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]

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.

Of course. But, the question remains... why would cosmologists 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.

Of course. But, the question remains... why would cosmologists even consider a non-Euclidean universe that wraps onto itself if there is no evidence for it?

I don't speak for cosmologists, nor propose they've got anything right.

I do assert that we don't know the shape of the universe beyond the limits of our sensors.

[William]

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.

Of course. But, the question remains... why would cosmologists even consider a non-Euclidean universe that wraps onto itself if there is no evidence for it?

I don't speak for cosmologists, nor propose they've got anything right.

I do assert that we don't know the shape of the universe beyond the limits of our sensors.

Yes - I think you agreed in an earlier post that you could accept that the Universe most likely would be sphere-shaped...given the evidence of the dominant shapes in the universe being spherical?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Yes - I think you agreed in an earlier post that you could accept that the Universe most likely would be sphere-shaped...given the evidence of the dominant shapes in the universe being spherical?

I noted that such "sperical' shapes can vary by huge margins.

I noted that the image presented didn't accurately reflect that our own planet is about oblate spherical.

So even if I believe the universe may well be spherical, I also note that huge variation within a generally spherical shape is the norm.

[otseng]

But, the question remains... why would cosmologists even consider a non-Euclidean universe that wraps onto itself if there is no evidence for it?

I don't speak for cosmologists, nor propose they've got anything right.

Or I'll rephrase it another way. Why would scientists propose something that has no empirical evidence to support it?

Also, these questions are not targeted specifically to you Joey, but to all.

So even if I believe the universe may well be spherical, I also note that huge variation within a generally spherical shape is the norm.

The variations in how spherical it is wouldn't matter too much, but rather the size of the universe. If the universe is much larger than what is indicated by the CMBR, then it increases the probability of being outside of the center of the universe, which I briefly mentioned in post 1316.

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.

[JoeyKnothead]

But, the question remains... why would cosmologists even consider a non-Euclidean universe that wraps onto itself if there is no evidence for it?

I don't speak for cosmologists, nor propose they've got anything right.

Or I'll rephrase it another way. Why would scientists propose something that has no empirical evidence to support it?

As I've not presented any scientists to support my position, I'm under no obligation to support their claims, nor to explain their reasoning.

Such is a problem for those who do cite these scientists.

Also, these questions are not targeted specifically to you Joey, but to all.

Agreed.

So even if I believe the universe may well be spherical, I also note that huge variation within a generally spherical shape is the norm.

The variations in how spherical it is wouldn't matter too much, but rather the size of the universe.

In considering if we're at the center of the universe, I say it matters a good bit what shape the universe takes.

As we observe in 'sperical' objects, there's peaks and valleys, so we then gotta consider our measurements. Do we average it out, or consider only the lowest or highest peak, and why?

If the universe is much larger than what is indicated by the CMBR, then it increases the probability of being outside of the center of the universe, which I briefly mentioned in post 1316.

So we see that lacking knowledge of what's not / beyond the CMBR, we can't confirm the shape of the universe.

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.

I propose no shape nor size of the universe beyond the limits of our sensors, nor propose we should detect non / uniformity. I merely challenge those who professes to know how we may confirm they speak truth.

[William]

...
Yes - I think you agreed in an earlier post that you could accept that the Universe most likely would be sphere-shaped...given the evidence of the dominant shapes in the universe being spherical?

I noted that such "spherical' shapes can vary by huge margins.

Not to any point where they are more accurately described as square or triangle et al.

I noted that the image presented didn't accurately reflect that our own planet is about oblate spherical.

In the spherical family, right? It has a center. No need for splitting hairs.

So even if I believe the universe may well be spherical, I also note that huge variation within a generally spherical shape is the norm.

How does the huge variations of spherical forms affect the idea that the universe is most likely to be spherical and thus have a center?

[JoeyKnothead]

I noted that such "spherical' shapes can vary by huge margins.

Not to any point where they are more accurately described as square or triangle et al.

To the point where we find it difficult to find the center.

I noted that the image presented didn't accurately reflect that our own planet is about oblate spherical.

In the spherical family, right? It has a center. No need for splitting hairs.

Earth's an oblate spheroid - in the "spherical family".

The challenge now becomes finding a point that's equally distant from all other points on its surface.

So even if I believe the universe may well be spherical, I also note that huge variation within a generally spherical shape is the norm.

How does the huge variations of spherical forms affect the idea that the universe is most likely to be spherical and thus have a center?

I don't propose, nor ever have I proposed knowledge as to the shape of the universe.

I merely challenge those who claim we are, or we ain't, at the center of it.

So I'm told by others such as billions of miles away from that unknown center is "close enough". To which I say, "Well bless your heart."

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1338]

The challenge now becomes finding a point that's equally distant from all other points on its surface.

I thought we agreed that you were being far too literal?

So I'm told by others such as billions of miles away from that unknown center is "close enough". To which I say, "Well bless your heart."

Adding a facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion. The more we know - the less we know...

[JoeyKnothead]

The challenge now becomes finding a point that's equally distant from all other points on its surface.

I thought we agreed that you were being far too literal?

I'm reminded there's folks out there who take religious claims as literal truth, and seek to ensure they realize how wrong those claims can be.

I could let the claim go if folks'd not try to promote it as truth.

So I'm told by others such as billions of miles away from that unknown center is "close enough". To which I say, "Well bless your heart."

Adding a facetious comment adds nothing to the discussion. The more we know - the less we know...

My point being that some folks'll accept a margin of error in the billions to promote their gods.

Would you embark on a trip if you knew you could end up a billion miles off target?