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

[JoeyKnothead]

And so we have tales of one ancient Jew coming back to life, against the entire medical history of mankind.

Conclude your concludings accordingly.

Yes, and if he did come back to life, there is something extraordinary and unique about him. We will go in depth later about the case of his resurrection. This will be our capstone topic in this entire thread.

I can dig that.

I can think of no better way to convince folks there's zombies, than to create a story about a zombie.

... and he was not a zombie.

My point being that folks often believe what they're told, or that they read. But it does get to how we can know if a story is presented as fact, or metaphor, or straight up fiction.

Trying to get back to cosmology, anyone want to give evidence to support we are not at the center of universe? Or is it by blind faith this is accepted?

Surely the fact that we orbit around the sun is clear demonstration we ain't even the center of our own galaxy, much less the universe.

That said, seems like I heard a podcast (poor source?) where they were telling how difficult it is to pinpoint our location in the vastness of the universe. If such is true, put me down as we don't know where we sit.

[brunumb]

That said, seems like I heard a podcast (poor source?) where they were telling how difficult it is to pinpoint our location in the vastness of the universe. If such is true, put me down as we don't know where we sit.

I think that in some models anywhere is at the centre of the universe. For example, if you consider just the surface of a sphere, any point you choose on that surface will be at the centre. The universe is strange enough for almost anything to be possible, particularly when we know so little about it. Shucks, it wasn't that long ago that we didn't even know there was a universe.

[JoeyKnothead]

That said, seems like I heard a podcast (poor source?) where they were telling how difficult it is to pinpoint our location in the vastness of the universe. If such is true, put me down as we don't know where we sit.

I think that in some models anywhere is at the centre of the universe. For example, if you consider just the surface of a sphere, any point you choose on that surface will be at the centre. The universe is strange enough for almost anything to be possible, particularly when we know so little about it. Shucks, it wasn't that long ago that we didn't even know there was a universe.

That sounds familar to what I heard. I'm more into animals / biology than the cosmos - though just this past week I added the solar system to my random studies list. I wanna learn more about the planets.

Even so, how could we ever know it was a god who put us anywhere?

[otseng]

Surely the fact that we orbit around the sun is clear demonstration we ain't even the center of our own galaxy, much less the universe.

As I said earlier:

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.

And so far, no evidence has been presented to show we are not at the center of the universe. I'm sure skeptics have been scouring the internet looking for evidence. And as everyone is finding out, there is no evidence. Bottom line, it is assumed we are not in a special position, and then explanations are offered to support that assumption. Even more, extranatural explanations are offered to support that position.

For example, if you consider just the surface of a sphere, any point you choose on that surface will be at the centre. The universe is strange enough for almost anything to be possible, particularly when we know so little about it.

One common way to justify the assumption there is no special position in the universe is to claim the universe is curved 3-dimensionally, like the surface of the sphere you are talking about. But, this posits the existence of the 4th dimension. Which I claim is an extranatural ad hoc explanation.

And if we know so little about the universe, it is hubris to look down on the ancients and mock them that they knew so little about the universe. I would go far as to say with their limited ability to examine the heavenlies, it was impressive what they were able to accomplish.

[JoeyKnothead]

Surely the fact that we orbit around the sun is clear demonstration we ain't even the center of our own galaxy, much less the universe.

As I said earlier:

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.

If my holding the issue to a more granular level is in error, I'll retract - especially knowing we're on the cusp of colonizing some other planets.

And so far, no evidence has been presented to show we are not at the center of the universe. I'm sure skeptics have been scouring the internet looking for evidence. And as everyone is finding out, there is no evidence. Bottom line, it is assumed we are not in a special position, and then explanations are offered to support that assumption. Even more, extranatural explanations are offered to support that position.

Plenty fair. I couldn't rightly say where we sit in the universe, but I note that with an object of such massive proportions, trying to find the center is harder'n fetching a needle out a haystack.

While the "No we ain't" bunch have em a tough row to hoe, the "Yes we are" bunch have an equally tough row, considering the limits of our technological abilities.

One common way to justify the assumption there is no special position in the universe is to claim the universe is curved 3-dimensionally, like the surface of the sphere you are talking about. But, this posits the existence of the 4th dimension. Which I claim is an extranatural ad hoc explanation.

A problem with our observations is the scale involved. Best we can do is to see out about 15 billion light years, and we can't say what's beyond that. I'd be reticent to claim I knew either way.

And if we know so little about the universe, it is hubris to look down on the ancients and mock them that they knew so little about the universe. I would go far as to say with their limited ability to examine the heavenlies, it was impressive what they were able to accomplish.

Oh heck, we've still got folks in my neck of the woods who mark an X on their windshield if a black cat crosses their path - some notions're plain goofy, and shouldn't just be trusted cause we have a printing press.

Same here. To claim we're the center of the universe is best an indication of the limits of our technology, not of some all sentient, all powerful entity plunking us down dead center of it.

[otseng]

I couldn't rightly say where we sit in the universe, but I note that with an object of such massive proportions, trying to find the center is harder'n fetching a needle out a haystack.

I'm no astronomer or cosmologist, but I think we can try to reason it out. The first thing is to determine is what is the shape of the universe. Is it really curved 3-dimensionally so that we are like on the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere? This would be a non-Euclidean universe. Or is it a 3-dimensional universe like what we typically experience here on earth, a Euclidean universe? There is no proof to support either, but the most parsimonious view would be a Euclidean universe since there is no need to posit another dimension. There are some other arguments against a non-Euclidean universe, but I'll present those later.

So, assuming a Euclidean universe, the entire universe can be viewed as a sphere. And obviously there is a center in a sphere. So, where are we in the sphere? Near the edge, at the center, or somewhere in between? How would one know this based on observational evidence?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm no astronomer or cosmologist, but I think we can try to reason it out. The first thing is to determine is what is the shape of the universe. Is it really curved 3-dimensionally so that we are like on the surface of a 4 dimensional sphere? This would be a non-Euclidean universe. Or is it a 3-dimensional universe like what we typically experience here on earth, a Euclidean universe? There is no proof to support either, but the most parsimonious view would be a Euclidean universe since there is no need to posit another dimension. There are some other arguments against a non-Euclidean universe, but I'll present those later.

You tell it yourself - There's no proof to support either of the two positions you present, thus, we can't say we are, or ain't at the center of the universe.

So far as parsimony, that's not a fail safe indicator of truth, so again, we just can't tell.

So, assuming a Euclidean universe, the entire universe can be viewed as a sphere. And obviously there is a center in a sphere. So, where are we in the sphere? Near the edge, at the center, or somewhere in between? How would one know this based on observational evidence?

Those are some questions we have when folks try to tell we are, or ain't, at the center of it. I just don't see how any answers in this matter could be shown definitive, or truth.

We just don't have the technology to peer beyond the proposed 15 million lightyear limit at this time.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1307]

So, assuming a Euclidean universe, the entire universe can be viewed as a sphere. And obviously there is a center in a sphere. So, where are we in the sphere? Near the edge, at the center, or somewhere in between? How would one know this based on observational evidence?

By examining the structures within the universe. These are spherical. Given we also observe patterns in nature, the Universe is acting [in its unfolding] much like a fractal-set, repeating itself as it unfolds.
I think it can be reasonably assumed that the universe is spherical in shape, since its contents are.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1307]

So, assuming a Euclidean universe, the entire universe can be viewed as a sphere. And obviously there is a center in a sphere. So, where are we in the sphere? Near the edge, at the center, or somewhere in between? How would one know this based on observational evidence?

By examining the structures within the universe. These are spherical. Given we also observe patterns in nature, the Universe is acting [in its unfolding] much like a fractal-set, repeating itself as it unfolds.
I think it can be reasonably assumed that the universe is spherical in shape, since its contents are.

That image doesn't show the variations in their "spherical," shapes. Just Earth alone, our closest reference from that image, is an ellipsoid. Futhermore, It contains mountains and valleys which vary from one another by miles. Then there's also the issue of it having a moon revolving around it, so we hafta consider where that puts its center from that perspective.

Your image suffers from a problem of our technology not being able to provide an accurate resolution at that scale.

As I said before, we're limited by our technological limitations, so anyone claiming to know we are, or ain't, at the center of the universe should not be trusted.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1309]

Oops. I replied to your post but was quoting otseng - my bad.