologies.
Most students of the Bible are probably aware that the Old Testament authors followed the cosmological model used in Mesopotamia and Egypt.
https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/ ... -theology/
Otseng: It is not likely their portrayal of the universe was attempting to only make metaphysical claims. That is, they were not attempting to describe what the universe actually is. Instead, they were using metaphorical language to convey symbolic meanings.
Yet that is exactly what too many Christian apologists claim, that they were trying "to describe what the universe actually is."
The first thing to say about Jewish cosmology is that it is not interested in the physical properties of the cosmos per se but only in relation to the fate of man, and hence is decidedly anthropocentric in its outlook. It views the universe, created by God, dualistically as consisting of two opposite elements, heaven and earth. Heaven, the spiritual world, is the diametrical opposite of earth, the material world: it is a world of light, perfection, goodness, wisdom and eternal life, whereas the earth is a world of darkness, imperfection, wickedness, ignorance and death.
https://brewminate.com/jewish-cosmology ... n-context/

The "scientific" approach to cosmology only started during the time of the Greeks, even though they also had some religious views in their cosmology. So, it would be anachronistic to impose the early Hebrews needed to approach cosmology with a scientific mindset.
I completely agree, if we concede Genesis was written by men, not God. This is the point of the entire argument. Genesis is a compilation of the works of man. it is has many errors, including errors of cosmological dimension. Therefore it is the work of men, not a god. Yet apologists have gone to great lengths to try to show the Bible didn't really say the Earth is flat. They do multiple twists and flips of heroic mental gymnastics to support an impossible world wide flood and the absurd story of Noah's ark. They try to explain how the myth of the Tower of Babel really happened as depicted and as an explanation for the multiplicity of languages.

I acknowledge the unfairness of the argument. Christian apologists have an insurmountable burden. Their efforts are burdened with the enormous weight of evidence against their thesis.

If apologists would admit their 'Holy Book' is the work of men and is laced with symbols, metaphors, and allegories trying to explain a greater truth, their claims might resonate. But they claim these events literally happened, that the Earth actually stood still, that a man actually died, was reborn, emerged from the grave and ascended to 'heaven.'
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

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 #1126

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Recently our pal Venom put me on the spot by asking me about 'Babylonian cosmology'. It fits the Biblical account, and that's all I can say. I can see a lot of work in trying to show that Genesis (and later) works with the 'Babylon' model of a circular flat earth with a dome over it. We are, at least, working with religious believers who accept a round earth and heliocentric system and the only debate is whether the Bible view of astronomical phenomena can be reconciled with that.

This is worth a read.
https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Guru
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 107 times

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

Post #1127

Post by The Nice Centurion »

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1126]
One thing strikes me; How did cultures back then imagine the dome over flat earth, when they didnt know transparent materials like glass? I suspect they didnt know ice either. So how?
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

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 #1128

Post by TRANSPONDER »

The Nice Centurion wrote: Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:17 pm [Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #1126]
One thing strikes me; How did cultures back then imagine the dome over flat earth, when they didnt know transparent materials like glass? I suspect they didnt know ice either. So how?
They certainly knew Glass though generally not transparent. And I believe they knew Crystal. But I don't think they saw the domes as transparent. They saw one opaque dome over the earth with God's throne on top. Apparently with the waters above, but who says this stuff has to make sense? There are trapdoors or whatever to open and let the rain fall and floods, if necessary. The stars and planets trundled around on the inside on some trundly mechanisms.

I gather the waters below the flat earth flooded in via sluices in mountains ringing this earth (I think this is shown in the rocky border around Portolan maps of medieval times) and after the Flood, the waters were blown by circling winds back through the sluices (Fountains of the deep).

This is just what I have in my head and is based on some pretty sparse clues. Withe the Mainstream idea of the Babylonian sky dome. This ended in Greek and Roman times when it was replaces by a round earth with planetary spheres around it and they were transparent, Nobody in Europe through the world was flat though I gather they still did in Asia. And of course by the renaissance the spheres were gone and all the planets including earth revolved around the sun.

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 #1129

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 15, 2022 8:03 pm They do multiple twists and flips of heroic mental gymnastics to support an impossible world wide flood and the absurd story of Noah's ark.
We've spent many pages on the flood in this thread starting in post 233.
They try to explain how the myth of the Tower of Babel really happened as depicted and as an explanation for the multiplicity of languages.
Likewise, we spent a lot of time talking about the tower of Babel and the origin of languages. I summarized my arguments in post 693.
that a man actually died, was reborn, emerged from the grave and ascended to 'heaven.'
One day, we will have to debate this in this thread. This is perhaps the most important topic in regards to the reliability of the Bible.

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 #1130

Post by otseng »

Let's look closer at what the Bible says about the firmament.

Gen 1:6-8 (KJV)
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

The Hebrew word for firmament is raqia.

Outline of Biblical Usage defines it:
A. expanse (flat as base, support)
B. firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)

In the Septuagint, the word is stereoma.

Outline of Biblical Usage:
1. that which has been made firm
A. the firmament, the arch of the sky, which in early times was thought to be solid
B. that which furnishes a foundation
C. firmness, steadfastness

In the Latin Vulgate, the word is firmamentum.
mid-13c., from Old French firmament or directly from Latin firmamentum "firmament," literally "a support, a strengthening," from firmus "strong, steadfast, enduring" (from suffixed form of PIE root *dher- "to hold firmly, support" ).

Used in Late Latin in the Vulgate to translate Greek stereoma "firm or solid structure," which translated Hebrew raqia, a word used of both the vault of the sky and the floor of the earth in the Old Testament, probably literally "expanse," from raqa "to spread out," but in Syriac meaning "to make firm or solid," hence the erroneous translation.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/firmament

The Hebrew word raqia has one definition that is lost in the Greek and Latin translations, the concept of expanse.

Many modern translations understand this and use the word expanse instead of firmament.

CSB
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water.”

HCSB
Then God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters, separating water from water."

NASB
Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”

NET
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters and let it separate water from water.”

NIV78
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."

WEB
God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.”

If we look at other passages using raqia, the connotation is an expanse, rather than any firm structure.

(Gen 1:20) And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

(Ezek 1:22) And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature [was] as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above.

(Ezek 10:1) Then I looked, and, behold, in the firmament that was above the head of the cherubims there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne.

As I mentioned before, we know the Greeks believed in solid spheres to explains the stars, planets, and sun. And more than likely, it was Greek cosmology that influenced the rendering of raqia in the Septuagint translation into stereoma.
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

When the Latin Vulgate came out, the Ptolemaic view of the universe was fully embedded into thinking and led to using the word firmamentum.
Ptolemy goes beyond the mathematical models of the Almagest to present a physical realization of the universe as a set of nested spheres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemy

And with the early English translations, almost all of them translated it as firmament, due to the influence of the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate.

Bishops
And God said: let there be a firmament betwene the waters, and let it make a diuision betwene waters and waters.

Coverdale
And God sayde: let there be a firmament betwene the waters, and let it deuyde ye waters a sunder.

Geneva
Againe God saide, Let there be a firmament in the middes of the waters: and let it separate the waters from the waters.

KJV1611
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters.

Tyndale
And God sayd: let there be a fyrmament betwene the waters ad let it devyde the waters a sonder.

Wycliffe
And God seide, The firmament be maad in the myddis of watris, and departe watris fro watris.

So, what I argue is the idea of a "firmament" was not introduced by the original Hebrew authors, but by the influence of the Greek cosmology during the translation of the Septuagint and later with the Latin Vulgate.

Post Reply