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

[amortalman]

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.

There is nothing that I have found in the definitions of "authoritative" or "inspired" that suggests inerrancy. However, the highest standard would be expected of an entity with the characteristics attributed to the God of the Bible. One might overlook minor errors, even from God-inspired scripture, but the level of ambiguity and contradictions we find in the Bible goes well beyond minor errors, IMO.

[otseng]

This is the traditional belief. It is wrong. Scholars know it is wrong.

Yes, it is the traditional belief for thousands of years. Why do modern scholars not believe Moses wrote the Torah? The main reason is internal evidence of different textual styles, accounts, vocabulary, word usage, etc. That in itself does not prove multiple authorship. So, what other evidence supports the hypothesis of multiple authors of the Torah and it being compiled during the post captivity?

Why would a single author include two contradictory versions of the creation story?

It is presenting two different perspectives of the same event. We see parallelism throughout the Bible where one account of something is told and then repeated again in another way. We see this done across books, across chapters, even in the next verse. Just because there are multiple approaches conveyed does not necessarily mean they are from different authors. Just because something else is repeated in a different way does not mean one person is not the author of both.

Now, to get more detailed about who is the author of Genesis. I do believe Moses referred to other accounts and sources. I do not believe God dictated from heaven to Moses and he simply transcribed what he heard. Rather, he used sources for a lot of his material. Compiling sources into one document can result in multiple accounts.

But, the main reason I believe Moses is the author of the Torah is the archaeological and historical evidence. I touched on this in the pages on archaeology. If we want to get deeper in this, we can do this after cosmology.

Then, attending to just those creative events mentioned in both chapters, the following divergences are evident. Genesis 1 has water first, then land, followed by plants, animals, and finally humans (’adam, consisting in male and female together). By contrast, Genesis 2 begins with the existence of land, then comes water, followed by a human (’adam, later specified as a man, ’iš), then plants, animals, and finally a woman (’iššâ).'

The first and second chapters have different purposes.

The first chapter follows an organizational, chronological tone whereas the second chapter is more lyrical and differs on its focus from general creation (the focus of Genesis 1) to the specific sixth day.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible ... pened.html

First, careful analysis reveals that there is deliberate purpose in the individuality of these two sections of Scripture. In Genesis 1 there is a broad outline of the events of the creation week, which reaches its climax with the origin of mankind in the very image of God. In Genesis 2 there is the special emphasis upon man, the divine preparation of his home, the formation of a suitable mate, etc. Edward J. Young has a good statement of this matter:

There are different emphases in the two chapters…but the reason for these is obvious. Chapter 1 continues the narrative of creation until the climax, namely, man made in the image and likeness of God. To prepare the way for the account of the fall, chapter 2 gives certain added details about man’s original condition, which would have been incongruous and out of place in the grand, declarative march of chapter 1 (1960, p. 53).

https://apologeticspress.org/are-there- ... esis-1131/

[otseng]

There is nothing that I have found in the definitions of "authoritative" or "inspired" that suggests inerrancy.

Very good.

However, the highest standard would be expected of an entity with the characteristics attributed to the God of the Bible.

If humans wrote the Bible, and not God, then why would this be a necessity?

One might overlook minor errors, even from God-inspired scripture, but the level of ambiguity and contradictions we find in the Bible goes well beyond minor errors,

What major contradictions are you referring to?

[William]

There is nothing that I have found in the definitions of "authoritative" or "inspired" that suggests inerrancy.

Very good.

However, the highest standard would be expected of an entity with the characteristics attributed to the God of the Bible.

If humans wrote the Bible, and not God, then why would this be a necessity?

One might overlook minor errors, even from God-inspired scripture, but the level of ambiguity and contradictions we find in the Bible goes well beyond minor errors,

What major contradictions are you referring to?

The bits I have read haven't dissuaded me from being curious about such an entity as YHWH - and I admit I did go through a stage of thinking he was Satan - which I think is acceptable given the scribed association...but I got over that through the assistance of a hypnogogic experience which brought that being to my bedside...
Not to digress any more than necessary, I can see why YHWH left it up to humans to tell their stories re their interactions with said entity...so the stories would be different and it is obvious that YHWH works with whoever makes themselves available and this would have to involve working within the boundaries of the individuals belief systems - something which could indeed give a reader the impression of contradiction...

I give the benefit of doubt re that, and try not to focus on any particular biblical personality as 'the one' who had the ultimate relationship with YHWH - while also allowing for Jesus' claims contrary to that, to be examined.

Above all that - what the Generated Messages are revealing about YHWH appear to be very positive - so I am all eyes and ears re that...

viewtopic.php?p=1086463#p1086463

[otseng]

Another reason we should doubt the skeptics' argument that the Biblical authors were claiming the universe is actually a snow dome is the skeptics have made similar claims that the church, in particular during the Middle ages, believed the earth was flat, which in reality is a straw man argument. When digging deeper into the claim, it turns out it was all a myth.

Getting back to this. It's popularly believed that people in the past, in particular the church, had believed the world was flat and Columbus proved that the earth was round.

There is a piece of 'common knowledge' about the Middle Ages we have heard repeated over and over again: that medieval people thought the earth was flat. In addition, there's a second claim we've heard a few times: that Columbus faced opposition to his attempt to find a western route to Asia because people thought the earth was flat and he'd fall off.

https://www.thoughtco.com/did-medieval- ... th-1221612

In 1492, Christopher Columbus was shocked when his ship made landfall in a land Europeans had never explored. Along the way, he proved that Earth isn’t flat after all. Right?

Wrong: Despite a persistent legend, neither Columbus nor his Spanish patrons thought Earth was a finite plane instead of a round planet. And you can blame one of the United States’ greatest authors for creating a myth that still surrounds one of history’s best-known figures.

https://www.history.com/news/christophe ... -was-round

For generations now American school children have learned that Christopher Columbus proved the earth was round. They have learned that the Church tried to prevent Columbus from sailing west to Asia, fearing that he and his seamen would sail off the edge of the earth or plunge into a chasm. They know that Columbus persevered and eventually overcame religious opposition. And they know that Columbus was right. At its core, the Columbus story pits humble rationality against dogmatic obscurantism in a sort of secular inversion of the David and Goliath story. Judging from the students in my intro classes, the Columbus story is thriving in American schools.

The only problem, as any historian or historian of science will tell you: it’s a myth.

https://dhayton.haverford.edu/blog/2014 ... lat-earth/

As I pointed out before, there is no evidence to support these claims and it's all just a myth.

According to historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, “no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat.”

https://www.history.com/news/christophe ... -was-round

The myth of the flat Earth, or the flat earth error, is a modern historical misconception that European scholars and educated people during the Middle Ages believed the Earth to be flat.

The earliest clear documentation of the idea of a spherical Earth comes from the ancient Greeks (5th century BC). The belief was widespread in the Greek world when Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of Earth around 240 BC.

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

According to Stephen Jay Gould, "there never was a period of 'flat Earth darkness' among scholars, regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now. Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the Earth's roundness as an established fact of cosmology."[5] Historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers point out that "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference".

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

In 1828 Washington Irving published A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, in which the story’s hero audaciously proves to medieval Europeans the world is not flat. American school children ever since have learned the story of how Columbus “proved” Earth is round. Unfortunately for critical thinkers everywhere, Irving, famous for stories like “Rip Van Winkle” and “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow,” exercised a great deal of artistic license. He was more interested in telling an electrifying story than an accurate history.

The truth is, Columbus’s peers generally believed Earth was round. In fact, the awareness of a round Earth dates back at least to Pythagoras during the 6th century BC. It is unfair to generations of students to mislead them with an unnecessary story that is debunked with some basic fact checking and historical thinking.

https://blog.statemuseum.nd.gov/blog/pe ... ch-matters

The debate about the shape of the Earth has been settled for over two thousand years. An ancient scholar named Eratosthenes—the head of the famous library of Alexandria in Egypt—even correctly approximated the circumference of the Earth using experimental measurements of shadows in two cities and some geometry.6

Despite modern legends about Medieval backwardness, there never was a time when educated people went back to thinking the Earth was flat.

https://www.skeptic.com/insight/flat-ea ... acy-theory

The myth was propagated by anti-religionists as a tool to mock Christians and mischaracterize church history.

The fault lies with 19th century writers such as Washington Irving, Jean Letronne and others. Letronne was "an academic of strong anti-religious prejudices... who cleverly drew upon both to misrepresent the church fathers and their medieval successors as believing in a flat earth, in his On the Cosmographical Ideas of the Church Fathers," published in 1834, Russell writes.

https://www.newsweek.com/even-middle-ag ... lat-420775

[otseng]

As I've argued, the claim people in the Middle ages believed in a flat earth is entirely fictional. It served as a convenient attack against the "ignorant" people of the past, in particular the Medieval church.

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

As I've demonstarted, this charge is a myth and has been debunked, even by Wikipedia.

I believe the similar charge that Genesis claims the universe is actually shaped like a snow dome is in the same camp. Like the modern myth of the flat earth, it has persisted because people has kept repeating it without taking the effort to looking into history and the primary sources.

When looking at the text, I believe the two main arguments of the snow dome accusation is the word "firmament" and the claim the Bible says the earth is flat. I argued that translating raqia into firmament is a mistranslation. For flat earth, I asked:

How would a bible verse have to be written, to be sufficient for you to concede it "claims" a flat earth?

In the book of Genesis, please present all the verses that claims the earth is flat and we can debate those verses.

I have not found any verse in Genesis, or even in the entire Bible, that explicitly claims the earth is flat. There exist verses that some can interpret for it to mean the earth is flat, but this would require reading verses hyperliterally. Instead of interpreting these passages as making claims of what is reality, these passages should be interpreted non-literally. They could be poetic, metaphorical, or using phenomenological language.

Based on all these arguments, it's time to also retire the myth Genesis claims the universe to be like a snow dome.

[The Nice Centurion]

"Should" and "could" and "not literally" are in my opinion the last but most loved desperate retreats of christians from inconvenient bible verses.

But a person who today denies biblical flat earth is in danger to deny tomorrow that bible commands that homosexualists should be slain or that slavery should be uphold or infants and pets be slain at Jehovahs command.

Its a cardhouse. Believers shouldnt blow it up. In their own interest.

Seventh day adventists want to continue the sabbath with despising swine. To that end they rape even the absolutely clear meaning of acts 10-20 into some other meaning.
[Replying to otseng in post #1156]

10 And he became very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready, he fell into a trance,

11 And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending upon him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.

13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.

14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.

16 This was done thrice: and the vessel was received up again into heaven.

17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made enquiry for Simon's house, and stood before the gate,

18 And called, and asked whether Simon, which was surnamed Peter, were lodged there.

19 While Peter thought on the vision, the Spirit said unto him, Behold, three men seek thee.

20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
https://www-biblegateway-com.cdn.amppro ... sion%3DKJV

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #1156]
When you first posted this, I didn't know what you were going on about or who you were arguing with. Yes, it has long been known that the Earth is round and that well educated folk knew that, l-o-n-g before the middle ages. You are arguing with a straw man and acted as if I wrote something I did not. Also you are ignoring the time frame by two or three thousand years.
As I have written several times, many Greek scholars knew the Earth was a sphere 2500-3000 years ago or so. Eratosthenes proved it and even calculated the Earth circumference fairly closely around 240 BCE.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

So yes, scholars certainly knew this during the middle ages. The church's error had to do with opposing the Copernican theory of heliocentrism and to their reading of the Bible that the Earth was the center of the universe, immovable, with the Sun going 'round it. The church maintained the Earth did not move, scripture being used to "prove" its immobility and claimed it was heresy to claim otherwise.

It is easy to confuse the two issues, flatness vs geocentrism, because the Bible taught both as I have documented previously* with their image of a flat immovable Earth covered by a dome with all the stars and planets moving 'above.' If somewhere I confused the two, I apologize; however, that the Bible clearly teaches the false cosmology of an immovable Earth is an additional example of gross error in scripture and evidence the Bible was not written by God, but by men.

At the time of Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the Earth is the center of the Universe and the orbit of all heavenly bodies, or Tycho Brahe's new system blending geocentrism with heliocentrism.
....
In February 1616, an Inquisitorial commission declared heliocentrism to be "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture". The Inquisition found that the idea of the Earth's movement "receives the same judgement in philosophy and ... in regard to theological truth it is at least erroneous in faith"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_G ... iocentrism

It wasn't until 1822 that the church finally and formally admitted they were wrong and Galileo was right.
https://www.wired.com/2008/09/sept-11-1 ... bout-us-2/

_______________________
*BTW, back in February I acknowledged the flat Earth resurrection in the 19th Century:

You are half right in the sense that Flat Earthers got their start (or restart) in the 19th Century by a character named Samuel Rowbotham. See https://www.workman.com/products/off-the-edge/hardback
....
But the Bible was written by men who clearly believed in a geocentric universe with an immovable flat Earth, covered by a celestial dome.

Just a few of many verses make the case:
1 Chronicles 16:30: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable.”

Psalm 93:1: “Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...”

Psalm 96:10: “He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...”

Psalm 104:5: “Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.”

Isaiah 45:18: “...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast...”

and

"Elihu's question shows that the Hebrews considered the vault of heaven a solid, physical object. Such a large dome would be a tremendous feat of engineering. The Hebrews (and supposedly Yahweh Himself) considered it exactly that, and this point is hammered home by five scriptures:

Job 9:8, “...who by himself spread out the heavens [shamayim]...”

Psalm 19:1, “The heavens [shamayim] tell out the glory of God, the vault of heaven [raqiya] reveals his handiwork.”

Psalm 102:25, “...the heavens [shamayim] were thy handiwork.”

Isaiah 45:12, “I, with my own hands, stretched out the heavens [shamayim] and caused all their host to shine...”

These for collected at https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
where the author makes a solid case for the Bible authors belief the Earth is flat. He also deals with the absurd argument about the out of context verse about Job sitting on the circle of the Earth.

It is true that for at least 2500 years men have known the Earth is a sphere. Well.. at least the Greeks did. Both Pythagoras and Eratosthenes made careful measurements to show the size of the Earth, not just its spherical shape. This knowledge of course clearly predates Columbus.

Post #8, Re: Does the Bible Declare the Earth is Flat?
February 23, 2022
viewtopic.php?p=1068466&hilit=flat+Earth#p1068466

[otseng]

"Should" and "could" and "not literally" are in my opinion the last but most loved desperate retreats of christians from inconvenient bible verses.

But a person who today denies biblical flat earth is in danger to deny tomorrow that bible commands that homosexualists should be slain or that slavery should be uphold or infants and pets be slain at Jehovahs command.

Its a cardhouse. Believers shouldnt blow it up. In their own interest.

These charges are non-sequitors. Let's just limit the discussion to the current topic of cosmology and not delve into homosexuality or slavery. Those could be discussed in future discussions.

You are arguing with a straw man and acted as if I wrote something I did not.

Did you not post the following?

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

The church's error had to do with opposing the Copernican theory of heliocentrism and to their reading of the Bible that the Earth was the center of the universe, immovable, with the Sun going 'round it. The church maintained the Earth did not move, scripture being used to "prove" its immobility and claimed it was heresy to claim otherwise.

Yes, the snow dome cosmology (firmament, flat earth) and geocentrism are separate issues. I've dealt with the snow dome charge and I'll get into geocentrism next.

[The Nice Centurion]

"Should" and "could" and "not literally" are in my opinion the last but most loved desperate retreats of christians from inconvenient bible verses.

But a person who today denies biblical flat earth is in danger to deny tomorrow that bible commands that homosexualists should be slain or that slavery should be uphold or infants and pets be slain at Jehovahs command.

Its a cardhouse. Believers shouldnt blow it up. In their own interest.

These charges are non-sequitors. Let's just limit the discussion to the current topic of cosmology and not delve into homosexuality or slavery. Those could be discussed in future discussions.

You are arguing with a straw man and acted as if I wrote something I did not.

Did you not post the following?

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

The church's error had to do with opposing the Copernican theory of heliocentrism and to their reading of the Bible that the Earth was the center of the universe, immovable, with the Sun going 'round it. The church maintained the Earth did not move, scripture being used to "prove" its immobility and claimed it was heresy to claim otherwise.

Yes, the snow dome cosmology (firmament, flat earth) and geocentrism are separate issues. I've dealt with the snow dome charge and I'll get into geocentrism next.

No charges here from me. I just wanted to point out, that christians mostly will fight biblical flat earthism with hands, feet and teeth, ignoring the fact that its obviously biblical.

And if something that obvious and groundbreaking as blbles statement about earths form goes out of the windows, everything biblical will soon follow!