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]

the theme of this thread appears to be "The Bible is Perfect and Without Error."

If that's what you conclude about the Bible from all the evidence I've produced, that's fine. But I've never stated the Bible is perfect and without error. Like any other book, no book is perfect and without error.

[POI]

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

Then you should be an expert. Imagine if you offered such a response in a live and public debate? You might be laughed off the stage. Or, if a student asked the teacher a question, and was given a similar answer. Of course I can already "google" all kinds of stuff. This is a debate. Do you have 'evidence' to support the Bible claim, or not? Debaters debate the same/similar/relevant topics, again and again and again. If you are proficient, and/or have extensively covered this topic, then you would have no problem offering a concise set of 'evidence(s)', in favor of an Exodus claim, in the other thread. All our time is precious. I am not going to go playing "Where's Waldo" here. The link I provided asks (2) questions.... Please follow the link and answer. Otherwise, I will just assume you do not feel you have anything worthy to add there.

Thank you kindly!

[otseng]

Then you should be an expert. Imagine if you offered such a response in a live and public debate? You might be laughed off the stage.

It's the other way around. I've already provided many pages of evidence of the Exodus. You then ask me to provide it again? It's up to you to read what I've already produced.

All our time is precious.

Entirely agree. I've spent a considerable amount of time debating on the Exodus already. Currently, the topic is the Shroud of Turin and this is a massive topic which I'm trying to complete with my limited time. If you want to join in on this, feel free to.

[POI]

the theme of this thread appears to be "The Bible is Perfect and Without Error."

If that's what you conclude about the Bible from all the evidence I've produced, that's fine. But I've never stated the Bible is perfect and without error. Like any other book, no book is perfect and without error.

I think we first need to establish what you mean exactly, when you state "no book is perfect and without error"? Meaning, where does the threshold lie --- between shrugging your shoulders and/or overlooking some minor stuff, (vs) wow, virtually none of this stuff actually happened? Or, somewhere in between?

[POI]

Then you should be an expert. Imagine if you offered such a response in a live and public debate? You might be laughed off the stage.

It's the other way around. I've already provided many pages of evidence of the Exodus. You then ask me to provide it again? It's up to you to read what I've already produced.

Again, I'm not going to play 'Where's Waldo." Nor, would I expect you to. All our time is precious. You state you have 'pages'. This is the problem. I would not try and 'text wall' you. I'm not going to sift through pages, with my fingers crossed, in the hopes to weed out what you feel are the important points to address. How about you cut/paste the pertinent 'evidence(s)', from those 'pages', and post it in the Exodus thread? Or, simply compose a few sentences to support the case, like you continue to do here? If you feel you have convincing 'evidence(s)', I'm sure you can rustle up a few sentences to streamline your extensively researched argument.

[POI]

I've spent a considerable amount of time debating on the Exodus already.

So you want me to sift through all of that to see where the points were laid out somewhere? And let me guess, the ones who are not convinced by this so-called evidence are either irrational or liars?

[Diogenes]

the theme of this thread appears to be "The Bible is Perfect and Without Error."

If that's what you conclude about the Bible from all the evidence I've produced, that's fine. But I've never stated the Bible is perfect and without error. Like any other book, no book is perfect and without error.

Yes, thank-you. I understand. I thought you might list those errors of the Bible you concede.
So... what are the errors of the Bible?

You have taken on what many believe to be the most glaring errors of the Bible, the obviously mythical tales of Genesis (and Exodus), fables that scholars agree live only as symbols to demonstrate some greater truth, and tried to prove they actually happend (?!)

Thus, my query, are there any of what many consider the myths and legends of the Bible you concede never actually happened? That they are literary devices?
How about Job? Surely you concede this is a play, that God and the Devil did not actually go for a stroll where God agrees the Devil may torture Job to prove he loves God?
Certainly you'd agree Adam & Eve being tempted by a talking serpent is an allegory?

You've defended the global flood and the rescue of penguins from the Antarctic, the Tower of babble [sic], the Exodus and the crossing of the Dead Sea... You appear (at least in the past and in other threads) to support 'Intelligent Design' and disparage the theory of evolution, so I wonder if there are any of the Myths of Genesis you concede are just myths?

[POI]

the theme of this thread appears to be "The Bible is Perfect and Without Error."

If that's what you conclude about the Bible from all the evidence I've produced, that's fine. But I've never stated the Bible is perfect and without error. Like any other book, no book is perfect and without error.

Yes, thank-you. I understand. I thought you might list those errors of the Bible you concede.
So... what are the errors of the Bible?

You have taken on what many believe to be the most glaring errors of the Bible, the obviously mythical tales of Genesis (and Exodus), fables that scholars agree live only as symbols to demonstrate some greater truth, and tried to prove they actually happend (?!)

Thus, my query, are there any of what many consider the myths and legends of the Bible you concede never actually happened? That they are literary devices?
How about Job? Surely you concede this is a play, that God and the Devil did not actually go for a stroll where God agrees the Devil may torture Job to prove he loves God?
You've defended the global flood and the rescue of penguins from the Antarctic, the Tower of babble [sic], the Exodus and the crossing of the Dead Sea... You appear (at least in the past and in other threads) to support 'Intelligent Design' and disparage the theory of evolution, so I wonder if there are any of the Myths of Genesis you concede are just myths?

Again, thank you for saving me from reading pages and pages of imbedded stuff, which ultimately leads to what you stated in a few sentences

[otseng]

I think we first need to establish what you mean exactly, when you state "no book is perfect and without error"? Meaning, where does the threshold lie --- between shrugging your shoulders and/or overlooking some minor stuff, (vs) wow, virtually none of this stuff actually happened? Or, somewhere in between?

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position. Does the sun standing still affect any doctrine? No, so it's futile to debate the historicity of it. Is God the creator of the universe? Yes, so time should be spent debating this. Does it matter how many women were at the Jesus' tomb? No. Does it matter if Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Absolutely yes.

Again, I'm not going to play 'Where's Waldo." Nor, would I expect you to. All our time is precious.

My time is dedicated now to debating the TS. And I barely have time to do that, esp since I am the only one defending this. To ask me to debate another massive topic is not reasonable.

So you want me to sift through all of that to see where the points were laid out somewhere? And let me guess, the ones who are not convinced by this so-called evidence are either irrational or liars?

I have to ask why are you even asking me to debate the Exodus again when the current topic is the Shroud of Turin? Instead, I should be asking you to address the TS, not for you to ask me to address the Exodus again.

Again, thank you for saving me from reading pages and pages of imbedded stuff, which ultimately leads to what you stated in a few sentences

This is evidence to me you are not actually interested in anything I've posted since obviously Diogenes has not even remotely summarized my Exodus posts, but only asserted statements to mock.

[boatsnguitars]

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position. Does the sun standing still affect any doctrine? No, so it's futile to debate the historicity of it. Is God the creator of the universe? Yes, so time should be spent debating this. Does it matter how many women were at the Jesus' tomb? No. Does it matter if Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Absolutely yes.

So, cherry pick what you're willing to defend, and claim that's the important thing for everyone?