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

[Athetotheist]

The Bible is actually quite consistent in the basic message that God created us sinless, mankind has sinned, sin is a barrier to God, God has removed that barrier through Jesus Christ, and we can have a relationship with God through faith in Him.

Is there anything in the Bible that contradicts this core message?

The Book of Mormon is quite consistent in the basic message that Jesus visited the Americas shortly after he rose from the dead and that an angel named Moroni provided a record of it. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that contradicts this core message?

The Quran is quite consistent in the basic message that an angel sent by Allah delivered the Quran to Muhammed. Is there anything in the Quran that contradicts this core message?

As for the Bible being "quite consistent" in the Jesus message, these guys have something to say about that:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

[otseng]

The Book of Mormon is quite consistent in the basic message that Jesus visited the Americas shortly after he rose from the dead and that an angel named Moroni provided a record of it. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that contradicts this core message?

The Quran is quite consistent in the basic message that an angel sent by Allah delivered the Quran to Muhammed. Is there anything in the Quran that contradicts this core message?

This thread is about the Christian Bible, not the Book of Mormon or the Quran. Other threads can be created to debate about those books.

As for the Bible being "quite consistent" in the Jesus message, these guys have something to say about that:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

Certainly people can interpret specific passages differently. A deep dive into how Jews interpret the Bible compared with Christians would be interesting. We can table this after our current deep dive into the resurrection of Jesus.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1915]

To summarize the procedural problems with the 1988 C-14 dating of the TS:

#1 and #4 appear to be the primary items of importance (ie. the sample may not represent the original shroud material, or was too contaminated to use, although the people who chose it evidently were convnced it did). The others may be sloppy or not the ideal protocol, but don't necessarily render the measurement results themselves void.

The fundamental screwup seems to be by the people who chose the sample, along with their (apparent) refusal to subsequently allow more testing to definitively answer the question as to when the shroud was made. If there was any conspiracy, it seems the finger should be pointed at the people who control access to the shroud as they evidently don't want the correct answer.

[Athetotheist]

The Book of Mormon is quite consistent in the basic message that Jesus visited the Americas shortly after he rose from the dead and that an angel named Moroni provided a record of it. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that contradicts this core message?

The Quran is quite consistent in the basic message that an angel sent by Allah delivered the Quran to Muhammed. Is there anything in the Quran that contradicts this core message?

This thread is about the Christian Bible, not the Book of Mormon or the Quran. Other threads can be created to debate about those books.

As for the Bible being "quite consistent" in the Jesus message, these guys have something to say about that:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

Certainly people can interpret specific passages differently. A deep dive into how Jews interpret the Bible compared with Christians would be interesting. We can table this after our current deep dive into the resurrection of Jesus.

......or the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

Going back to the courtroom analogy, it would actually be suspicious if testimonies between people were exactly alike. We do not expect two people to recall an event with the exact same details. If they did, most likely there was collusion. So, contradictions are to be expected.

Then by your logic, it can be reasonably concluded that the witnesses against Jesus in Mark 14:56 were telling the truth. If their witness had agreed, that would be evidence of collusion----and contradictions are to be expected.

Here is Mark 14:56: "Many testified falsely against him, but their statements did not agree."

No, it is not a reasonable conclusion. Only if the testimonies are "exactly alike" then there's evidence of collusion. They can agree for the most part and have slight differences and still be truthful that an event occurred.

Of course. Bible apologists will try to twist the 'Courtroom witness' analogy to suit themselves. If witnesses in the courtroom tell the suspiciously same story, there is going to be doubt. Also if we find two historians writing the same thing, we can suppose that one copied the other, they both copied a third, or they worked together. One expects divergences in the accounts but not blocks of text that like they are copied from the same page, That is what we do find in the synoptics.

There is no "twisting" by apologists. This is the same criteria used by all historians.

It is not credible that John did not know about the Transfiguration or did not recount it - while talking about the other events at Bethsaida. It is unfeasible that Mark, Matthew and Luke did not hear of the raising of Lazarus or all decided to leave it out.

(1) nobody else talks of a tomb -guard, either and again the circumstantial and intimate detail of the discussion between the tomb guard and the Sadducees smacks, like John's behind - the - curtain eavesdropping on Caiaphas in committee resolving to eliminate Jesus, of them just making a story up.

It doesn't make sense if the apostle John was actually the author of the fourth gospel. But, I do not believe it was the apostle John.

Anyways, all of this has been extensively talked about before and not going to rehash it here. Will be continuing on with the TS....

No.It's more than'exactly alike'.It is when we get blocks of text that,even if there are changes show the same wording and the same sequence of events. For an example, Herod's alarm in Mark and Matthew has a lot of changes,but the order of points is the same.Herod hearing about Jesus, the guess that Jesus is John risen from the dead,the account of the killing of the baptist with the oaths made before the dinner -guests and the disciples burying the body.

Even if,as is sure to be argued, it's a logical sequence, the passage (aside alterations) looks and reads like a common text they used as a basis. We get Jesus in the Temple in Luke denouncing the 'scribes' for their swank (20. 45) and that is in Matthew 23.5 but the denunciation after that until Jesus leaves the temple is not in Luke, at least not there, but the points about killing the prophets and wanting to gather Jerusalem under his wings does appear in other Lucan contexts (not in Mark, of course) .This not not eyewitness narration but using pre - existing text in various ways.

And it's not about whether john was written by the apostle, it's about whether the writer (whoever he is) is giving or at least using (as he claims) an eyewitness account. I argue that the vivid narration could be taken as eyewitness and the sermons and debates, the polemics of the writer. But I argue that the lack of Lazarus' resurrection in the synoptics is best explained if they never heard of it, and how likely is it that Matthew at least, never heard of it or that he would not mention it, if he had? The raising of Lazarus is, on courtroom witness analogy, a made - up tale.

[TRANSPONDER]

The Book of Mormon is quite consistent in the basic message that Jesus visited the Americas shortly after he rose from the dead and that an angel named Moroni provided a record of it. Is there anything in the Book of Mormon that contradicts this core message?

The Quran is quite consistent in the basic message that an angel sent by Allah delivered the Quran to Muhammed. Is there anything in the Quran that contradicts this core message?

This thread is about the Christian Bible, not the Book of Mormon or the Quran. Other threads can be created to debate about those books.

As for the Bible being "quite consistent" in the Jesus message, these guys have something to say about that:

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ns-of-text

Certainly people can interpret specific passages differently. A deep dive into how Jews interpret the Bible compared with Christians would be interesting. We can table this after our current deep dive into the resurrection of Jesus.

......or the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

Or indeed, we could do a deep dive into that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #1909

Only if the testimonies are "exactly alike" then there's evidence of collusion.

Then if the witnesses' statements weren't exactly alike, there was no evidence of collusion. So if "contradictions are to be expected", how would their contradictions falsify their statements?

They can agree for the most part and have slight differences and still be truthful that an event occurred.

So if the witnesses' statements weren't exactly alike, did they have only "slight differences"? If so, could they still have been truthful?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to otseng in post #1909

Only if the testimonies are "exactly alike" then there's evidence of collusion.

Then if the witnesses' statements weren't exactly alike, there was no evidence of collusion. So if "contradictions are to be expected", how would their contradictions falsify their statements?

They can agree for the most part and have slight differences and still be truthful that an event occurred.

So if the witnesses' statements weren't exactly alike, did they have only "slight differences"? If so, could they still have been truthful?

Of course, we get the argument,even if it's a way to excuse away contradictions. Yes,witnesses may tell the same story in court and they would tell them in a different way and may differ. it is not surprising that -say - in describing a shoplifter, one says the perp. wore a hat and the other doesn't. Minor discrepancy. But if one says the perp. pushed a trolly full of TV dinners out without paying for it and the other says he stuffed his pockets with lot and walked out we have a serious discrepancy there. An apologist attorney might argue that Perp. stuffed their pockets AND pushed a trolley out (analogy with death of Judas) but we might have reasonable doubt.

If the two security that nabbed the accused recite a story that reads in the same wording, even if one has elaborations, we might suspect the guards are colluding. Analogy, Herod's alarm.

If two witnesses saw the culprit wheel the trolley out and the guards chase him do not report a guard stopping them and having a chat we may doubt the report that lifter explained that he didn't have his wallet and he would pay later and the guard said 'ok,you can go',and it is a false story.Analogy,the penitent thief.

And if we are to dive into the resurrection, five witnesses -
1.Accused walked out the door with the trolley and down the street and nobody stopped him
2 accused walked out and two guards chased after him Perp yelled 'you'll never take me alive, coppers' and a gunfight ensued (Luke)
3 says that guards chased him but an accomplice helicopter appeared and winched him up (lMatthew)
4 says the perp paid at the checkout and took the stuff to the car, shouting 'your security is useless' before driving off (John)
5.And on the way out the loudspeaker saith 'He is poor and in need; let him go". And the guards all saithed "Ok".(Peter).

This hardly is analogous with the problems of the resurrection and if 'witness error' is used to excuse it, why would we credit the accounts in the first place?

[otseng]

Even if,as is sure to be argued, it's a logical sequence, the passage (aside alterations) looks and reads like a common text they used as a basis.

Of course. Practically all Biblical scholars agree there is a literary relationship between the synoptic gospels. So, some base text is common to the three.

This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence.[3] The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship—the synoptic problem—has been a topic of debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time".[4] While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called Q.

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

And it's not about whether john was written by the apostle, it's about whether the writer (whoever he is) is giving or at least using (as he claims) an eyewitness account. I argue that the vivid narration could be taken as eyewitness and the sermons and debates, the polemics of the writer. But I argue that the lack of Lazarus' resurrection in the synoptics is best explained if they never heard of it, and how likely is it that Matthew at least, never heard of it or that he would not mention it, if he had? The raising of Lazarus is, on courtroom witness analogy, a made - up tale.

It would make sense if Lazarus himself wrote the fourth gospel, which is what I believe.

[otseng]

......or the alleged resurrection of Jesus.

Or indeed, we could do a deep dive into that.

Which is what we're currently doing... if it can remain on topic.