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]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1309]

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

I think my point stands though, in trying to determine our position in the universe.

We can progress from the perspective of the planet, and are we centered among it. Out to our solar system, and are we centered among it. Then, only a couple steps away we realize we ain't even the center of our own galaxy.

So if we're to fashion an argument of the shape of the universe on the seeming spherical nature of celestial objects, we see that in the three examples above - just those first three data points, we ain't us in the center of any of it.

At what scale then, are we to consider just what constitutes the center of a universe of such unimaginable proportions? otseng had proposed the solar system as the determinate scale, yet it ain't even the center of this galaxy.

Naw, we're getting a bit prideful to say we know where we sit in such a vast, far flung, humongous space.

Best we can do is say how proud we are just to be here in among it all.

[otseng]

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.

Parsimony was one of the primary reasons why heliocentrism with elliptic orbits was preferred over geocentrism with epicycles, even though there was no concrete evidence for heliocentrism until 1838.

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

Not sure where you got the 15 million light year limit, but the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is an artifact that goes back to an early stage of the Big Bang.

In Big Bang cosmology the cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR) is electromagnetic radiation that is a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation".[1] The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space. It is an important source of data on the early universe because it is the oldest electromagnetic radiation in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination when the first atoms were formed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... background

One thing about the CMBR is uniformity in origination and detection.

The glow is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... easurement

This poses a problem, why should we detect it to be uniform? There are several possible explanations. One is we are near the center of the Euclidean universe. Or the universe is non-Euclidean. Or another proposal is introducing another ad hoc explanation - cosmic inflation.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1309]

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

I think my point stands though, in trying to determine our position in the universe.

Yes - I have no horse in that race. My interest is within the boundary of what can be observed and my comment re that focusing upon the idea that the Universe can be assumed to being spherical, since most of the objects within it - are.

Best we can do is say how proud we are just to be here in among it all.

Through whatever mechanism we chose to use to enable that pride its place in the scheme of things...'?'...

...On the subject of pride, what does it matter in a happy [mindless] accident of a Universe?

Perhaps something useless was simulated and then put to use...and no more pride is necessary than that of a Worker Bee's - significant in the grand overall scheme of things...but "don't take yourself too seriously fart sack"?

[JoeyKnothead]

...

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.

Parsimony was one of the primary reasons why heliocentrism with elliptic orbits was preferred over geocentrism with epicycles, even though there was no concrete evidence for heliocentrism until 1838.

My point stands - parsimony's an unreliable indicator of truth, its successes aside.

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

Not sure where you got the 15 million light year limit, but the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is an artifact that goes back to an early stage of the Big Bang.

15 billion, there was a typo, or auto correct.

"An "early stage" doesn't tell us what's beyond.

...
One thing about the CMBR is uniformity in origination and detection.

And still doesn't allow us to see past that 'horizon'.

The glow is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mi ... easurement

This poses a problem, why should we detect it to be uniform? There are several possible explanations. One is we are near the center of the Euclidean universe. Or the universe is non-Euclidean. Or another proposal is introducing another ad hoc explanation - cosmic inflation.

Such are questions for the claimant. I merely note that there's limits to our technology that prevents us from knowing the shape of the universe.

Granted, I personally believe it's more spherical, but as I say, we just don't know for certain.

See other posts in this thread where I present problems even if the universe is spherical.

[otseng]

"An "early stage" doesn't tell us what's beyond.

If we cannot detect what's beyond the CMBR, then there's no evidence to support any scientific claims beyond that limit. We have reached the limits of science. Anything beyond that is purely theoretical.

Here is the summary of my logic in arguing we are at/near the center of the universe:
1. We observe the CMBR to be uniform in its origination and detection.
2. The CMBR is the earliest remnant we can detect of the Big Bang.
3. If the universe is Euclidean and spherical, then the only place we can detect a uniform CMBR is near the center of the universe. If we were closer to the edge of the sphere, we would detect a non-uniform CMBR.

[William]

"An "early stage" doesn't tell us what's beyond.

If we cannot detect what's beyond the CMBR, then there's no evidence to support any scientific claims beyond that limit. We have reached the limits of science. Anything beyond that is purely theoretical.

Here is the summary of my logic in arguing we are at/near the center of the universe:
1. We observe the CMBR to be uniform in its origination and detection.
2. The CMBR is the earliest remnant we can detect of the Big Bang.
3. If the universe is Euclidean and spherical, then the only place we can detect a uniform CMBR is near the center of the universe. If we were closer to the edge of the sphere, we would detect a non-uniform CMBR.

In the sense that we are more near the center than not. This does not have to be taken literally that the Planet is the very center, even that it is well understood that each human perspective can 'see' it that way...we are all the center of the universe [subjective] so we can understand the idea of differing 'points' which are collectively sharing common ground can be considered to ALL being center/central - approximately.

[JoeyKnothead]

"An "early stage" doesn't tell us what's beyond.

If we cannot detect what's beyond the CMBR, then there's no evidence to support any scientific claims beyond that limit. We have reached the limits of science. Anything beyond that is purely theoretical.

Thus any claims regarding our place in the universe're theoretical.

Here is the summary of my logic in arguing we are at/near the center of the universe:
1. We observe the CMBR to be uniform in its origination and detection.
2. The CMBR is the earliest remnant we can detect of the Big Bang.
3. If the universe is Euclidean and spherical, then the only place we can detect a uniform CMBR is near the center of the universe. If we were closer to the edge of the sphere, we would detect a non-uniform CMBR.

"If".

I challenge anyone who professes to claim such knowledge to show they speak truth.

[JoeyKnothead]

In the sense that we are more near the center than not. This does not have to be taken literally that the Planet is the very center, even that it is well understood that each human perspective can 'see' it that way...we are all the center of the universe [subjective] so we can understand the idea of differing 'points' which are collectively sharing common ground can be considered to ALL being center/central - approximately.

'More or less the center, give or take several billion miles.'

I don't know, maybe I take things too literally.

[William]

In the sense that we are more near the center than not. This does not have to be taken literally that the Planet is the very center, even that it is well understood that each human perspective can 'see' it that way...we are all the center of the universe [subjective] so we can understand the idea of differing 'points' which are collectively sharing common ground can be considered to ALL being center/central - approximately.

I don't know, maybe I take things too literally.

Might as well just set it all at the feet of Mother Goose.

'More or less the center, give or take several billion miles.'

In the grand scale of things, yep more or less near the center...

[JoeyKnothead]

In the grand scale of things, yep more or less near the center...

I'm reminded of a contractor I once knew who built a site next door to where he shoulda, only to find out when seeking his CO.

I can imagine how happy everyone musta been had he said, "Hey, it's in the right county."

When billions of miles is "close enough", there's no point in arguing anymore.

Indoctrination. It's a heckuva drug.