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

[Diagoras]

Let's go back a step to Gen 1:1 before going to subsequent verses.

Maybe this is why the thread’s over 130 pages long. Cherry-picking parts of the Bible that suit the Creationists’ agenda (while ignoring those parts that don’t) goes against the premise of the OP.

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.

This part of my post (which you didn’t quote) remains unchallenged. So let’s stay on that, rather than ‘stepping backwards’.

[otseng]

[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.

This is not the purpose of this thread. Per the rules:

4. Stay on the topic of debate. If a topic brings up another issue, start another thread.

[otseng]

Let's go back a step to Gen 1:1 before going to subsequent verses.

Maybe this is why the thread’s over 130 pages long.

I think the primary reason is because there is an abundance of evidence to support the trustworthiness of the Bible. As a matter of fact, I've had to hold back in each subject we've covered otherwise we'd spend forever in each area.

Cherry-picking parts of the Bible that suit the Creationists’ agenda (while ignoring those parts that don’t) goes against the premise of the OP.

I can make the same accusation of the skeptics.

This part of my post (which you didn’t quote) remains unchallenged. So let’s stay on that, rather than ‘stepping backwards’.

Starting in Gen 1:1 and then covering subsequent verses in the chapter is not stepping backwards. After we cover Gen 1:1, we will cover the six days of creation and how I currently interpret them.

[otseng]

As for evidence supporting design in the universe, I mentioned in post 1358 about the "flatness problem":

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.

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

The fine-tuning required for the universe to be be flat is one in 10^62.

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

To give an idea of the magnitude of this, suppose you have a deck of cards and each star in the universe is a card. You have five decks. All the decks are shuffled. You randomly choose a card from each of the 5 decks. The probability of all five cards to be the sun is equivalent to the precision required for the universe to be flat.

It is a problem for naturalists because the odds of the universe being flat is statistically impossible.

There is no known reason for the density of the Universe to be so close to the critical density, and this appears to be an unacceptably strange coincidence in the view of most astronomers. Hence the flatness ‘problem’.

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/f/Flatness+Problem

However, for theists, it is not a problem because it affirms the universe was designed.

And the flatness problem is just one example of fine-tuning in the universe. Here's a sampling of some others:

Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[2][17]

* N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[17]
* Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[18] If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the Big Bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[15][17]
* Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[17][19]
* Lambda (Λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, Λ is on the order of 10−122.[20] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. A slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[17][21]
* Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[17]
* D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if the number of time dimensions in spacetime were anything other than 1.[17] Rees argues this does not preclude the existence of ten-dimensional strings.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_universe

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1394]

for theists, it is not a problem because it affirms the universe was designed.

For those who are neither theist or nontheist, if something affirms that the universe is designed then the next question to ask is;

"What was it designed for?"

The answers will give some indication as to the follow-up question;

"What is the nature of the designer{s}"

[otseng]

"What was it designed for?"
"What is the nature of the designer{s}"

Yes, studying nature only provides a general revelation of God and does not lead to any specifics about God.

In theology, general revelation, or natural revelation, refers to knowledge about God and spiritual matters, discovered through natural means, such as observation of nature (the physical universe), philosophy, and reasoning. Christian theologians use the term to describe knowledge of God purported to be plainly available to all mankind. General revelation is usually understood to pertain to outward temporal events that are experienced within the world or the physical universe. The definition may be extended to include human conscience or providence or providential history.

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

General revelation leads only to Deism or Theism. To get to more specifics about God would require special revelation.

Special revelation is a Christian theological term that refers to the belief that knowledge of God and of spiritual matters can be discovered through supernatural means, such as miracles or the scriptures—a disclosure of God's truth through means other than through reason.

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

I would also add to that comparative religion since religions makes claims and one would need to choose which one of the religions makes more sense.

I consider the main source of special revelation in Christianity is the Bible, which of course this thread argues for its truthfulness and reliability. I would also add it argues for it without the need for any particular assumptions, specifically, the inerrancy of the Bible. And through the Bible, we understand what was the universe created for and the nature of God.

[William]

William: For those who are neither theist or nontheist, if something affirms that the universe is designed then the next question to ask is;

"What was it designed for?"

The answers will give some indication as to the follow-up question;

"What is the nature of the designer{s}"

[Replying to otseng in post #1396]

Yes, studying nature only provides a general revelation of YHWH and does not lead to any specifics about YHWH.

There is certainly enough information in the experience of nature from which the nature of any Creator(s) can be gained.

And it is always from the general that specifics can be ascertained.

General revelation leads only to Deism or Theism.

Deism is a branch of Theism.

To get to more specifics about YHWH would require special revelation.

In the sense that Nature cannot answer the question "What was it designed for?". However, it can provide us with hints toward answering that question, through examining the nature of nature.

Special revelation is a Christian theological term that refers to the belief that knowledge of YHWH and of spiritual matters can be discovered through supernatural means, such as miracles or the scriptures—a disclosure of YHWH's truth through means other than through reason.

I consider all theological script as information which may or may not assist with answer the questions "What was it designed for?" "What is the nature of the designer{s}"

I do not consider "supernatural" as a necessary term to use re the nature of the designer{s} as anything antecedent to nature, must be natural to nature.

Biblically speaking, reason is a primary device of communication between YHWH and a human being, so any writ [Christian or otherwise] which supports that reason has to be left at the door in relation to an individuals communion with the designer{s} is suspect. Faith is what leads one to the door of reason [so has its place] but 'tis best not to rely on others stories of communion with The Creator(s) to the point where one simply settles for those stories rather than developing their own unique story.

I would also add to that comparative religion since religions makes claims and one would need to choose which one of the religions makes more sense.

Or one can take the pieces which constitute the whole scope of religions and from those, form a picture which shows altogether what no religion alone is able to show, that way avoiding confirmation bias.

I consider the main source of special revelation in Christianity is the Bible, which of course this thread argues for its truthfulness and reliability.

Christianity is a fractured entity in regard to the many different denominations and interpretations of the Bible and not the greatest example to be pointing to re truthfulness and reliability so it pays to be careful not to conflate and to test all things before declaring - with evidence - the truthfulness of anything.

Trusting the Bible is one thing. Understanding the nature of a Living Creator{s} a whole other thing.

Now with the Bible we have stories - especially in the OT - which speak of the Nature of YHWH.
I think it reasonable to compare those stories with nature itself - with the artifacts of nature which YHWH is claimed to have created, as an indication of the creator's nature.

If we are to trust the Bible on the subject of being within a created thing, we have to be able to reasonable show that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information re that.

All we have to go by re that, is the evidence of nature itself, and since we cannot even say for sure that nature is or isn't a simulation, we have a ways to go re that.

The Bible - with all its stories - certainly points to it being the case that we exist within a created simulation. Otherwise bushes which speak and which appear to be burning but are not, and other miraculous happenings are not so easy to explain other than with the vague gap-filler word "supernatural" and since the Bible itself doesn't contain the word, it is best to examine what word the Bible does use, to which the word 'supernatural" is substituting, even if just to see if there is any true correlation.

[JoeyKnothead]

Maybe this is why the thread’s over 130 pages long.

I think the primary reason is because there is an abundance of evidence to support the trustworthiness of the Bible. As a matter of fact, I've had to hold back in each subject we've covered otherwise we'd spend forever in each area.

It could also be due to a deep need to defend one's religious text, no matter how illogical, sense assaulting, and unscientific that text may be.

[JoeyKnothead]

William: For those who are neither theist or nontheist, if something affirms that the universe is designed then the next question to ask is;

"What was it designed for?"

The answers will give some indication as to the follow-up question;

"What is the nature of the designer{s}"

[Replying to otseng in post #1396]

Yes, studying nature only provides a general revelation of YHWH and does not lead to any specifics about YHWH.

There is certainly enough information in the experience of nature from which the nature of any Creator(s) can be gained.

And it is always from the general that specifics can be ascertained.

General revelation leads only to Deism or Theism.

Deism is a branch of Theism.

To get to more specifics about YHWH would require special revelation.

In the sense that Nature cannot answer the question "What was it designed for?". However, it can provide us with hints toward answering that question, through examining the nature of nature.

Special revelation is a Christian theological term that refers to the belief that knowledge of YHWH and of spiritual matters can be discovered through supernatural means, such as miracles or the scriptures—a disclosure of YHWH's truth through means other than through reason.

I consider all theological script as information which may or may not assist with answer the questions "What was it designed for?" "What is the nature of the designer{s}"

I do not consider "supernatural" as a necessary term to use re the nature of the designer{s} as anything antecedent to nature, must be natural to nature.

Biblically speaking, reason is a primary device of communication between YHWH and a human being, so any writ [Christian or otherwise] which supports that reason has to be left at the door in relation to an individuals communion with the designer{s} is suspect. Faith is what leads one to the door of reason [so has its place] but 'tis best not to rely on others stories of communion with The Creator(s) to the point where one simply settles for those stories rather than developing their own unique story.

I would also add to that comparative religion since religions makes claims and one would need to choose which one of the religions makes more sense.

Or one can take the pieces which constitute the whole scope of religions and from those, form a picture which shows altogether what no religion alone is able to show, that way avoiding confirmation bias.

I consider the main source of special revelation in Christianity is the Bible, which of course this thread argues for its truthfulness and reliability.

Christianity is a fractured entity in regard to the many different denominations and interpretations of the Bible and not the greatest example to be pointing to re truthfulness and reliability so it pays to be careful not to conflate and to test all things before declaring - with evidence - the truthfulness of anything.

Trusting the Bible is one thing. Understanding the nature of a Living Creator{s} a whole other thing.

Now with the Bible we have stories - especially in the OT - which speak of the Nature of YHWH.
I think it reasonable to compare those stories with nature itself - with the artifacts of nature which YHWH is claimed to have created, as an indication of the creator's nature.

If we are to trust the Bible on the subject of being within a created thing, we have to be able to reasonable show that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information re that.

All we have to go by re that, is the evidence of nature itself, and since we cannot even say for sure that nature is or isn't a simulation, we have a ways to go re that.

The Bible - with all its stories - certainly points to it being the case that we exist within a created simulation. Otherwise bushes which speak and which appear to be burning but are not, and other miraculous happenings are not so easy to explain other than with the vague gap-filler word "supernatural" and since the Bible itself doesn't contain the word, it is best to examine what word the Bible does use, to which the word 'supernatural" is substituting, even if just to see if there is any true correlation.

Brilliant analysis. I like how you allow for considering all religions as a single unit in order to consider the "theological answer" (my term). I've never heard of such a method, but reading it now, it seems so obvious.

[otseng]

Biblically speaking, reason is a primary device of communication between YHWH and a human being, so any writ [Christian or otherwise] which supports that reason has to be left at the door in relation to an individuals communion with the designer{s} is suspect. Faith is what leads one to the door of reason [so has its place] but 'tis best not to rely on others stories of communion with The Creator(s) to the point where one simply settles for those stories rather than developing their own unique story.

Not sure what you're getting at. Yes, reason is a necessary element in understanding God. But, it's also necessary in understanding everything, not just God. So, it's a given that reason must be involved. But, reasoning alone cannot lead to a full understanding of God. In addition to reason, we also need evidence. We'll never have enough evidence to conclusively prove anything, but it should be at least enough to determine what is the most reasonable explanation to choose from.

Or one can take the pieces which constitute the whole scope of religions and from those, form a picture which shows altogether what no religion alone is able to show, that way avoiding confirmation bias.

In a sense I agree. But the parts taken from all religions must form a cohesive and consistent belief.

Christianity is a fractured entity in regard to the many different denominations and interpretations of the Bible and not the greatest example to be pointing to re truthfulness and reliability so it pays to be careful not to conflate and to test all things before declaring - with evidence - the truthfulness of anything.

Just because something has a multitude of viewpoints does not automatically invalidate the source. We can even go up a level and say that all religions are fractured, therefore there's no truthfulness in the concept of God. Or there's fracture in politics, therefore politics is suspect. Or historians are fractured, so all history is suspect.

Trusting the Bible is one thing. Understanding the nature of a Living Creator{s} a whole other thing.

Of course. To be clear, I'm not claiming the Bible is God. The Bible is a way for us to know about God.

Now with the Bible we have stories - especially in the OT - which speak of the Nature of YHWH.
I think it reasonable to compare those stories with nature itself - with the artifacts of nature which YHWH is claimed to have created, as an indication of the creator's nature.

And this is the approach I've been taking in this entire thread. What we observe in nature must be consistent with what is written in the Bible.

If we are to trust the Bible on the subject of being within a created thing, we have to be able to reasonable show that the Bible is a trustworthy source of information re that.

Yes, and this is what I've been demonstrating in this thread.

The Bible - with all its stories - certainly points to it being the case that we exist within a created simulation.

Depends on what you mean by simulation. You mean we do not actually exist?

Otherwise bushes which speak and which appear to be burning but are not, and other miraculous happenings are not so easy to explain other than with the vague gap-filler word "supernatural" and since the Bible itself doesn't contain the word, it is best to examine what word the Bible does use, to which the word 'supernatural" is substituting, even if just to see if there is any true correlation.

The reason the word supernatural is not in the Bible was there was no such distinction between the natural and the supernatural in the minds of the authors. To them, it was all just reality.