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

[brunumb]

For the TS, I've not gotten to the punchline yet.

If a joke gets carried out too long, the audience doesn't stick around for the punchline.

This thread has been treading water for ages now with promises of 'things to come' that never do. Your comment is very apt.

[otseng]

The shroud has a side strip that is 3.5" wide that runs the entire length of the cloth. So, the shroud was cut at one point in time and then the strip was sewn back onto the main cloth. You can see the side strip on left side of the cloth below:



It is evident it was originally one piece of cloth in the transmitted light photo:



It is a complex seam attaching the two cloths:

Figure 1 (below) shows a portion of the x-radiograph of the section of the Shroud's frontal image displaying the end edge of the side strip, the missing panel with the exposed backing cloth, and the seam between the strip and the rest of the Shroud.

https://www.shroud.com/adler2.htm

The seam attaching the cloths are consistent with a seam found in the 1st century at Masada.

Dr. Flury-Lemberg found the cloth's finishing, at its
hems, and in the joining seam to have been done using an unusual type of stitching
very nearly invisible on one side, and as such closely resembling that of ancient
Jewish textiles as found at Masada, the Jewish palace-fortress that was overthrown by
the Romans in AD 73.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n51part2.pdf

There are many theories proposed on why it was cut, but the one that makes the most sense to me is the one proposed by John Jackson. He theorizes the shroud was cut at the time of burial and the side strip was used to wrap around the entire body and the shroud.





This theory also explains why John mentions there was more than one linen cloth.

John 19:40 (KJV)
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
https://simple.uniquebibleapp.com/bible ... /19#v19_40

Based on the Masada seam, the two pieces were most likely reattached sometime in the first century. Additionally, it must've been reattached early in the history of the cloth because the water stains and creases affected the entire shroud.

[POI]

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.

Being there has been countless posts here, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned many times, or just once, or maybe not at all? But, here it goes....

I'd reckon that many became untrusting of this book, after actually deciding to read it. From Genesis and on, if one also has a basic understanding of the world around them, to continue to hold to the many claims of the Bible, as factual, (i.e.) an 'Adam & Eve' claim, a "tower of Babel" claim, an 'Exodus" claim, etc etc etc, seems to require at least some level of 'spin'. Thus, why not just through it out completely, or reject it as being any viable "authoritative" or 'trustworthy' publication to begin with? It's more than just not being "inerrant"... It looks to be down-right wrong about several events in claimed history.... And for this alone, this may be a rational reason alone, to reject the claims of this big book of claims.

[JoeyKnothead]

Being there has been countless posts here, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned many times, or just once, or maybe not at all? But, here it goes....

I'd reckon that many became untrusting of this book, after actually deciding to read it. From Genesis and on, if one also has a basic understanding of the world around them, to continue to hold to the many claims of the Bible, as factual, (i.e.) an 'Adam & Eve' claim, a "tower of Babel" claim, an 'Exodus" claim, etc etc etc, seems to require at least some level of 'spin'. Thus, why not just through it out completely, or reject it as being any viable "authoritative" or 'trustworthy' publication to begin with? It's more than just not being "inerrant"... It looks to be down-right wrong about several events in claimed history.... And for this alone, this may be a rational reason alone, to reject the claims of this big book of claims.

Very much.

I've tried to read it just to say I have, but I just can't get through a little bit of it before realizing it springs from an age of superstition and ignorance.

Sure, there's a fact in there somewhere. Something useful. Ultimately though it's like sifting through the mud to find a lost toothpick.

[POI]

Being there has been countless posts here, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned many times, or just once, or maybe not at all? But, here it goes....

I'd reckon that many became untrusting of this book, after actually deciding to read it. From Genesis and on, if one also has a basic understanding of the world around them, to continue to hold to the many claims of the Bible, as factual, (i.e.) an 'Adam & Eve' claim, a "tower of Babel" claim, an 'Exodus" claim, etc etc etc, seems to require at least some level of 'spin'. Thus, why not just through it out completely, or reject it as being any viable "authoritative" or 'trustworthy' publication to begin with? It's more than just not being "inerrant"... It looks to be down-right wrong about several events in claimed history.... And for this alone, this may be a rational reason alone, to reject the claims of this big book of claims.

Very much.

I've tried to read it just to say I have, but I just can't get through a little bit of it before realizing it springs from an age of superstition and ignorance.

Sure, there's a fact in there somewhere. Something useful. Ultimately though it's like sifting through the mud to find a lost toothpick.

Yup. It's a tough read. Not because it is written like the works from Homer or Shakespear, where in you maybe have to read it a couple of times to digest. No, instead it reads of nonsense, as compared to our reality, basically from the jump. Mounds and mounds of nonsense pile up, as you plow though. And by the time you get to the NT claims, for a resurrection claim, you are pretty much already under the assumption it's merely just another big book of unfalsifiable superstitious claims, written long ago --- much like any other competing religious book one may opt to open and read.

I really have to wonder what the objective of this thread is supposed to be? I mean, do we merely compare the Bible to a 'science' book from the 1950's? Meaning, it may have small errors, or may have incomplete information, or other.

I guess a take-away question could be... How many claims have to demonstrate false in the Bible, before the book is no longer trustworthy?

[otseng]

Being there has been countless posts here, I'm not sure if this has been mentioned many times, or just once, or maybe not at all?

Yes, it's been mentioned many times.

From Genesis and on, if one also has a basic understanding of the world around them, to continue to hold to the many claims of the Bible, as factual, (i.e.) an 'Adam & Eve' claim, a "tower of Babel" claim, an 'Exodus" claim, etc etc etc, seems to require at least some level of 'spin'.

Adam and Eve have not been covered. But we've covered the tower of Babel, Exodus, global flood, and many other topics.

It's more than just not being "inerrant"... It looks to be down-right wrong about several events in claimed history....

As evidenced by the sheer volume of evidence I've produced in this thread, the Bible is remarkably correct about historical events.

[POI]

Adam and Eve have not been covered. But we've covered the tower of Babel, Exodus, global flood, and many other topics.

Great.

As evidenced by the sheer volume of evidence I've produced in this thread, the Bible is remarkably correct about historical events.

Awesome. Were these events literal, figurative, other?

And if you would not mind, can you please start here, with the Exodus claim? So apparently, it did happen?
(viewtopic.php?t=40622)

Thank you

[Diogenes]

How many claims have to demonstrate false in the Bible, before the book is no longer trustworthy?

Ed Zachery!
... and... this thread purports to argue that we can trust the Bible in spite of the fact it makes some glaring errors... and then proceeds to attempt to show "There are no errors."
From arguing for a globe encircling flood, to rewriting history about the 'Tower of Babel,' the bondage in Egypt, and finally attempting to prove the Cloth of Turin miraculously bears the image of an executed man brought back to life, the theme of this thread appears to be "The Bible is Perfect and Without Error."
... unless... Is there agreement there are errors in the Holy Book? If there are no errors in the Bible, why is the argument presented that "Despite the Errors, we can trust the Bible?"

Or... perhaps the REAL title of the subtopic should be, "The Bible is Inerrant, but even if it isn't, we can trust it anyway."

[POI]

How many claims have to demonstrate false in the Bible, before the book is no longer trustworthy?

Ed Zachery!
... and... this thread purports to argue that we can trust the Bible in spite of the fact it makes some glaring errors... and then proceeds to attempt to show "There are no errors."
From arguing for a globe encircling flood, to rewriting history about the 'Tower of Babel,' the bondage in Egypt, and finally attempting to prove the Cloth of Turin miraculously bears the image of an executed man brought back to life, the theme of this thread appears to be "The Bible is Perfect and Without Error."
... unless... Is there agreement there are errors in the Holy Book? If there are no errors in the Bible, why is the argument presented that "Despite the Errors, we can trust the Bible?"

Or... perhaps the REAL title of the subtopic should be, "The Bible is Inerrant, but even if it isn't, we can trust it anyway."

Thank you kindly for the summation. Now I do not have to plow through pages and pages of this thread to try and decipher anything meaningful.

[otseng]

And if you would not mind, can you please start here, with the Exodus claim? So apparently, it did happen?
(viewtopic.php?t=40622)

I've already extensively covered the Exodus at:
viewtopic.php?p=1068306#p1068306