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

[otseng]

So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Naturally you do not want to deal with this because you cannot gloss it over.

Though the sun and moon are involved, it's not relevant to the discussion on cosmology because its not describing how things are everyday, but on one particular day.

I'm ambivalent on whether to interpret this literally or metaphorically. If we take this literally, this would be a supernatural event. If it's supernatural, there's no need to explain how it happened since it's beyond science to explain. If it's metaphorical, there's no need to explain either since it did not literally happen.

Again, since I do not claim inerrancy, there's no need to explain every event in the Bible and to give a "rational" explanation for it. Since this account has no impact on any doctrine, minor or major, it is a trivial point.

[otseng]

Can it be answered either way? Is there actually a centre to the universe to begin with? Earth revolves around the Sun which is the centre of our Solar System. But the Sun is in an outer arm of our galaxy which rotates about a super massive black hole at its centre. Galaxies are all moving away from each other, although Andromeda and the Milky Way appear to be on a collision course to merge in the distant future. Anyway, considering all that, it is hard for me to imagine Earth as somehow being at the centre of it all.

Is there a center of a circle? Is there a center of a sphere?

If it cannot be answered either way, then it's equally logical to hold to the earth being at the center of the universe or not being at the center of the universe.

For my position, actually I believe it's more reasonable to believe in the earth at the center. But I'll give my reasons later after any arguments can be presented for the earth not being at the center.

[brunumb]

Is there a center of a circle? Is there a center of a sphere?

If it cannot be answered either way, then it's equally logical to hold to the earth being at the center of the universe or not being at the center of the universe.

I don't know where the logical bit comes in, but if Earth is not at the centre of the Solar System and not at the centre of the Milky Way, then my 'logic' tells me that it is not at the centre of the universe either. I do, however, look forward to your reasoning on the matter.

[otseng]

I don't know where the logical bit comes in, but if Earth is not at the centre of the Solar System and not at the centre of the Milky Way, then my 'logic' tells me that it is not at the centre of the universe either. I do, however, look forward to your reasoning on the matter.

The issue is not if the earth is at the center of our solar system or our galaxy. Of course the earth revolves around the sun and our solar system is on the arm of the Milky Way galaxy. The issue is if the earth (or you can consider our galaxy) to be at the center of the universe. How can one charge the ancients to be ignorant to believe in geocentrism if modern people cannot justify the belief we are not at the center of the universe?

[brunumb]

I don't know where the logical bit comes in, but if Earth is not at the centre of the Solar System and not at the centre of the Milky Way, then my 'logic' tells me that it is not at the centre of the universe either. I do, however, look forward to your reasoning on the matter.

The issue is not if the earth is at the center of our solar system or our galaxy. Of course the earth revolves around the sun and our solar system is on the arm of the Milky Way galaxy. The issue is if the earth (or you can consider our galaxy) to be at the center of the universe. How can one charge the ancients to be ignorant to believe in geocentrism if modern people cannot justify the belief we are not at the center of the universe?

I was addressing your comment : "For my position, actually I believe it's more reasonable to believe in the earth at the center. But I'll give my reasons later after any arguments can be presented for the earth not being at the center."

That said, I think that the term 'ignorant' as applied to the ancients was meant in the sense that they had very little knowledge of the earth and the space that surrounds it. Based on their limited knowledge they were not 'stupid' in thinking that the earth was at the centre of everything. They just reached that conclusion based on limited evidence and probably religious teaching with regard to humans being special creations.

[Diogenes]

So the sun stood still,
and the moon stopped,
till the nation avenged itself on its enemies,

as it is written in the Book of Jashar.

The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day.

Naturally you do not want to deal with this because you cannot gloss it over.

Though the sun and moon are involved, it's not relevant to the discussion on cosmology because its not describing how things are everyday, but on one particular day.

I'm ambivalent on whether to interpret this literally or metaphorically. If we take this literally, this would be a supernatural event. If it's supernatural, there's no need to explain how it happened since it's beyond science to explain. If it's metaphorical, there's no need to explain either since it did not literally happen.

Again, since I do not claim inerrancy, there's no need to explain every event in the Bible and to give a "rational" explanation for it. Since this account has no impact on any doctrine, minor or major, it is a trivial point.

It is absolutely relevant to cosmology in general and to this discussion. It is clear evidence of the image the Bible portrays of a flat, immovable Earth with a domed sky circled be the Sun and moon. This is consistent with and should be viewed in the context of the other references to a flat, domed geocentric and immovable Earth. Obviously these books were not authored by a creative God, but by men with ZERO help from an imagined creator.

More importantly, why even have a subtopic like this since there is the fall back position of It's supernatural? This reminds me of why I prefer science fiction to fantasy. The SciFi writer has to show some respect for physical laws, for nature. But the writer of fantasy has no rules. 'Magic' can always be plugged in to solve a problem.

Any and all errors in the Bible can simply be dismissed as "It's supernatural." This is a perfect example of why it is disingenuous for Biblical apologists to discuss science at all. They love to use 'science,' history, archeology as long as they coincide with their interpretation of their favorite book. But any deviation and, "It's supernatural!" ... or "God did it!" ... or "Science is wrong!"

This is just one of many and as silly as the first one I ever heard, in elementary school, "God used older planets full of dinosaur bones to make the Earth." If you're going to fall back on "It's supernatural" then scrap this thread. There is no point to it.

* * * * *




The supernatural is like a comic book. We can take Superman as an example. In 1938 Superman was just a guy from a planet (Krypton) with heavier gravity so he was stronger, faster, could leap farther. Krypton also had a red sun, so the Earth's yellow Sun gave him other powers.

Leaping became flying and later he could fly faster than the speed of light. Whatever a story line needed, a tweak of his super powers would supply. DC Comics kept a 'Mailbag' to answer readers' questions, to explain apparent inconsistencies. The rules would change, but there was at least an effort to make things logical.
https://blog.lootcrate.com/evolution-supermans-powers/

With God, nothing has to be logical or consistent. He can do ANYthing. Like Superman, he has limits, self imposed limits. He has to give man free will and somehow has to allow his Lex Luthor (Satan) some free reign. Any plot needs conflict.

God knows all, but he fouled up when he claimed everything was good. Somehow 'man' is to blame, but God needed to kill everything but a single family when he was wrong about 'his creation.' The NT writers fouled up too. They made it very clear Jesus was coming right back, within a generation, no more. A hundred years went by and no Jesus, so books had to be forged and added to the canon.

There are no rules for god. He is not just a comic book superhero, he is a poorly written one... and the rule change whenever needed to protect the faith. It's absurd of course, but that's the way it is. "God works in mysterious ways," Comic Book ways.

Or is it Cosmic Book?

[otseng]

Based on their limited knowledge they were not 'stupid' in thinking that the earth was at the centre of everything. They just reached that conclusion based on limited evidence and probably religious teaching with regard to humans being special creations.

Unfortunately, describing someone as ignorant has the implication that someone is stupid. Also, I'm not really sure how much their knowledge was limited. Sure, they don't know facts that we currently know, but as well, we don't know things that they knew.

Any and all errors in the Bible can simply be dismissed as "It's supernatural." This is a perfect example of why it is disingenuous for Biblical apologists to discuss science at all. They love to use 'science,' history, archeology as long as they coincide with their interpretation of their favorite book. But any deviation and, "It's supernatural!" ... or "God did it!" ... or "Science is wrong!"

Again, science says nothing about the supernatural (or at least its not supposed to). And science assumes the supernatural cannot be used as an explanation, it does not lead to the conclusion that the supernatural does not exist.

It is not an error in the Bible if there is a supernatural causation. If God exists, it's very logical that there can be a supernatural causation. If you claim a supernatural explanation cannot be used, then you need to first prove the supernatural does not exist.

It is clear evidence of the image the Bible portrays of a flat, immovable Earth with a domed sky circled be the Sun and moon.

The account of Joshua 10 does not show that. Besides you, does any scholar or even a Bible skeptic claim that?

So, question for people that believe we are not at the center of the universe, what argument and evidence proves that to be the case?

So, going back to the above question, since there has not been any evidence presented to support this, why do you believe it to be true?

[Tcg]

So, question for people that believe we are not at the center of the universe, what argument and evidence proves that to be the case?

So, going back to the above question, since there has not been any evidence presented to support this, why do you believe it to be true?

This question confuses me. All that I can find suggests that the universe has no center. This may mess with our common sense to some degree, but if it is correct, we couldn't be the center of the universe because there isn't one. I'm also confused because the Bible reveals no awareness of the universe. It doesn't even present awareness of our solar system beyond the earth, moon, and sun.


Tcg

[Tcg]

Is there a center of a circle? Is there a center of a sphere?

If it cannot be answered either way, then it's equally logical to hold to the earth being at the center of the universe or not being at the center of the universe.

The universe is neither a circle nor a sphere. So yes, it can be answered one way or the other. Is there a center to a circle or a sphere? Yes. Is there a center to the universe? No. It is not logical to hold to the opinion that the earth is the center of something which has no center.


Tcg

[William]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1269]

Opinion:
The universe is neither a circle nor a sphere

Careful...steady as she goes mate...



My Opinion:
Given the evidence in the patterns produced by the vibrations which form stuff from the quantum field, the stuff being largely spherical in nature, we can give a nod to the likelihood that the overall parent-object [the Universe] is shaped as a sphere.

If so, then like all spheres, the Universe would have a center.

It makes sense too, given the idea that the Universe is expanding from a single point. That point can be regarded as the center of the Universe.