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

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1320]



Correct.

[Diogenes]

I have to laugh at the flood story, 'Noah and the Ark' and the 'Tower of Babel' stories. These are myths, but the attempt to explain them as actual history is comical.

In this thread there is an effort to make these obvious myths appear as factual history. That alone is sufficient to expose this subtopic as ridiculous. Did two penguins travel from the Antarctic to Mesopotamia to get on the Ark, or did they just swim for a year? I wonder about the Koala. Did he and his mate climb down from their favorite tree, hitch a ride on a tramp steamer to Egypt, then walk to Iraq or wherever to find Noah's Ark?

There is, of course, no rational explanation for all this nonsense. So the apologist is forced to resort to the supernatural, AKA, magic, to explain these fancies. God must have inspired these Koalas to climb down from their eucalyptus trees and magically survive their trek without their favorite food, the only food they are adapted for.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/study/why-cho ... oalas.html
Of course, when we invoke 'magic' anything is possible.
This thread attempts to use its version of science, history, and archeology to support its claims, but when it runs into the inevitable impossibilities, it desperately reaches out to magic and the supernatural to fill in the enormous gaps in logic and fact.

[brunumb]

Of course, when we invoke 'magic' anything is possible.

And when we invoke magic to shore up the absurdities in the story as fact, Occam starts jumping up and down screaming "In that case why not just use magic to get rid of all the pesky evil humans and leave everything else alone?".

[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.

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

The CMBR is not theoretical, but empirical evidence. What I mean is if there is no empirical evidence, then it is 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.

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

What challenge are you talking about? I presented an argument, not any claim to knowledge.

But, if you want to explore if the universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean, we can dive into that.

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

Let's take a conservative estimate of the size of the universe to be 28 billion light-years. And let's say we're 10 billion miles away from the center. 1 light-year is 5,879 billion miles. So, we're only 0.17% off from the center of the universe.

This thread attempts to use its version of science, history, and archeology to support its claims, but when it runs into the inevitable impossibilities, it desperately reaches out to magic and the supernatural to fill in the enormous gaps in logic and fact.

I have given everyone plenty of opportunities to give rational counterarguments to my arguments, but instead fallacious arguments such as appeal to ridicule are given.

And as evidenced already in cosmology, secular scientists are already invoking extranatural explanations. So, why mock Christians and not also cosmologists?

[Diogenes]

This thread attempts to use its version of science, history, and archeology to support its claims, but when it runs into the inevitable impossibilities, it desperately reaches out to magic and the supernatural to fill in the enormous gaps in logic and fact.

I have given everyone plenty of opportunities to give rational counterarguments to my arguments, but instead fallacious arguments such as appeal to ridicule are given.

And as evidenced already in cosmology, secular scientists are already invoking extranatural explanations. So, why mock Christians and not also cosmologists?

It is misleading to quote this paragraph in isolation. Instead of claiming you are being mocked, what is your "rational counterargument" to the examples I gave about penguins and koalas on the ark? Did Noah go to Australia to collect his koala pair? Did he bring eucalyptus trees with him to keep on the ark for the koala's to eat for the year they spent on the ark? Or did the koalas, trees in tow, travel to the Middle East? At some point these absurdities must resort to the supernatural, to magic, to make them work.

The stories are not without their humorous aspect. It strikes me as funny that the kangaroos had to swim from Australia to avoid being drowned in the 'flood.'

Taking these stories literally invites mockery because it is beyond silly to take these things literally. The only thing worse is trying to defend them. Biblical scholars accept these stories for what they are, myths.
Why not simply accept the truth, that this biblical myth of a world wide flood, borrowed from the Sumerians, reflects ancient man trying to deal with yearly local flooding?
As the current floods in Pakistan show, these local events can be catastrophic, covering fully one third of that country with water.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62712301

I have to laugh at the flood story, 'Noah and the Ark' and the 'Tower of Babel' stories. These are myths, but the attempt to explain them as actual history is comical.

In this thread there is an effort to make these obvious myths appear as factual history. That alone is sufficient to expose this subtopic as ridiculous. Did two penguins travel from the Antarctic to Mesopotamia to get on the Ark, or did they just swim for a year? I wonder about the Koala. Did he and his mate climb down from their favorite tree, hitch a ride on a tramp steamer to Egypt, then walk to Iraq or wherever to find Noah's Ark?

There is, of course, no rational explanation for all this nonsense. So the apologist is forced to resort to the supernatural, AKA, magic, to explain these fancies. God must have inspired these Koalas to climb down from their eucalyptus trees and magically survive their trek without their favorite food, the only food they are adapted for.
https://www.sydney.edu.au/study/why-cho ... oalas.html

[otseng]

It is misleading to quote this paragraph in isolation. Instead of claiming you are being mocked, what is your "rational counterargument" to the examples I gave about penguins and koalas on the ark? Did Noah go to Australia to collect his koala pair? Did he bring eucalyptus trees with him to keep on the ark for the koala's to eat for the year they spent on the ark? Or did the koalas, trees in tow, travel to the Middle East? At some point these absurdities must resort to the supernatural, to magic, to make them work.

What we are discussing now is cosmology, not the flood. Also, we have spent considerable time already discussing the flood.

I'm not sure how many times I've asked to present evidence that we are not in the center of the universe and no evidence has been produced. And then this question is avoided with trying to switch topics.

Taking these stories literally invites mockery because it is beyond silly to take these things literally.

Trying to rationalize a fallacious argument does not make your argument then valid. If you are able to counter with logical arguments and facts, please do so. Continual mockery indicates you have no valid counterarguments except to use fallacious methods.

In this thread there is an effort to make these obvious myths appear as factual history.

And as I've researched them more while participating in this thread, I'm even more convinced of their historicity.

[Diogenes]

It is misleading to quote this paragraph in isolation. Instead of claiming you are being mocked, what is your "rational counterargument" to the examples I gave about penguins and koalas on the ark? Did Noah go to Australia to collect his koala pair? Did he bring eucalyptus trees with him to keep on the ark for the koala's to eat for the year they spent on the ark? Or did the koalas, trees in tow, travel to the Middle East? At some point these absurdities must resort to the supernatural, to magic, to make them work.

What we are discussing now is cosmology, not the flood.

This is incorrect. We are discussing errors in the Bible and whether they matter. See Otseng's post #1.
YOU are trying to move on rather than answer sharp questions about the absurdity of the worldwide flood myth. I will take your avoidance as evidence you have no reasonable answer to the questions re: animals from the antarctic and Australia getting on to Noah's wooden boat [without resorting to the magic of the supernatural].
Why not just agree with the best scholarship that the stories are myths that tell a higher truth and should not be taken as literal history?

You've also dodged the issue more central to this thread; the inveterate policy of apologists using science only when they think it supports their claims, only to resort to YHWH's magic to fill in the gaps when science shows they are wrong. Why use science at all when in the end you resort to the 'supernatural?'

[JoeyKnothead]

The CMBR is not theoretical, but empirical evidence. What I mean is if there is no empirical evidence, then it is theoretical.

Still we're left with not knowing if the CMBR represents the boundary of the universe, as we can't peer past it.

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.

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

What challenge are you talking about? I presented an argument, not any claim to knowledge.

I coulda been more clear, and meant it in more general terms. I agree you weren't making a claim, overt or otherwise.

But, if you want to explore if the universe is Euclidean or non-Euclidean, we can dive into that.

Not necessary, as my assertion is that we don't know the shape of the universe, except for how our sensors perceive a shape, and how the strength of those sensors might lead to a perception of a spherical universe.

Let's take a conservative estimate of the size of the universe to be 28 billion light-years. And let's say we're 10 billion miles away from the center. 1 light-year is 5,879 billion miles. So, we're only 0.17% off from the center of the universe.

And that's how we make a big number look like a little number.

[otseng]

YOU are trying to move on rather than answer sharp questions about the absurdity of the worldwide flood myth.

We discussed the flood in the section starting in post 233. Yes, I am trying to move on and discuss the current topic, cosmology, rather than going back to a topic that we've covered many pages ago.

Why not just agree with the best scholarship that the stories are myths that tell a higher truth and should not be taken as literal history?

This is the appeal to authority fallacy.

Not necessary, as my assertion is that we don't know the shape of the universe, except for how our sensors perceive a shape, and how the strength of those sensors might lead to a perception of a spherical universe.

I believe a spherical, Euclidean universe makes the most sense. One question to be asked is why cosmologists would even consider a non-Euclidean universe that wraps onto itself if there is no evidence for it?

[JoeyKnothead]

I believe a spherical, Euclidean universe makes the most sense. One question to be asked is why cosmologists would even consider a non-Euclidean universe that wraps onto itself if there is no evidence for it?

Belief and truth are separate entries in every dictionary of which I'm aware.