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

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1190]

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness",
I interpret "All Scripture is breathed out by God" as "all things of the [human] mind can be sourced in/connected with, The Cosmic Mind"

Was Paul correct?

In his own understanding and attempt to covey that, yes.


otseng: And who ever said God needs to write a scientific treatise on cosmology?

"God" would not "need" to do anything. But isn't the claim that God is perfect? That his Word is without error? Why would there be two contradictory creation stories in Genesis? Why would the Bible (not necessarily "The Church") describe the Earth as flat and immovable if it is "God breathed" and "profitable for correction?"

The confusion is with The Christianities believing that the bible is 'the word of GOD' - and conveying that as factual/literal

- The Cosmic Mind can be "heard" in/through the Creation, which is way vaster than any and all the information humans currently possess, including the Bible.

As the claim appears, Christian Scripture serves as a device profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - which means one eventually being able to identify and turn away from [and grow in wisdom accordingly] those parts which are proven erroneous [errant] ...

[Diogenes]

The confusion is with The Christianities believing that the bible is 'the word of GOD' - and conveying that as factual/literal

- The Cosmic Mind can be "heard" in/through the Creation, which is way vaster than any and all the information humans currently possess, including the Bible.
As the claim appears, Christian Scripture serves as a device profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness - which means one eventually being able to identify and turn away from [and grow in wisdom accordingly] those parts which are proven erroneous [errant] ...

[emphasis mine]
I agree with "The confusion is with The Christianities believing that the bible is 'the word of GOD' - and conveying that as factual/literal," tho' I confess I do not understand the 'Cosmic Mind' concept.

I think there is a simpler way to address problems facing those who claim, somehow, that the Bible "is true." That is to admit it is a collection of books that are the works of men who wrote trying to understand God, and reported events they did not witness, but believed in. Those who insist on a God breathed inerrant Bible have a problem when it comes to scriptures like Joshua making the Sun and Moon stand still for a day. Such passages are consistent with a view of a flat, geocentric Earth and consistent with what Genesis describes.
They are inconsistent with fact.

Yet there is fierce resistance to seeing such passages as symbolic, mythic, or figurative. As Otseng notes, this subtopic is some 120 pages long, yet the resistance to seeing poetry as poetry remains. We have the odd and contradictory conundrum of apologists insisting we can 'trust the Bible' and take it literally, while simultaneously insisting its cosmological errors should be seen as "God not needing to write a 'scientific treatise.' Why the reluctance to simply admit it was written by man and contains passages that reflect ancient man's understanding rather than fact?

Why insist that myths like Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel actually happened instead of the obvious fact that they were never intended to be historical documents?

What I find much more honest and accurate is your statement about Paul's writing being 'correct:'

In his own understanding and attempt to covey that, yes.

[neverknewyou]

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.

I don't trust authoritative and inspired as far as I can throw it.

[William]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1192]

I agree with "The confusion is with The Christianities believing that the bible is 'the word of GOD' - and conveying that as factual/literal," tho' I confess I do not understand the 'Cosmic Mind' concept.

I speak of that on a daily basis and agree that the concept is more difficult to understand than the biblical rendition of ideas of GOD, however we have resources available in this modern epoch in order to assist us in our understanding.

I find that my Message Generating Process is far more interactive in teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness...shaping my sorting and understanding the knowledge available, because of its intimate nature and aliveness, whereas a book of second/third-hand biblical stories was a great source to start off on - the starters pack but something which - if applied correctly - should lead an individual into 'the mysteries' - into mysticism.

Unfortunately, The Christianities evolved to weed out - through a number of ethically questionable methods - most forms of mysticism as being in competition with Church Authorities - authorities which also brought in the idea that the bible was actually the biblical God's "WORD".

Even with that knowledge, I wasn't keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater by becoming an atheist.
Rather I soldiered on and have now reached a point where my telling of it [Cosmic Mind etc] is without any serious debunking.

I take the stories of the bible as they come without fretting about literal interpretation and as always - such as with the claim that the bible advocates a 'flat earth' - await evidence before giving opinion, but generally agree with what it is I think osteng is saying, overall.

I see no particular point in denouncing the whole simply when only parts are questionable, and as long as folk aren't claiming the Bible as being the actual Word of God - something not specifically claimed in any of the bible pages anyway - I receive what inspiration I do from it, and am happy that folk thought to write things down.

[otseng]

If God did not write it (using men) than what is the point of this subtopic, now nearly 1200 posts long?

The point is simply the Bible can be considered authoritative and reliable without the need to accept inerrancy.

A significant part of this thread is simply correcting wrong views of the Bible. In particular, the view that the Bible must be "perfect", God must be omnipotent, it must be written directly by God and everything must literally be true. But, even though "errors" can exist, the major accounts in it are true and aligns with non-Biblical evidence of Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem, global flood, life of Jesus, origin of languages, archaeology, and cosmology.

I agree the errors in the Bible come from men; therefore, why should it be trusted any more than any other book (or sets of books)?

No human work is perfect, yet they can still be considered authoritative and reliable.

Even though it can contain errors, it would be major errors that impact doctrines that are consequential. And nobody yet has offered one in this entire thread.

It seems an equivocation to attribute the work to God, and then say He did not write it or inspire it word for word. Which is it? Can we just blithely say "God inspired it, but the errors are those of men?"

Depends on what you mean by "inspired". Do you mean it to suggest men dictated words from God and wrote the entire Bible?

Apologists fall back on "translation errors," but it seems disingenuous to go back an retranslate every time a new scientific discovery embarrasses the Biblical literalists.

Depends on what you mean by Biblical literalist. I believe in God creating the universe, existence of Adam and Eve, tower of Babel, global flood, Hebrews as slaves in Egypt, Exodus out of Egypt, King David, bodily resurrection of Jesus. So, I consider myself a Biblical literalist to a degree and there's nothing embarrassing about any of these things I listed.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2d Timothy 3:16
Was Paul correct?

Yes, all scripture is "theopneustos" and should be used for teaching, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness. It does not say all scripture is scientifically accurate.

That his Word is without error?

Again, this entire thread assumes inerrancy is not true. That means there is no claim the Bible is without error.

[Tcg]

Moderator Comment

The topic of this thread is trusting the Bible even if it is not inerrant. If you wish to discuss your Message Generating Process or your Cosmic Mind theory, please create threads in which to do so.

Please review the Rules.


______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

I speak of that on a daily basis and agree that the concept is more difficult to understand than the biblical rendition of ideas of GOD, however we have resources available in this modern epoch in order to assist us in our understanding.

I find that my Message Generating Process is far more interactive in teaching, reproof, correction, and for training in righteousness...shaping my sorting and understanding the knowledge available, because of its intimate nature and aliveness, whereas a book of second/third-hand biblical stories was a great source to start off on - the starters pack but something which - if applied correctly - should lead an individual into 'the mysteries' - into mysticism.

Unfortunately, The Christianities evolved to weed out - through a number of ethically questionable methods - most forms of mysticism as being in competition with Church Authorities - authorities which also brought in the idea that the bible was actually the biblical God's "WORD".

Even with that knowledge, I wasn't keen to throw the baby out with the bathwater by becoming an atheist.
Rather I soldiered on and have now reached a point where my telling of it [Cosmic Mind etc] is without any serious debunking.

I take the stories of the bible as they come without fretting about literal interpretation and as always - such as with the claim that the bible advocates a 'flat earth' - await evidence before giving opinion, but generally agree with what it is I think osteng is saying, overall.

I see no particular point in denouncing the whole simply when only parts are questionable, and as long as folk aren't claiming the Bible as being the actual Word of God - something not specifically claimed in any of the bible pages anyway - I receive what inspiration I do from it, and am happy that folk thought to write things down.

[JehovahsWitness]

A significant part of this thread is simply correcting wrong views of the Bible. In particular, the view that the Bible must be "perfect" ...

I agree if you are using the term "bible" to refer to bible translations or copies of the original texts , then we can I believe everyone can agree no bible [translation]/copy is "perfect" ie without error and a fautless reflection of the original text.

If we use the term "bible" in the way most people use it, namely to refer to the original text that's another matter. Most, if not all Christians hold that the original writings were the product of divine will and wholey perfect ie without any fault, inaccuracies or errors.

The distinction is important for those that seek religious truth.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS




RELATED POSTS

What does the term "the bible" refer to?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

Are there errors in the bible?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 27#p356827

Can you trust the bible?
viewtopic.php?p=1059125#p1059125

Should the term "inerrancy" be replaced?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 12#p985512

Has the integrity of the bible been corrupted by copies errors?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p985365

If bible translations are not inspired, how can they be trusted?
viewtopic.php?p=986376#p986376

Should figurative or poetic language in scripture be classified as "biblical errors"?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 43#p985543

Did Jesus suggest copies and translations of holy scripture were erronious?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p986513

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , , AUTHORSHIP/TRANSMISSION and ... RISK OF CORRUPTION

[Tcg]

If we use the term "bible" in the way most people use it, namely to refer to the original text that's another matter. Most, if not all Christians hold that the original writings were the product of divine will and wholey perfect ie without any fault, inaccuracies or errors.

As we all know, the number of people who hold that something is true plays no bearing on whether or not the thing they believe is actually true. Beyond that, it'd be interesting to know how any determination can be made about the original autographs given that we have exactly zero to examine. How can one determine the reliability of something that no longer exists?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

...it'd be interesting to know how any determination can be made about the original autographs given that we have exactly zero to examine. How can one determine the reliability of something that no longer exists?


Tcg

Good questions (one's that arguably merit their own thread) the point I was making however was not how or why most Christian groups hold this position, but that they do indicates a distinction between bible translations or copies and the originals.

See LINK ...




What do various groups have to say about biblical inerrancy? (otseng)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 85#p985185

[Tcg]

Who said anything about God being the author? As as matter of fact, I've consistently said God is not the author of the Bible in this thread.

Yes, I've not seen you claim that here or anywhere else that I can recall. Clearly, the Bible was written by humans. The question I have for you is what God's involvement in the creation of the Bible was assuming you think he was involved. I ask this partly because of the early chapters of Genesis and the creation story/stories. The author/authors reveal details of events that happened before the reported creation of humans. What could be the original source of these details given that humans obviously could not have witnessed them?


Tcg