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
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #1130]
Thank you, but there is an easier way to address this question, particularly if we speak to the problem you bring up, about modern translations of ancient Hebrew. Plus I am lazy. I greatly admire your effort to study original languages.
I suggest looking at what Jews say about their scriptures, particularly Talmudic scholars of an era closer to the date of the original manuscripts.

The Talmudic View of the Universe
Jeremy Brown

This chapter describes the talmudic model of the universe. The rabbis of the Talmud believed that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth every day. There is a debate about the length of the solar year in the Talmud, and its consequences and the rare Jewish ceremony of the Blessing of the Sun (Birkat Hahammah) are discussed. The view of the talmudic rabbis is contrasted with that of the contemporary Greek astronomers. While the rabbis of the Talmud argued about the size of the flat Earth, the Greeks had determined the Earth to be a sphere, had calculated its circumference and had moved on to consider other questions. Next the chapter describes how Maimonides (1138-1204) adopted the Ptolemaic system, and examples of Ptolemaic biblical commentary are given.
[emphasis mine]
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199754793.003.0002

https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... -chapter-2

I agree with TRANSPONDER https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm is a 'good read.'
It appears so clear that both Talmudic scholars and 'The Church' believed the Bible described the Earth as a flat disk for Centuries, that I don't think the issue is worth debating, in terms of the language and literal impression of the text.
By far the better argument is that, even if inspired by God, the authors of the texts reflected their own understanding of the cosmos at the time and it is great error to take the scriptures as literal, science minded descriptions. There's also an inferior approach, the frequent dodge that 'God spoke in ways that the ancients would understand.' I don't recommend it, but note it has been suggested.

[otseng]

I suggest looking at what Jews say about their scriptures, particularly Talmudic scholars of an era closer to the date of the original manuscripts.

Yes, we can look at secondary sources, but the primary source would be the Hebrew Bible. It would be on this text that following interpretations, including Talmudic scholars, would ultimately be based on.

The rabbis of the Talmud believed that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth every day. There is a debate about the length of the solar year in the Talmud, and its consequences and the rare Jewish ceremony of the Blessing of the Sun (Birkat Hahammah) are discussed.

I can agree they were describing what they saw as the world being flat. But, to make it a step further and say they were making a metaphysical claim that the entire world was actually flat I believe is conjecture. I believe the only thing we can say with a fair degree of certainty is Greek cosmology where they believed the universe was actually comprised of concentric spheres with the earth in the center of it.

I agree with TRANSPONDER https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm is a 'good read.'

Yes, I've read that as well.

'The Church' believed the Bible described the Earth as a flat disk for Centuries,

I'm not so sure. At the time of the Aristotelian system, people believed in a spherical Earth, which was hundreds of years before the church came about.

In the fully developed Aristotelian system, the spherical Earth is at the center of the universe, and all other heavenly bodies are attached to 47–55 transparent, rotating spheres surrounding the Earth, all concentric with it. (The number is so high because several spheres are needed for each planet.) These spheres, known as crystalline spheres, all moved at different uniform speeds to create the revolution of bodies around the Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

By the time of the Ptolemaic system (around 150 AD), this view of cosmology was dominant, which was the time period of the early church.

Ptolemaic system, also called geocentric system or geocentric model, mathematical model of the universe formulated by the Alexandrian astronomer and mathematician Ptolemy about 150 CE and recorded by him in his Almagest and Planetary Hypotheses. The Ptolemaic system is a geocentric cosmology; that is, it starts by assuming that Earth is stationary and at the centre of the universe. The “natural” expectation for ancient societies was that the heavenly bodies (Sun, Moon, planets, and stars) must travel in uniform motion along the most “perfect” path possible, a circle. However, the paths of the Sun, Moon, and planets as observed from Earth are not circular. Ptolemy’s model explained this “imperfection” by postulating that the apparently irregular movements were a combination of several regular circular motions seen in perspective from a stationary Earth. The principles of this model were known to earlier Greek scientists, including the mathematician Hipparchus (c. 150 bce), but they culminated in an accurate predictive model with Ptolemy.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Ptolemaic-system

By far the better argument is that, even if inspired by God, the authors of the texts reflected their own understanding of the cosmos at the time and it is great error to take the scriptures as literal, science minded descriptions.

Sure, who has claimed that it was a "science minded description"? As a matter of fact, I mentioned it would be anachronistic to do that.

"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."
viewtopic.php?p=1084700#p1084700

There's also an inferior approach, the frequent dodge that 'God spoke in ways that the ancients would understand.' I don't recommend it, but note it has been suggested.

How is this a dodge? Any author would attempt to communicate in a way that the contemporary audience would understand.

[Diogenes]

Yes, we can look at secondary sources, but the primary source would be the Hebrew Bible. It would be on this text that following interpretations, including Talmudic scholars, would ultimately be based on.

'The Church' believed the Bible described the Earth as a flat disk for Centuries,

I'm not so sure. At the time of the Aristotelian system, people believed in a spherical Earth, which was hundreds of years before the church came about.
How is this a dodge? Any author would attempt to communicate in a way that the contemporary audience would understand.

1. Secondary Sources
It takes a certain Chutzpah for Christians to insist on their interpretation of Jewish scripture over the interpretation of Jews. The insistence that a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is the "first source" one example. The Jews rely on Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the Torah including the Peshitta, not the Greek Septuagint, or the Latin Vulgate.

2. Hebrew vs Greek Cosmology
Yes, the Greeks not only figured out the Earth was spherical, they got it size pretty close. How? By observation and mathematical calculation, not by relying on Sumerian and Hebrew scripture. The Torah has both the shape of the Earth wrong, as well as it not being the center of the universe or even our solar system. The fact that the Greeks got it right is hardly an argument for the Hebrew God's infallibility. The Greek Septuagint also describes a flat Earth with the stars and planet circling the Earth every 24 hours, but to the extent the Greek translation may differ, the first source is the Hebrew. If the Septuagint were to yield a 'rounder' translation, we can put that off to a Greek influence rather than the original Hebrew text.

3. The Dodge
It is a 'dodge,' or worse, a slander on the God of Abraham that He would lie or mislead about something as basic as the shape of the cosmos, just because he thought his chosen tribe consisted of a bunch of lunkheads inferior to the Greeks. The God of the Torah does not impress as one to bow to the frailties of his creation. It is plain to see His Holly arrogance throughout the Tanakh, but the spirit He shows when dealing with Moses and Job in particular, when he speaks to his servant out of the whirlwind, does not strike the reader as a timid soul who would 'dumb it down' for his quaking audience.
No, the reason the Torah describes a flat Earth and geocentric universe is because it was written by men, Hebrews, not Greeks and certainly not by a God who created the universe and spherical planets.

[otseng]

It takes a certain Chutzpah for Christians to insist on their interpretation of Jewish scripture over the interpretation of Jews.

Noting that Christians have interpreted the Hebrew Bible differently than the Jews is not novel. This has been true since the dawn of Christianity. Further, different sects of Jews differ in their interpretations, so which Jewish interpretation is correct?

As for the interpretation I presented, yes, of course it could be wrong. But, if it's wrong, then it should be easy to argue based from the scripture itself on why it is wrong.

The insistence that a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is the "first source" one example. The Jews rely on Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the Torah including the Peshitta, not the Greek Septuagint, or the Latin Vulgate.

After the Septuagint translation came out, it became the most common version used by the Jews.

Can you show that the Septuagint was used by Jews?

"Greek scriptures were in wide use during the Second Temple period, because few people could read Hebrew at that time. The text of the Greek Old Testament is quoted more often than the original Hebrew Bible text in the Greek New Testament[10][11] (particularly the Pauline epistles)[12] by the Apostolic Fathers, and later by the Greek Church Fathers. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

"300 years before Christ was born, the Hebrew bible, which Christians consider the Old Testament, was translated into Koine Greek. The title of this translation was called the Septuagint. It is this translation that was used by the Paul, the Apostles, and the early church. "
http://theorthodoxfaith.com/article/the ... ly-church/

"Since Greek was the common language of the Roman Empire, the Septuagint was popular among Jews living under Roman rule. Many of the early Christians didn’t know Hebrew, so they naturally embraced this popular Greek translation as well."
https://overviewbible.com/septuagint/

Yes, the Greeks not only figured out the Earth was spherical, they got it size pretty close. How? By observation and mathematical calculation, not by relying on Sumerian and Hebrew scripture.

Of course, who said anything about the Greeks relying on Hebrew scriptures?

It is a 'dodge,' or worse, a slander on the God of Abraham that He would lie or mislead about something as basic as the shape of the cosmos, just because he thought his chosen tribe consisted of a bunch of lunkheads inferior to the Greeks.

We both agree the Biblical creation story is not a scientific treatise. So, you cannot have it both ways by saying God is misleading anyone because it is not a scientific treatise.

No, the reason the Torah describes a flat Earth and geocentric universe is because it was written by men, Hebrews, not Greeks and certainly not by a God who created the universe and spherical planets.

And I argue it describes a flat earth is because that is what they observed it to be, rather than making any scientific claim that the earth is flat.

[Diogenes]

It takes a certain Chutzpah for Christians to insist on their interpretation of Jewish scripture over the interpretation of Jews.

Noting that Christians have interpreted the Hebrew Bible differently than the Jews is not novel. This has been true since the dawn of Christianity. Further, different sects of Jews differ in their interpretations, so which Jewish interpretation is correct?

As for the interpretation I presented, yes, of course it could be wrong. But, if it's wrong, then it should be easy to argue based from the scripture itself on why it is wrong.

It is easy, easy as pie; a flat pie with a dome over it.

God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water; let it divide the water from the water.” God made the dome and divided the water under the dome from the water above the dome; that is how it was, and God called the dome Sky. So there was evening, and there was morning, a second day.

Genesis 1:6-8, Complete Jewish Bible.

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

“Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you know so much.
Do you know who determined its dimensions
or who stretched the measuring line across it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
“Have you ever in your life called up the dawn
and made the morning know its place,
so that it could take hold of the edges of the earth
and shake the wicked out of it?

Job 38:4-13, CJB

And I argue it describes a flat earth is because that is what they observed it to be, rather than making any scientific claim that the earth is flat.

We are in agreement: The Bible describes a flat Earth because to the men who wrote it, it looked flat with a dome of sky. If it were written by God, the 'creator of the universe,' it would have been described accurately as well as poetically. Certainly such a perfect god could be both accurate AND communicate well. He would not have to give a false description because his audience was too dim to understand the truth.

[otseng]

It is easy, easy as pie; a flat pie with a dome over it.

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

The Bible describes a flat Earth because to the men who wrote it, it looked flat with a dome of sky. If it were written by God, the 'creator of the universe,' it would have been described accurately as well as poetically.

Yes, they wrote from the perspective of what they observed. However, there are aspects of the creation account that they could not have observed. In particular, writing that God created the entire universe. This has been a long standing debate with those who hold an eternal universe and dates back to Aristotle.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_of_the_world

In was only in the past century or so that scientists started to believe in a finite age of the universe. Prior, they had all held to some model of an eternal universe.

However, most scientists throughout the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century presumed that the universe itself was Steady State and eternal, possibly with stars coming and going but no changes occurring at the largest scale known at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

This poses a problem now for modern scientists of what caused the initial state of the universe. And the Bible gives the answer for this, which has been consistent with what it has been saying all along.

[Diogenes]

It is easy, easy as pie; a flat pie with a dome over it.

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

Before reading the rest of your response, I have to address this fragment.
You've made an enormous error here... one that, coming from you, surprises me.
Metaphors are based upon a reference to reality. The original authors, like everyone else of their era except the Greeks around 500 BCE, believed the Earth was a disk. The Genesis story reflects this belief. They actually believed the Earth was flat.

When we speak of metaphors or myths we have in mind not just the creation story, but stories like Noah and the Ark, a metaphor for the origin of the species and man's corruption. We think of the Tower of Babel, a metaphor that tries to explain the diversity of languages. But, except for the Greeks in 500 BC, and Eratosthenes who actually measured the circumference of the Earth in 240 BCE, the Hebrew tradition, like the Sumerians, and likely every other culture on Earth actually believed in the flat, geocentric Earth.

So, the original author(s) actually believed the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.
This is important, because it shows the Bible reflects the word, the authorship, the invention of MEN, not gods. This is true whether they were using metaphors or speaking literally. The problem today is that some Christian apologists mistake metaphors and symbols for history.

[The Nice Centurion]

3. The Dodge
It is a 'dodge,' or worse, a slander on the God of Abraham that He would lie or mislead about something as basic as the shape of the cosmos, just because he thought his chosen tribe consisted of a bunch of lunkheads inferior to the Greeks. The God of the Torah does not impress as one to bow to the frailties of his creation. It is plain to see His Holly arrogance throughout the Tanakh, but the spirit He shows when dealing with Moses and Job in particular, when he speaks to his servant out of the whirlwind, does not strike the reader as a timid soul who would 'dumb it down' for his quaking audience.
No, the reason the Torah describes a flat Earth and geocentric universe is because it was written by men, Hebrews, not Greeks and certainly not by a God who created the universe and spherical planets.

Five possibilitys here:

1) The earth really is flat

2) The earth was flat back then at least until the time when Jesus spent his 40 days in the desert.
(Remember Satan showing him all earthly kingdoms from above a high mountain.)
And than earths form underwent a change.

Here Occams Razor would suggest that Satan was as infuriated about Jesus declining his offer that he in anger changed earths form.

3) Christian god lied about earths form while inspiring the bible.

4) Christian mythology is untrue.

5) Christian mythology is basically true, but bible is at least partly untrue/not inspired.

There are christian sects who use this dodge. Not to avoid flat earth though, but to deny that christian god ever would have commanded the biblical genocides.

[otseng]

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

Metaphors are based upon a reference to reality. The original authors, like everyone else of their era except the Greeks around 500 BCE, believed the Earth was a disk. The Genesis story reflects this belief. They actually believed the Earth was flat.

A metaphor is not literally true.

"A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison."
https://www.grammarly.com/blog/metaphor/

"a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our God.”
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/metaphor

You just said the "Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories" and I was agreeing with that.

So, the original author(s) actually believed the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

This is often claimed, but I've yet to see any convincing evidence of this. Please support your statement that they actually believed "the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens." Just because the Bible uses metaphors does not mean they also claim it would be literally true.

[Diogenes]

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

Metaphors are based upon a reference to reality. The original authors, like everyone else of their era except the Greeks around 500 BCE, believed the Earth was a disk. The Genesis story reflects this belief. They actually believed the Earth was flat.

A metaphor is not literally true.

You are stating the obvious and repeating what I wrote. The problem is that you and evangelical fundamentalists insist that the Biblical metaphors of Noah and the Ark (diversity of species), Tower of Babel (diversity of languages), Serpent in the Garden of Eden (introduction of evil), and the metaphor of creation as depicted in Genesis are actual, literal, historical events.
They are metaphors and "Not literally true."

So what is the point you are trying to make? Are you now agreeing that these Bible stories are not literally true? That they are metaphors for actual events? If so we are in agreement.

Here is the point:
It is curious that when it comes to the shape of the Earth and the Cosmos as described in Genesis and other books of the Bible, you insist the description is metaphorical. But when dealing with Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel you have published dozens of posts trying to defend a literal interpretation rather than metaphorical. Why the exception for the cosmos?

I suggest it may be because it is obvious the Earth is not the center of the universe and is a slightly oblate sphere. My curiosity relates to why you do not also understand the metaphorical nature of other Bible stories.
Why do you make an exception for the flat Earth description? This is especially difficult for me to understand because the other stories are obviously metaphorical, whereas the description of a flat Earth covered with a dome of 'firmament' appears to have the form of a straight forward, factual description, a description consistent with the story of Joshua making the Sun stand still.