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: 20496
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
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
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 #1221

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:08 pm The underlying problem with The Christianity's has to do with explaining how the violent xenophobic hierarchical GOD of the OT became this - somewhat more approachable Fatherly Figure Jesus proclaimed GOD as being.
Yes, this is a common charge against Christianity and should be added on the list of things to discuss next.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:27 pm [Replying to William in post #1216]
Whether there are multiple gods shrunk to one, then back to three it is all myth to me even before we get to the translation issues and Great Redactions in the 6th Century BCE Wallis talks about. Reliability despite errors does not come close to factoring into the equation. Why orthodoxy wants to insist on the obvious myths of the first 11 chapters of Genesis, obviously borrowed from earlier traditions is quite beyond me.
I was going to get into this in archaeology. The evidence to me is in favor of authorship of Genesis supports during the time of post-exodus rather than post-captivity.
I expect that the six day creation story, the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and Floating Menagerie, the fanciful Tower of Babel and the rest make good picture stories for children and thus get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age; therefore tradition and imagery overcome reason and rationality.
I spent considerable time discussing the flood and the tower of Babel. The evidence supporting it makes it much more reasonable to accept it as historical facts rather than children fairy tales.
JehovahsWitness wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 7:16 pm
  • Since most Christian groups only attach inerrancy to the original script, why would you not want to keep the term for that?
Let's go back a step. Why do I need to argue that we need to keep the term inerrancy when you've already agreed the term should be dropped?
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:50 am
otseng wrote:
"Other things being equal, I would prefer to drop all extra-scriptural terms including "infallible" and "inerrant"and simply speak, as Scripture does, of God's Word being true."
https://frame-poythress.org/is-the-bible-inerrant/
Agreed, and this is why it is extremely rare to see the words infallible and "inerrant" in Jehovah's Witness literature. We affirm rather that the bible is inspired of God (contains divine thoughts and instructions), that it we can be confident it's integrity has not been compromised, and that it's narratives are completely trustworthy, meaning we can trust any historical, scientific or supernatural detail as being true and accurate reflections of reality.

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 #1222

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:30 am
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:27 pm
I expect that the six day creation story, the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and Floating Menagerie, the fanciful Tower of Babel and the rest make good picture stories for children and thus get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age; therefore tradition and imagery overcome reason and rationality.
I spent considerable time discussing the flood and the tower of Babel. The evidence supporting it makes it much more reasonable to accept it as historical facts rather than children fairy tales.

That was not my intended meaning when I wrote that these classic myths make good picture stories for children and thus get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age; therefore tradition and imagery overcome reason and rationality.

I thought I was clear, but I'll reiterate. I did not call these myths "fairy tales" for children. I wrote that they "make good picture stories for children." That that is why they "get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age."
Another way to put it is that despite the fact these are obvious myths that may have some historical genesis, the faithful see them, picture them as real events; that this false reality gets into the psyche of believers in childhood and thus make it difficult for them as adults to accept that they did not happen as literally written.

Several times you have referred to your previous posts having "covered" these issues as if such coverage was definitive. On the contrary, every assertion you have made about these stories having actually happened has been heavily disputed using scholarly references, whereas you have generally referred to obscure movies and blogs published for a credulous fundamentalist audience.
In general, the support you've given in this entire thread is rather like Erich von Däniken vs The Encyclopedia of Britannica.
In fairness, you have also used legitimate sources. But many of the "reconstruction" images of what sites supposedly looked like, as well as claimed dates have come from fanciful and biased sources.
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

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

Post #1223

Post by JehovahsWitness »

otseng wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:30 am
Why do I need to argue that we need to keep the term inerrancy when you've already agreed the term should be dropped?
JehovahsWitness wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2019 12:50 am
otseng wrote:
"Other things being equal, I would prefer to drop all extra-scriptural terms including "infallible" and "inerrant"and simply speak, as Scripture does, of God's Word being true."
https://frame-poythress.org/is-the-bible-inerrant/
Agreed, and this is why it is extremely rare to see the words infallible and "inerrant" in Jehovah's Witness literature. We affirm rather that the bible is inspired of God (contains divine thoughts and instructions), that it we can be confident it's integrity has not been compromised, and that it's narratives are completely trustworthy, meaning we can trust any historical, scientific or supernatural detail as being true and accurate reflections of reality.

Well it is somewhat archaic as a term (which is probably why we rarely use it) but I withdraw and retract entirely my agreement that it is fundamentaly something that needs to be dropped. I was wrong to offer my agreeement with you in any way and apologise for that.

Now what about my questions .... I am curious...

  • Since most Christian groups only attach inerrancy to the original script, why would you not want to keep the term for that?
  • Is your position that the original script was not inerrant or only that it (or parts of it) may have been but this is unprovable?
(Or is there some other reason why you wish the term {quote} "discarded"?)

otseng wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:56 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:57 am I wonder then if you would consider the source of the story of the six days of creation in Genesis to be direct revelation from God?
Yes, in my opinion, it would be a direct revelation from God.

  • Theologically, how can the belief in an omnipotent and inerrant God be reconciled with divine revelation which from its initial recording (ie the original script) was not inerrant*?
* thus necessitating we "disregard" the use of the term inerrant to describe any part of the production of holy scripture
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
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 #1224

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 11:44 am
otseng wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 8:30 am
Diogenes wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 4:27 pm
I expect that the six day creation story, the Garden of Eden, Noah's Ark and Floating Menagerie, the fanciful Tower of Babel and the rest make good picture stories for children and thus get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age; therefore tradition and imagery overcome reason and rationality.
I spent considerable time discussing the flood and the tower of Babel. The evidence supporting it makes it much more reasonable to accept it as historical facts rather than children fairy tales.

That was not my intended meaning when I wrote that these classic myths make good picture stories for children and thus get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age; therefore tradition and imagery overcome reason and rationality.

I thought I was clear, but I'll reiterate. I did not call these myths "fairy tales" for children. I wrote that they "make good picture stories for children." That that is why they "get melded into the consciousness of believers at a youthful and impressionable age."
Another way to put it is that despite the fact these are obvious myths that may have some historical genesis, the faithful see them, picture them as real events; that this false reality gets into the psyche of believers in childhood and thus make it difficult for them as adults to accept that they did not happen as literally written.

You did not call them fairy tales, but it appears it is functionally equivalent to how you describe it. If these are written for children, did not actually happen, and are against reason and rationality, how it it different than a fairy tale?

Several times you have referred to your previous posts having "covered" these issues as if such coverage was definitive.


No, I never said it was "definitive". I've only stated there is significant evidence to support them as actual events.

On the contrary, every assertion you have made about these stories having actually happened has been heavily disputed using scholarly references, whereas you have generally referred to obscure movies and blogs published for a credulous fundamentalist audience.


Of course you can find scholarly references that don't believe the Bible is true. But the arguments don't rest on those but on the evidence. And for some reason, though I present all my evidence, few want to debate on the level of the actual evidence, but instead appeal to fallacies such as argumentum ab auctoritate and ad absurdo.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
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 #1225

Post by otseng »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Mon Aug 15, 2022 1:31 pm Well it is somewhat archaic as a term (which is probably why we rarely use it) but I withdraw and retract entirely my agreement that it is fundamentaly something that needs to be dropped. I was wrong to offer my agreeement with you in any way and apologise for that.
Thanks for correcting. As for the term, it is not archaic and is commonly used today.
Since most Christian groups only attach inerrancy to the original script, why would you not want to keep the term for that?
When you ask the average Christian in church to explain inerrancy, would many would know it only applies to the autographs? From all that I've asked, none has. Yet, they all claim to know what inerrancy means. The only ones that I've met that knows what it means are professionals.

And there are several more arguments that I've covered in depth in Is it necessary for the Bible to be inerrant?.
Is your position that the original script was not inerrant or only that it (or parts of it) may have been but this is unprovable?
First define what you mean by inerrant. Do you mean every word has to literally have correspondence with reality? Every account must have happened exactly to the last detail of how it is written?
Theologically, how can the belief in an omnipotent and inerrant God be reconciled with divine revelation which from its initial recording (ie the original script) was not inerrant*?
I don't believe in an omnipotent God. See Is the Christian God omnipotent?.

I don't believe in divine revelation if that means divine dictation.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21073
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 790 times
Been thanked: 1114 times
Contact:

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

Post #1226

Post by JehovahsWitness »

otseng wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:20 am I don't believe in an omnipotent God.
Okay. That explains everything... I knew there was something I was missing! Its nice finally to at least understand the logic behind your conclusion.

IF GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT
A God that is NOT omnipotent can theoretically have things that are beyond his control despite his desire and intention. Therefore arguably, His producing an absolutely faultless script, every word of which perfectly reflects reality and is entirely factually and theologically without error (whether He uses humans in said production process or not) is a logical impossibility. Thus no script can ever merit the label : inerrant.

Please note the above is not summarizing your belief or feelings but what *I* believe the implications are if God is not omnipotent.



JW

GENESIS 17:1

“I am God Almighty.”
To read more please go to other posts related to...

BIBLICAL INERRANCY , COMPILATION and ... AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION
- inerrancy
Last edited by JehovahsWitness on Wed Aug 17, 2022 8:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

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

Post #1227

Post by William »

William: The underlying problem with The Christianity's has to do with explaining how the violent xenophobic hierarchical GOD of the OT became this - somewhat more approachable Fatherly Figure Jesus proclaimed GOD as being.
[Replying to otseng in post #1221]

Yes, this is a common charge against Christianity and should be added on the list of things to discuss next.
I am not under the impression it is an accusation or needs to be seen as an accusation. It is an observation. The God-image of the OT is a reformed character in the NT.

So - either we are dealing with a reformed entity or we are dealing with two different entities...

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8487
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2141 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

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

Post #1228

Post by Tcg »

otseng wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 2:56 pm
Tcg wrote: Sun Aug 14, 2022 12:57 am I wonder then if you would consider the source of the story of the six days of creation in Genesis to be direct revelation from God?
Yes, in my opinion, it would be a direct revelation from God.
I agree that the Bible is not a scientific treatise and if God were somehow involved with its creation, it wasn't his intent to teach about science. In fact, I've never seen anyone argue in favor of either. The question I have though, is that if God did provide a direct revelation about these six days of creation, shouldn't we expect it to be scientifically accurate where it does touch on science or rather scientific concepts and knowledge?


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
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 #1229

Post by otseng »

JehovahsWitness wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 12:10 pm
otseng wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 8:20 am I don't believe in an omnipotent God.
Okay. That explains everything... I knew there was something I was missing! Its nice finally to at least understand the logic behind your conclusion.

IF GOD IS NOT OMNIPOTENT
A God that is NOT omnipotent can theoretically have things that are beyond his control despite his desire and intention. Therefore arguably, His producing an absolutely faultless script, every word of which perfectly reflects reality and is entirely factually and theologically without error (whether He uses humans in said production process or not) is a logical impossibility. Thus no script can ever merit the label : inerrant.
Please note the above is not summarizing your belief or feelings but what *I* believe the implications are if God is not omnipotent.
Of course, since you did not quote me, that is not what I believe.

Let me ask you this, do you think our Bible translations are inerrant or errant?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20496
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 #1230

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Tue Aug 16, 2022 1:15 pm I am not under the impression it is an accusation or needs to be seen as an accusation. It is an observation. The God-image of the OT is a reformed character in the NT.

So - either we are dealing with a reformed entity or we are dealing with two different entities...
It's a false observation. It's not either of those. With the issue of God being genocidal and xenophobic, I think we should tackle this next after cosmology.

Post Reply