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]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2406]

And what is the relevance with this photo to the TS?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2396

My criteria is doctrine, not teaching.

If your definition of "doctrine" is creed, confession or church statement of faith, then you can't separate doctrine from teaching. To believe doctrinally that everything Jesus did was correct, you have to believe that everything he taught was correct. If he taught anything which wasn't correct, nothing defined as Christian doctrine carries any weight.

We have many believers who have divorced. Are they still Christian?

Whether or not divorcees are Christian isn't the issue. The issue is the irreconcilable difference between why Jesus says divorce was allowed and why Moses says it was allowed.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2406]

And what is the relevance with this photo to the TS?

It's from the area and time of King David.

[otseng]

If I did provide a single source that gave a synopsis of all my arguments for the Exodus, would that then shut doubters up?

Well, I have no way in answering that question, since you have been asked to do so several times, and you instead spend just as much time here explaining why you won't.

Then there's no indication you are actually interested in what I have to say, even if I do post a synopsis of all my arguments for the Exodus. Rather, this entire exercise of yours is to derail the topic and avoid discussing the current topic, which is the Turin Shroud.

Again, the actual question which you have not addressed is:
"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."

Your question does not track or follow. The title of this thread reads "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?". Genesis, Exodus, etc, are Bible claims. The Shroud is another claim, made OUTSIDE the Bible, for its questionability of being trustworthy or not.

No, the discussion of the resurrection is the capstone topic of this thread. And the TS is presented as artifact evidence of the resurrection, so the discussion of the TS is of central importance to this entire thread.

When I was discussing Exodus, people kept clamoring about the resurrection. Now that I'm discussing the resurrection, now people are clamoring for me to talk about Exodus? I have a suggestion, how about let's just simply talk about what is the current subject and not accuse me of not addressing questions that are not the topic at hand?

Further, again, it gets too messy to jumble this many subtopics into one topic. I have little confidence someone is going to sift through mounds of pages, to see if they can find answers to their specific questions, about various subtopics, in this thread.

Yes, I recognize that. Unfortunately a forum is not a good method to present information in an organized way.

1. Do the Genesis claims need to be true for you to remain in your faith that Jesus rose from a grave to save you?
2. Is it logical to dismiss the Bible as trustworthy, if it should turn out that the Genesis events did not happen? But, maybe still search elsewhere for some other 'creator' agency/agencies?
3. If the Exodus did not happen, does this matter?
4. What claims need to be right to retain your faith? The resurrection alone, or more? If more, how many more, for the Bible to be deemed a trustworthy and reliable document?

Why are these important if I've already stated it is doctrinal issues that are the important issues. And I also stated I believe in a supernatural creation of the universe, global flood, tower of Babel, and Hebrews in Egypt. What else is there that needs to be true in order for Genesis to be accepted as reliable?

1. Do you feel you have 'justified' all claims in Genesis, as being actual events in history?

Why do I need to justify all claims in Genesis?

2. And if so, do you use the same standard for these claims, as you would do for any presented claim(s) from antiquity (outside the Bible)?

All claims I've made I've backed up with empirical evidence, and primarily from secular sources. So the standard I've used is no different than anything else used outside the Bible.

I'll tell you what, one thing I wish I could've spent more time debating is the conquest of Canaan. I'd be more than happy to debate you on that after this thread is completed.

I'm not going to hold my breath

With that response, I have no confidence then you have any interest in having a reasonable debate with me.

As I stated prior, if you care not to present your point(s), to suggest an Exodus even happened, then maybe you are not confident that such presented 'evidence' is truly worthy?

The issue is rather you do not want to read through the "wall of text" that I've already presented.

Because again, if you have extensively presented your case, then you should be able to rattle off point after point, without spending too much time doing so.

Again I ask, if I did provide a single source that gave a synopsis of all my arguments for the Exodus, would that resolve your issue?

Just like I do for the topics I've studied and feel I can support in this arena. Remember, this is a debate. If you feel you have answers to a topic, it should not require too much time defending your position. Debaters do it all the time, in debates

That would apply if I have not addressed Exodus already. However, I have already addressed it over many pages.

If you were to wage an excellent case for the Exodus, or flood, or Tower of Babel, or other, virtually no one will know. Why? It's lost in a sea of other stuff, in this convoluted mess of a topic filled with many subtopcs.

Well, I have been considering writing a book about it to present it in a more organized manner.

Case/point, I created an Exodus topic, because I would never have guessed it exists here, as a subtopic.

Then you can continue to debate it in your thread and ignore I said anything over here in this thread about Exodus.

The title of your topic does not suggest anything about an Exodus. Further, if I were not to ask you, I would never have known the Exodus was in here -- (somewhere, scattered)?

It does say why we should trust the Bible. And they can then read a comprehensive series of arguments why it should be considered trustworthy without finding all the threads scattered throughout the forum.

Case/point, you say you are working on the Shroud, and yet, here we are, not discussing the Shroud

And I wonder who's fault is that...

I've been trying to veer this back to the TS and yet everyone keeps trying to derail the topic. And will anybody try to stay on topic? Doesn't appear that way.

[otseng]

Whether or not divorcees are Christian isn't the issue. The issue is the irreconcilable difference between why Jesus says divorce was allowed and why Moses says it was allowed.

Jesus already explained this:

Matthew 19:3-8 (NIV)

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

[otseng]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2406]

And what is the relevance with this photo to the TS?

It's from the area and time of King David.

And how is that relevant to the TS?

[otseng]

The TS is claimed to be almost 2000 years old. Is it even possible for a linen cloth to last so long?

Yes, linen fabric can last a long time. We have many linen cloth that are even older than the TS.

Mummy bandage inscribed with a falcon.
1000–945 B.C.
Henettawy's unembalmed body was wrapped in bandages of fine linen, inscribed in places with protective emblems. This fringed square bears the figure of a falcon holding a flail, a sign used previously for royal linen and an indication of high quality.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/559647

As a matter of fact, any museum that have Egyptian mummies have old linen.

In ancient Egypt, linen was a valuable commodity used for clothing, bedding, blankets, cushions and other purposes. when it became too worn to be used by the living, it was put asside and used for mummification. In general, the bandages used to wrap a mummy were torn from old old linen sheets, but a number of the bandages from Tutankhamun's embalming cache, including this one that has a selvedge edge on both sides, were specially woven for this purpose.

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/548838

Linen was one essential component for the mummification process. Evidence for linen production in Egypt appears in the archaeological record as early as 5,000 BCE. Linen was used to wrap the corpse as early as the First Dynasty, and from that time forward, the use of these wrappings evolved over time to produce what we think of as a typically wrapped Egyptian mummy. Linen wrappings were also used in the production of animal mummies (Figure 15). By the fourth century BCE a new funerary tradition emerged that saw spells from the Book of the Dead being written directly on narrow linen bandages that were wrapped around the mummified body. In so doing, these magical funerary spells were placed directly on (and in fact, encircling) the body, further ensuring that the deceased would have access to this protection after death. Many examples of these inscribed linen bandages seem to have come from cemeteries in the northern part of Egypt, particularly in the areas of Memphis and Herakleopolis

https://www.glencairnmuseum.org/newslet ... collection



Flax fibers have been discovered that even claim to be 34,000 years old.

A team of archaeologists and paleobiologists has discovered flax fibers that are more than 34,000 years old, making them the oldest fibers known to have been used by humans. The fibers, discovered during systematic excavations in a cave in the Republic of Georgia, are described in this week’s issue of Science.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/ ... iscovered/

Linen can last so long because it is not prone to moth and insects and has high resistance to bacteria.

Flax fibres are not attacked by moth grubs, which require keratin to feed on, and other
insects tend to avoid flax if they can because of its hardness.
When boiled or bleached, flax has a high resistance to bacteriological attack. Under
certain conditions of warmth, dampness and contamination, micro-organisms may attack
cellulose, notably cotton, but flax fibres will resist damage well if kept dry. The most
important factor in the preservation from decay would seem to be the purity of the fibre
and the effectiveness of the bleach. Contaminants remaining from the plant would be
likely to be breeding grounds for bacteria.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf

Linen is also three times stronger than cotton.

Made from fibers that are sourced from the stems of flax plants, linen is three times stronger than cotton

https://worldlinen.com/blogs/news/4-rea ... flax-linen

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2405

Jesus already explained this

And I explained, citing several verses from Deuteronomy, how Jesus' explanation is at odds with what the law of Moses says.

[Diogenes]

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

This thread has gone on too long without having its central premise challenged. I write this in part because, despite the title question, the author has done his best to attempt to prove the Bible IS inerrant, at least in regard to the major myths of the Torah (world wide flood, Tower of Babel, the Exodus. To the author's satisfaction he has proved these stories true. To the skeptic, he has proved none.

But what I want to address is the problem with the very premise that underlies the apparent need to prove these myths are true. Unfortunately the doctrine of the "inerrancy" of scripture is usually coupled with the mistaken belief the stories of the Bible must be taken literally. This view does a disservice to science, history, and to the Bible. From the obviously allegorical creation story, to the Tower of Babel, the World Wide Flood, and the Exodus, these accounts should not, and were not intended to be taken literally. This error results in both bad science & history and to bad Biblical interpretation.

As Conrad Hyers writes in an essay that should be read in its entirety,

The attempt to do a literal reading of Genesis cannot, in fact, be consistently pursued. And it is not, in actual practice. Creationists are literalists up to a point, but when their particular line of interpretation runs into an insurmountable difficulty they take that particular item "metaphorically," or concoct some fanciful explanation which is far more symbolic than the interpretation they are attempting to avoid. The rule of thumb seems to be to take everything as literally as possible: give in only as a last resort. Thus the assumption is that religious truth equals literal meaning, when in most contexts the opposite is the case: religious truth equals symbolic meaning. The first questions in interpreting the text are never clearly asked: What kind of literature and linguistic usage is involved, what did the author intend, and what issues are being addressed?
....
The interest of the Genesis authors was not strictly and solely historical. In the first place they were concerned with collecting and preserving the stories that were an ancient part of the Jewish heritage, handed down largely by oral tradition. They were also concerned with arranging these stories in their relative historical order, so there is a sense of chronology and historical movement operative.
....
... the great stories are not concerned with providing a miscellany of information or ready-made answers for inquisitive children. They were understood as vehicles of the most basic and important truths of all by which people organized, regulated, and interpreted their lives, and through which they saw meaning, purpose, and value in their existence. Myths and legends, together with rituals, provided the overarching frame of reference within which to live and experience and celebrate the world. As such they are not superseded by modem science or historiography, for they belong to a different level of meaning and expression. Insofar as there is an explanatory element in the stories, such as the origin of languages in a divine judgment on building the Tower of Babel, this may be supplanted by later understandings of linguistic development. But the central religious affirmations can neither be supplanted nor supported by subsequent knowledge, any more than Sophocles' Oedipus is replaced by Freud's Totem and Taboo or Michaelangelo's Pieta by NASA's moonlander.
https://ncse.ngo/genesis-knows-nothing- ... reationism


There is much more in Hyers' essay that could be included here, but it probably deserves its own subtopic, or is more appropriately addressed in "The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally" viewtopic.php?p=1093045#p1093045

[otseng]

This thread has gone on too long without having its central premise challenged.

The central premise has been challenged multiple times in this thread, you are not the first.

I write this in part because, despite the title question, the author has done his best to attempt to prove the Bible IS inerrant, at least in regard to the major myths of the Torah (world wide flood, Tower of Babel, the Exodus.

Where have I claimed the major myths in the Bible are inerrant? Please cite the post where I've stated this.

To the author's satisfaction he has proved these stories true. To the skeptic, he has proved none.

Where have I stated I've proved anything? Again, please cite where I've stated this.

As to the skeptic, I argue it doesn't matter what evidence is produced to confirm the truth of Christianity or the Bible, it will all be automatically rejected, no matter how much evidence is produced. Here, we have one of the longest threads in the entire forum and I've presented multiple rational arguments with evidential support. How much evidence is necessary to sway the skeptic? Instead, the response from skeptics have been mocking, fallacious arguments, personal attacks, repeating assertions of baseless claims, and continual attempts at derailing the discussion.

But what I want to address is the problem with the very premise that underlies the apparent need to prove these myths are true.

Again, I'm not out to prove anything, but to demonstrate it is entirely reasonable to accept the Bible is trustworthy.

Unfortunately the doctrine of the "inerrancy" of scripture is usually coupled with the mistaken belief the stories of the Bible must be taken literally.

Actually it's kinda the opposite, I do not hold to inerrancy, but I do take many claims of the Bible to be historically accurate.

This view does a disservice to science, history, and to the Bible. From the obviously allegorical creation story, to the Tower of Babel, the World Wide Flood, and the Exodus, these accounts should not, and were not intended to be taken literally. This error results in both bad science & history and to bad Biblical interpretation.

Disservice to the Bible? That's a strange claim. It might be a disservice to the skeptics' view of the Bible since they want to view the Bible as pure fiction, and if anything comes to challenge that, then it's a disservice to their belief.

As Conrad Hyers writes in an essay that should be read in its entirety, [/size]

As I've noted already, a literal interpretation of Genesis is not a necessary requirement to be a Christian or to accept the Bible as authoritative.

I do believe Adam, global flood, etc to be literal events. But, there are true born-again Christians that love Jesus that do not believe these to be literal events. Are they still going to heaven? Yes. So, ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Christian takes these literally or figuratively.

It's my personal belief that I believe in a global flood. I do not claim, nor believe, that belief in a global flood is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative. There are many Christians that do not believe in a global flood and still are saved. But, for myself, if the Bible makes such a large claim of a global flood and it is actually not true, then it makes the Bible more suspect. Judging from how many have clamored for me to debate these, it looks like we all feel the same way.