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

[Diagoras]

Please then provide the empirical evidence to support the claim we are not at the center of the universe or the universe is wrapped onto itself.

From here: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae614.cfm

there is nothing extraordinary about our galaxy and therefore that it has about as much chance as being at the centre, if such a thing does exist, as anyone else - a probability of virtually zero. It is with this, unbiased statistical reasoning that modern-day astronomers believe that we are not the centre of the universe.

<bolding mine>

Hope that answers your point.

[otseng]

How are you defining inerrant to make it a meaningless dichotomy?

I would say the definitive statement on inerrancy is the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI). Unlike popular opinion, inerrancy does not apply to any Bible that anyone currently reads. It applies only to the autographs.

"Article X. WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy."

Since no autographs exist, it is meaningless to impute inerrancy on something that we cannot access.

Many qualifications are also added to the definition, thereby making the term less meaningful.

"WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations."

Please then provide the empirical evidence to support the claim we are not at the center of the universe or the universe is wrapped onto itself.

From here: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae614.cfm

there is nothing extraordinary about our galaxy and therefore that it has about as much chance as being at the centre, if such a thing does exist, as anyone else - a probability of virtually zero. It is with this, unbiased statistical reasoning that modern-day astronomers believe that we are not the centre of the universe.

<bolding mine>

Hope that answers your point.

I see a claim, but I see no presentation of empirical evidence. What is the empirical evidence that is presented?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I see a claim, but I see no presentation of empirical evidence. What is the empirical evidence that is presented?

This seems weird to me.

You base a claim on the earth being the center of the universe on the non-empirical claim of a Euclidean universe. You accept, sans empiricism that the universe is spherical, stating or implying it's a reasonable assumption.

The universe has not been empirically shown to be spherical, but you base your argument around it being thus.

And now you're fussing that someone failed Empiriocity 101?

What am I missing here?

[otseng]

What am I missing here?

The empirical evidence that I presented is the measurement of the uniformity of the CMBR.

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

More about the uniformity of the CMBR:

The cosmic microwave background is the afterglow radiation left over from the hot Big Bang. Its temperature is extremely uniform all over the sky.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_cosmo_fluct.html

However, standard Big Bang theory does not account for all of the observed properties of the CMB. In particular, once we remove the dipole that arises due to our motion in the Universe, the CMB is incredibly uniform across the sky, varying by no more than one part in ten thousand. This suggests that regions of the Universe that are now widely separated, were once close enough to ‘communicate’ with each other in order to equalise their temperature. However, this is not possible given standard Big Bang theory, the age of the Universe, and the finite speed of light.

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/C/ ... background

As for the universe being Euclidean, this is the flatness problem.

In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since any departure of the total density from the critical value would increase rapidly over cosmic time,[1] the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 10^62 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatness_problem

Right now, we’ve only measured the curvature to a level of 1-part-in-400, and find that it’s indistinguishable from flat.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... verse-flat

so far most cosmological measurements seem to favor a flat universe.

https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-is- ... -20200316/

[JoeyKnothead]

What am I missing here?

The empirical evidence that I presented is the measurement of the uniformity of the CMBR.

I snipped other pertinent data, but you'll see why...

I gotta apologize here, and fess to doing me some discrimination. I couldn't help but interpret your words - the words of a theist - in an almost opposite way. I know you tell the truth the best you know it. I never thought you was lying or any similar term, so please don't think that was it. I still say our sensors are limited, but you certainly have presented emperical data, even as we can't all look us through the same telescopes them discoverers of it did.

In my defense, I humbly submit before the court I don't think I've ever met me a theist who argues for the big bang, and got that compounded with my incurable dooficity.

As I've said, I believe the universe is, on average, spherical, so I'm with ya there. I just don't guess I'll ever grasp how a billion or more miles from the center of something is, well, the center of it. I'll leave that'n for the observer to ponder.

Again, please accept my apologies on the discriminating. I don't wanna be that guy.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to otseng in post #1352]

Since no autographs exist, it is meaningless to impute inerrancy on something that we cannot access.

This is a vague statement you are making. What percentage of the original text do you think we have access to? The original text was copied and most of the copies that we do have are identical.

So you want to pick and choose what parts of the Chicago statement you want to believe because the rest of article 10 says:

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

So the theologians that wrote the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy in 1978 disagree with your assessment.

If your statement is true how are you deciding what is Biblical and what is not Biblical?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1355]

As I've said, I believe the universe is, on average, spherical, so I'm with ya there. I just don't guess I'll ever grasp how a billion or more miles from the center of something is, well, the center of it. I'll leave that'n for the observer to ponder.

It also occurs that human beings are the center of the universe in terms of being in the position that we are - observing said universe in both directions [in and out]



and observing outwards;

[Diagoras]

I see a claim, but I see no presentation of empirical evidence. What is the empirical evidence that is presented?

As bolded, statistics as applied to observations can be considered as empirical evidence. See here:

https://www.livescience.com/21456-empir ... ition.html

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #1352]

Since no autographs exist, it is meaningless to impute inerrancy on something that we cannot access.

This is a vague statement you are making.

Don't know why you say it's vague. An autograph is what the author of the text originally wrote.

"An autograph, biblically, is an original writing of a biblical document–the original manuscript written. The autographs would be the actual, original written document from which copies are made."
https://carm.org/dictionary/autograph/

" The Autograph Was the Authors’ Original Work. The usual way of describing an autograph of Scripture is the finished work of the author that was sent out to others. It is only this final work that was sent out that can be called the autograph."
https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/st ... e-mean.cfm

What percentage of the original text do you think we have access to?

We have zero percent.

"In the strictest sense, no, the original documents that comprise the 66 books of the Bible—sometimes called the “autographs”—are not in the possession of any organization."
https://www.gotquestions.org/original-Bible.html

The original text was copied and most of the copies that we do have are identical.

Of course, we have many manuscripts. But inerrancy does not apply to the manuscripts, but to the autographs. And as far as I can tell, nobody claims the manuscripts are inerrant, which are the only original language texts that we have.

So you want to pick and choose what parts of the Chicago statement you want to believe because the rest of article 10 says:

WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

Never said I deny any essential element of the Christian faith.

Of course they would deny absence of the autographs affects inerrancy, since if they affirmed it, it would nullify their assertions.

If your statement is true how are you deciding what is Biblical and what is not Biblical?

Deciding what is Biblical? Of course the Bible is Biblical. But, if your question is what is the Bible, then that would be a question for another thread.

[otseng]

As bolded, statistics as applied to observations can be considered as empirical evidence.

Statistics is based on underlying empirical data. So, I'm asking what is the empirical data that the statistics is based on.

You stated:

From here: https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae614.cfm

there is nothing extraordinary about our galaxy and therefore that it has about as much chance as being at the centre, if such a thing does exist, as anyone else - a probability of virtually zero. It is with this, unbiased statistical reasoning that modern-day astronomers believe that we are not the centre of the universe.

<bolding mine>

What I infer on the "statistical reasoning" is the probability of us being at the center based on simply picking any random point in the universe and it being at the center.