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

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.

Splitting hairs achieves nothing. "I am that I am" = "I will be what I will be." and still fits in with what I wrote; In other words;

"I will be what I will be." [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so.

[Diagoras]

Is there a "scientific" description in Genesis? No. But, the Bible does make claims about reality which align with what we observe, including the area of cosmology.

<bolding mine>

This is where your claim fails, with the Bible containing multiple examples of Bronze Age thinking about (for instance) the order in which stars and planets form, the Moon being a 'light', etc. For a Creationist to cling to the belief that the Bible can be 'trusted' to provide an accurate picture of how the universe formed requires serious amounts of revisionist interpretation. "It could be meant this way", "It's supposed to be read figuratively", etc.

Because it's demonstrably true that the Bible also makes claims about reality which don't align with what we observe. And when we are faced with a source that contains both, and are reliant on fallible and biased people to 'interpret' said sources in order to sort the wheat from the chaff, then we really can't trust the Bible to give the correct answer.

[kjw47]

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.

Splitting hairs achieves nothing. "I am that I am" = "I will be what I will be." and still fits in with what I wrote; In other words;

"I will be what I will be." [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so.

Certain religions use i am that i am to claim Jesus was saying he was God when he answered the pharisees question, he just answered honestly-he lived before Abraham, they use that mistranslation to mislead.

[JoeyKnothead]

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.

Agreed. Popeye's the one who said, "I am what I am."

[otseng]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #1384]

Please start another thread to continue to discuss this.

[otseng]

This is where your claim fails, with the Bible containing multiple examples of Bronze Age thinking about (for instance) the order in which stars and planets form, the Moon being a 'light', etc. For a Creationist to cling to the belief that the Bible can be 'trusted' to provide an accurate picture of how the universe formed requires serious amounts of revisionist interpretation. "It could be meant this way", "It's supposed to be read figuratively", etc.

Let's go back a step to Gen 1:1 before going to subsequent verses. Do you claim the Bible is wrong and the universe did not have a beginning and is not designed? When we address this, we can then dive into the first six days of creation.

[kjw47]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #1384]

Please start another thread to continue to discuss this.

Why, I was showing an error in certain translations. That has everything to do with the bible being errant or inerrant-- I was showing some translations cannot be trusted. The translations with the error i showed are filled with many errors to mislead by satans will. All using those translations are being mislead to support satans will over Gods will. Its done like this-2Cor 11:12-15--The same reason many will be mislead to worship the image of the beast. It will be made to look good to the mortal heart. But 99% on earth live in darkness. Its been that way all throughout the bible, the only exception ever may be when Israel stood strong, they fell over and over.

[William]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #1387]

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so. {SOURCE}

[kjw47]

[Replying to kjw47 in post #1387]

However, since this is not the subject of the thread topic - if you want to argue it more, I suggest that another thread be created in order to do so. {SOURCE}

I was showing that most bibles are error filled and cannot be trusted. Its those bibles that are contradictory. It is the subject matter being discussed.

[brunumb]

I was showing that most bibles are error filled and cannot be trusted. Its those bibles that are contradictory. It is the subject matter being discussed.

Before you go, please tell us which Bibles are not error filled and can be trusted.