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]

Is that right, that the church does not claim authenticity for the Turin shroud? The Catholic church?
Are there any churches that claim the Turin shroud is real?

I've never heard of any line of connection between early 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century, and so if some folks want to believe in it then that's fine, but if they seek to prove anything about it then it would help if they could actually get the Catholic Church to support it as real.

I've never even read or heard of a shroud expert that makes the claim the TS is proven to be legit. There will always be an element of faith involved since it cannot be proven to a 100% probability that it is authentic.

There is a proposed line of connection between 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century that is plausible and is backed by logical argumentation and evidence. I'll be presenting that later.

[boatsnguitars]

Is that right, that the church does not claim authenticity for the Turin shroud? The Catholic church?
Are there any churches that claim the Turin shroud is real?

I've never heard of any line of connection between early 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century, and so if some folks want to believe in it then that's fine, but if they seek to prove anything about it then it would help if they could actually get the Catholic Church to support it as real.

I've never even read or heard of a shroud expert that makes the claim the TS is proven to be legit. There will always be an element of faith involved since it cannot be proven to a 100% probability that it is authentic.

There is a proposed line of connection between 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century that is plausible and is backed by logical argumentation and evidence. I'll be presenting that later.

Otseng, you have finite time in your life. Why bother with this? You know how it's going to end, right? You alluded to it: no one will believe you, especially because you aren't a real scientist, nor do you even have access to the source, or equipment.
You're an amateur Googler thinking you've found something that other people have missed: people with access to the actual Shroud, and access to sophisticated equipment... but you, a mod on a religious forum, are going to crack the code?

It's absurd on the face of it.

What possible value do you think you are even adding?

How would you like me to claim that P45 is from 1BCE? I'll never see the actual fragment, I can't test it, I can only Google things. Is that really what you think Research is?

I'm sorry, it isn't. You aren't doing research, and your argument rests on the idea that you can assess the data - that you can actually test the fabric, and question those who tested it. You are basing your entire argument on hearsay - which is, I suppose - what Theists have to do, since they never have access to the source they claim exists....

Hmm, maybe I'll conclude the Dark Side of the Moon is an Alien Nazi hideout - I'll never go there, I won't have access to any satellite that orbits the moon, I'll only use Google to make my case...
Nobel Prize here I come!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2028

What counts is evidence not someone's opinion

Right. And despite the efforts to impeach the results of the carbon 14 dating, those results constitute more evidence that the image is a 14th-century work of art than there is that it's an actual image of Jesus.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2029

Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?

Jesus. Does it mention anything about how long his hair was when he saw Jesus on the road?

No, but Paul mentions what length of hair was a "dishonor" on a man.

So why do you bring up what Paul saw on the road to Damascus?

Because Paul claimed that he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus. See the connection?

Cherry picking scripture is not a valid argument. You take passages out of context, have an interpretation that is not backed up by any other verses, and is in conflict with other verses.

Do you have any reference to any other source other than you that has this interpretation from Corinthians that Paul is mandating for all men to have short hair?

As I pointed out, putting passages into context with each other is not cherry picking. You keep trying to dismiss my observation as an "interpretation" when I'm just quoting what was said.

Maybe what you're taking issue with is that I refuse to re-interpret passages just to harmonize them when they're not harmonious.

Right----that's why you can't write off Paul's judgement of hair length as mere "custom" after he goes to such lengths to establish it as part of a divine order.

Where does it says "divine order"?

There's the "exact wording" argument again, and it still doesn't work. The divine order is the hierarchy of God, man and woman which I mentioned before.

Presuming that every biblical conflict is mere "eisegesis" simply makes the claims of the Bible unfalsifiable, which you said earlier was not your intention.

There's no conflict. I've provided multiple passages from the OT that long hair was allowed in the OT. Paul got his theology from the OT. As a matter of fact, out of all the authors in the NT, he arguable knew the OT the most. He was writing to the Corinthians on the need for order and harmony. He used the custom of short hair among the Greco/Roman citizens as an illustration of order.

You're just rehashing a point I've already addressed and ignoring the argument I've made to support my position.

We are talking about the TS and the resurrection now. If we want to talk about the massacre, we can add it to the queue of topics to be discussed later.

The title of this thread is, "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" If we can discuss the TS now, why can't we discuss the alleged massacre now?

[oldbadger]

I've never even read or heard of a shroud expert that makes the claim the TS is proven to be legit. There will always be an element of faith involved since it cannot be proven to a 100% probability that it is authentic.

I don't challenge people's beliefs, rather I do my best to acknowledge them .

There is a proposed line of connection between 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century that is plausible and is backed by logical argumentation and evidence. I'll be presenting that later.

Now a plausable proposal supported by some evidence would be interesting to read.

[brunumb]

There is a proposed line of connection between 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century that is plausible and is backed by logical argumentation and evidence. I'll be presenting that later.

Unless it is a trail supported by evidence, it is nothing more than speculation or opinion. We all know what that is worth.

[otseng]

What possible value do you think you are even adding?

Per the OP, I'm confirming my position that the Bible is trustworthy and reliable.

[otseng]

And despite the efforts to impeach the results of the carbon 14 dating, those results constitute more evidence that the image is a 14th-century work of art than there is that it's an actual image of Jesus.

I presented evidence that the 1988 C-14 dating is invalid. Please present counter-evidence with a reference that refutes my arguments instead of just making a baseless claim.

[Replying to otseng in post #2029

Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?

Jesus. Does it mention anything about how long his hair was when he saw Jesus on the road?

No, but Paul mentions what length of hair was a "dishonor" on a man.

So why do you bring up what Paul saw on the road to Damascus?

Because Paul claimed that he saw Jesus on the road to Damascus. See the connection?

We are talking about hair length. Since Paul does not mention Jesus' hair length when he saw him on the road, there is no connection with what we are talking about.

As I pointed out, putting passages into context with each other is not cherry picking. You keep trying to dismiss my observation as an "interpretation" when I'm just quoting what was said.

How many people has your interpretation? If you are going to present an extreme minority position, you'll need to have very good arguments to support your case. Simply constantly repeating your claim without good evidence does not make your position stronger.

There's the "exact wording" argument again, and it still doesn't work. The divine order is the hierarchy of God, man and woman which I mentioned before.

In that case, yes, divine order has to do with the hierarchy of God, but it does not refer to a divine order for all men to have short hair.

The title of this thread is, "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" If we can discuss the TS now, why can't we discuss the alleged massacre now?

The question is why don't you want to continue talking about the TS and the resurrection? I'm not even halfway presenting my evidence for the TS.

[otseng]

There is a proposed line of connection between 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century that is plausible and is backed by logical argumentation and evidence. I'll be presenting that later.

Unless it is a trail supported by evidence, it is nothing more than speculation or opinion. We all know what that is worth.

Of course. Though I'm not sure we all know lack of evidence is mere opinion.

[boatsnguitars]

What possible value do you think you are even adding?

Per the OP, I'm confirming my position that the Bible is trustworthy and reliable.

The TS isn't mentioned in the Bible. How does it have anything to do with the Bible, other than a vague reference to the burial?

Why wouldn't it be evidence of aliens with a sense of humor?

But here is why the Bible isn't trustworthy:

1. It's filled with bad ideas, bad morals, and bad logic.
2. Six day creation: not confirmed by science.
3. Global flood: no evidence for a global flood event as described in the Bible.
4. Tower of Babel: There is no linguistic evidence for any of the events included in the Tower of Babel myth.
5. Anatomy of insects: "All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you. There are, however, some winged creatures that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other winged creatures that have four legs you are to detest." Insects have 6 legs.
6. The smallest seed isn't the mustard seed. It also isn't useless (least) which is directly contradicted by the next sentence, that it grows into something useful. Also, the mustard plant isn't a tree.
7. Ant behavior: Ants live in a colony with many subdivisions, which include workers and queens (rulers).
8. Value of pi: The Bible says it is 3.0.
9. Over-statement of Capacity: Same container from above is described to hold 2,000 baths in 1 Kings, 3,000 in 2 Chronicles. (So it's internally contradictory), but also, using the smallest known variable for the biblical unit for "bath" at 22.00 litres (rounded downward to fit more "baths"), a cylindrical "container" could at most hold : 37 730 litres / 22 = 1 715 baths. THUS: Even applying approximation, the capacity is still over-stated by ±15% (in the case of 2 000 baths as stated by 1 Kings), or ±43% (in the case of the 3 000 baths of 2 Chronicles).
10. Firmament: The "firmament" is claimed to be a solid "roof" over the world. It is described in Genesis 1:6-8 (KJV). This is obviously untrue.
11. Illumination: In Genesis, the Moon is referred to as a "light" (specifically, a "lesser light").
12. Stars: The Bible makes it clear that stars are objects in the sky that will fall down when Jesus comes back.
13. Planetary formation: According to the Genesis creation account, the Earth was formed before the Sun. Science has proven this false.

It's common for Bible Apologists to point to the things that have been confirmed by Science, but that is using Science as the measure, and in these cases, Science proves the Bible is unreliable. The only things we can trust in the Bible are those things confirmed by Science. Which means even Christians think Science is more reliable than the Bible.

And, this plays out every day: Most people will go to the hospital, not Church, to be cured of some ailment.

There's a reason for the saying: "There are no Theists in the Hospital".