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

[Adonai Yahweh]

Please explain how a document can verify itself.

1. The bible is written by more than 40 different men , written on 3 continents , in 3 different languages which all saying the same thing .
2. The bible contains prophecy that has been fulfilled .
3. The bible has power and authority , there are many people that have had a positively impacted from the bible . Like drug addicts , criminals etc .
4. Through archaeological evidence and extra biblical writings, the historical accounts of the Bible proved time and again to be accurate and true .
5. The integrity of the authors , these men willing died excruciating deaths for the bible
6. The Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists, the Bible has withstood a constant onslaught from detractors. Yet it endures and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
7. The teachings of the bible can personally be applied and is also an inclusive religion where it doesn't require you to be of a certain racial and cultural background to practice in, and people have the opportunity to be leaders or stewards of the church regardless of gender or race

[brunumb]

Please explain how a document can verify itself.

1. The bible is written by more than 40 different men , written on 3 continents , in 3 different languages which all saying the same thing .
2. The bible contains prophecy that has been fulfilled .
3. The bible has power and authority , there are many people that have had a positively impacted from the bible . Like drug addicts , criminals etc .
4. Through archaeological evidence and extra biblical writings, the historical accounts of the Bible proved time and again to be accurate and true .
5. The integrity of the authors , these men willing died excruciating deaths for the bible
6. The Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists, the Bible has withstood a constant onslaught from detractors. Yet it endures and is still today the most widely published book in the world.
7. The teachings of the bible can personally be applied and is also an inclusive religion where it doesn't require you to be of a certain racial and cultural background to practice in, and people have the opportunity to be leaders or stewards of the church regardless of gender or race

NONE of which verifies that it is God's word.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to brunumb in post #2612]

5. The integrity of the authors , these men willing died excruciating deaths for the bible

Aside from the Bible, do you have any historical citations that refer to "excruciating deaths" suffered by persons who WILLINGLY allowed themselves to be killed rather than recant their beliefs?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Adonai Yahweh in post #2611]

3. The bible has power and authority , there are many people that have had a positively impacted from the bible . Like drug addicts , criminals etc .

Many people have been positively impacted by getting new jobs, finding love, practicing numerous belief systems etc.

[JoeyKnothead]

What part of this referenced example can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

The scripture that I stated in English and Greek confirm that it is Gods word go and read those scriptures

How do they confirm the words attributed to god are God's words?

If I said, "God says y'all gotta do what I say", would you consider my declaration as God's words?

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #2612]

5. The integrity of the authors , these men willing died excruciating deaths for the bible

Aside from the Bible, do you have any historical citations that refer to "excruciating deaths" suffered by persons who WILLINGLY allowed themselves to be killed rather than recant their beliefs?

You need to ask Adonai Yahweh that question. I quoted his post in my response. That said, how can we testify to the integrity of the authors when we don't even know who most of them were?

[JoeyKnothead]

You need to ask Adonai Yahweh that question. I quoted his post in my response. That said, how can we testify to the integrity of the authors when we don't even know who most of them were?

It just happens they shared the name Anon.

[otseng]

I agree it's a debating forum. But if you were to be arguing for a Flat Earth, or Big Foot, you could expect the same outcome:

1. Flat Earther presents data.
2. People tell him he's wrong based on relavant data
3. Flat Earther does Gish Gallop and presents a never ending stream of irrelevant data, cherry picked studies, etc. - all while saying that the other science is wrong
4. People lose interest because they aren't interested in disproving something so obviously wrong.
5. Flat Earther declares victory by saying no one has refuted him.

I'm not arguing for a Flat Earth either. It would be easy to argue against an Earth that is flat and not spherical. The evidence can readily be produced to refute this. And if the TS is a fake, then it should be easy to produce this evidence as well. And why can't skeptics argue on the basis of evidence instead of bringing up Big Foot and Flat Earth?

[otseng]

Here are my claims...

1. We do not have an image of Jesus with which we can compare to the shroud for confirmation.
Do you accept or reject this claim?
2. We do not have a blood sample from Jesus with which to compare to the shroud for confirmation.
Do you accept or reject this claim?
3. We have no means of confirming how a virgin female can produce a y chromosome.
Do you accept or reject this claim?

First off, as you've noted, these are claims, not evidence. So, again, you've never produced any evidence, despite the sheer number of times I've asked for it.

Yes, all these claims are true, but they are red herring arguments. As I've mentioned before, these are not the standard accepted practice of historians, or even science for that matter. Do we have an image of any historical figure for comparison? Do we have a blood sample of the first human ancestor? Do we have any confirmation of how the universe got started?

There are no shroud skeptics that have used your line of reasoning, or even in any other areas of history or science.

My evidence in this matter is based on logic, of which, this site allows for such form.

It is not evidence. It is a claim.

What part of my position do you find so irrational?

As mentioned before, we are playing on two different courts.

Again, we're playing on different courts. I'm playing on the advanced level where serious debates occur. If you want to join, please do. But don't expect me to play on the kiddie courts.

I'm playing serious tennis here, whereas you are on the kiddie court and saying, "Hey, you can't play tennis with this bowling ball, so you aren't a good tennis player." Sure, I can't hit the bowling bowl back with my racquet, but neither can any other tennis player.

Does anybody have an image of any prehistoric animal? Well, since no image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed.

Does anybody have a blood sample of the first human ancestor? Since we don't, human evolution has not been confirmed.

Has anybody demonstrated abiogenesis is true? Since, nobody has ever demonstrated that abiogenesis is true, therefore evolution is wrong.

I've never made a claim about the shroud about a virgin birth. Yes, the Bible mentions a virgin birth, but it is not a necessary condition for the TS to exist. Remember, I'm not assuming the inerrancy of the Bible here. The virgin birth could be false and it would not affect the TS one way or the other.

What you need to do is address my arguments. I've laid out my case in:
viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

Give direct counterarguments to my case. Provide evidence it was a produced by a medieval artist. Provide evidence it could not be authentic. Then you'll be playing serious tennis.

[otseng]

Congratulations! You have perfectly set out the old, "Shoot the arrow at the barn and paint the bullseye around it" argument.
Your 'exhibits' are meaningless because the image on the Cloth of Turin was fabricated to the very specifications the fabricator gleaned from the gospels because his purpose was to do just that; create a 'relic' that appeared to fit the gospel accounts as he understood them.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Are you talking about my discussion of the provenance of the shroud? If so, I've never claimed I've used that as evidence for the authenticity of the shroud.

Next, I'll be going into the provenance of the shroud. Knowing the history of the shroud is not a necessary condition for my arguments on the authenticity of the shroud. But, it would satisfy intellectual curiosity of how the shroud traveled from Jerusalem to Lirey, France.

The analysis of the possible route will be assuming the shroud is authentic. If anyone wants to argue it's not authentic, address my summary of arguments on the Shroud of Turin and not on things posted about the provenance of the TS.