How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2911

Post by otseng »

The skeptics charge the disciples invented the story of the resurrection after Jesus died. But, on what evidence do skeptics base this on? Actually, the evidence is contrary to the assertion and the disciples wouldn't invent a story of a resurrection. Instead, when Jesus died, he was just another failed messiah that did not fulfill their expectations as a savior.

The disciples abandoned Jesus when the tough got going. Once they realized their hope of Jesus as the Messiah overthrowing the Romans would not be fulfilled, they deserted him. Even Peter vehemently denied knowing Jesus three time after he witnessed him being brutally beaten by the guards and doing nothing to save himself. None of the disciples were recorded to have been at his death sentence and witness his crucifixion. After his death, in John 21, the disciples gathered wondering what to do next at the Sea of Galilee. Peter was not thinking about how to build the church with him being the rock. Instead, he went back to fishing. To them at that point, he was just another failed messiah.

History has been full of failed and false messiahs, from ancient history to modern history.
Several Jewish rebels and military leaders lived in the 1st century, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas, Simon of Peraea, and Athronges, all of whom are only documented by Josephus in surviving accounts. None of them was explicitly stated to have been thought of as a Messiah but some scholars make this as an inference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... _claimants
From Josephus it appears that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers.
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/arti ... o-messiahs
Jews have long believed in the eventual coming of a Messiah — someone who will bring about a new period of true redemption for the Jewish people — and many in the possibility of predicting when he will come and who he will be. Over the last two millennia, the arrival of the Messiah has been predicted many times — always incorrectly, and often with disastrous results for the wider community.

By the late Second Temple period, references to the Messiah had proliferated throughout Jewish writings. As the Greco-Roman empire subjected the Jews to harsh and anti-Semitic decrees, there was a renewed sense of urgency to find a leader who would bring respite from suffering.

Understandably, this increase in messianic discussion brought an increase in messianic predictions and even the coronation of certain people as the Messiah. During the first few centuries of the Common Era, there would be scores of individuals claiming to be moshiach, the vast majority of them never able to amass any type of following.

Perhaps the most famous of all the false messiahs was Shabbetai Zevi, an early modern charismatic Jew who lived in the early Ottoman empire. Building off Kabbalistic messianic traditions, Zevi started to gain a following to whom he would teach esoteric and mystical Jewish ideas. As his following grew, Shabbetai Zevi began to perform open “miracles”, publicly chant the name of God, and eventually declare himself the Messiah. At first few accepted this messianic declaration but over time a variety of well-known Kabbalistic leaders embraced this young moshiach. Towards the end of his life, Zevi was imprisoned by the Islamic hegemony and given an ultimatum: be killed or convert to Islam. As he chose the later, thousands of his own followers also converted while others looked to the creation of a different religious movement known as Sabbatianism.

For every example of a false Messiah written about here, there are dozens of examples not mentioned. In times of hardship and fervor, Jews have repeatedly believed the Messiah was identifiable and at hand — only to be disappointed. A detailed account of all the false Jewish Messiahs recorded in history could fill a book, and this precludes the mention of hundreds of claimants lost to the dustbin of history. While the setting and scope of each of these stories widely differ, they are united by failure and false hope — the vast majority causing death and destruction, loss of property, or conversion.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... n-judaism/
Shabbtai Zvi wasn't the first or last Jew to claim to be the Messiah. In fact, there have been many Jewish and non-Jewish messianic claimants throughout history. And it's not just something that happened a long time ago in the ancient world. Every year, as many as a hundred people succumb to what's known as Jerusalem Syndrome, a type of psychosis that causes some who visit Jerusalem to have messianic delusions, often wrapping themselves up in white hotel sheets and wandering around the city saying Messiah-like things. Even Homer Simpson falls victim in an episode of the long-running animated TV show where the family visits Israel.
https://www.associationforjewishstudies ... transcript

None of these failed messiahs in history really had any significant and long lasting impact after the death of their leader, except for one, and that of course would be Jesus. So the question is what can account for the difference? Out of all the failed messiahs in history, why should the case be different for Jesus?

Derreck Bennett on MythVision addresses the question, "Josephus mentions many failed messiahs whose movements died with them. Why would a failed apocalyptic prophet who met a humiliating death be different?" His answered, "Why is it that this happened to Jesus and none of these other fellow messiahs? To be completely honest with you, I don't know. For sure all I would say is that oftentimes just the right person right place right time."



So, again, we have the typical agnostic response of "I don't know". If you compare this explanation with the Christian explanation, it is obvious the Christian explanation has more explanatory power.

Then he adds, "Oftentimes it's just a matter of Darwinian natural selection." This doesn't really explain anything more than simply saying the truism that whatever is the outcome is the result of being the best outcome.

He further adds, "What happened here with Jesus is utterly unique therefore it must be true. That's just a non-sequitur." The logic used by apologists is not because he was an unique failed messiah, therefore Jesus rose from the dead. The logic is what is the cause of the difference between Jesus and all other messiahs where Jesus made such an impact on history and all others did not? I actually agree that Jesus came at the right place and the right time. J Warner Wallace's book, Person of Interest, is a good book that goes into this. The difference between Jesus and all other failed messiahs is that he did something else that nobody else was able to do - he rose from the dead.

The resurrection account of the Bible has the explanatory power to account for the turn around of the disappointed disciples into believers and to initiate a revolution in world history. All other failed messiahs in history had nothing comparable to motivate their disciples after their leader died.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2912

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2910
Actually, it should be "Faith comes by seeing, and seeing by the Shroud of Turin". O:)
otseng wrote:The Shroud of Turin is the extraordinary evidence that supports the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Remember this, which I mentioned earlier?

"Divers in the Netherlands explored the wreck of a ship from the 1600s back in 2014, but revealed one of the unique finds in 2016: a fantastically preserved silk dress that somehow survived the ravages of both time and water."

There are numerous remarkable phenomena which raise intriguing questions. Look at how long it took for someone to come up with a viable solution to the mystery of the sliding stones of Death Valley. With all this going on all the time, the Turin cloth isn't that "extraordinary".

And it doesn't matter if the garment in question hasn't been studied as intensely as the Turin cloth. If it is studied further and a reasonable answer comes forth, it will just indicate that the same will likely be true of the Turin cloth, just as it was with the sliding stones.

There are many things Jesus said about the law of Moses. The question is whose interpretation is correct? The Pharisees', Sadducees', ours', or Jesus'?
It isn't about any interpretation. It's about what the law of Moses says.

Jesus already explained why Moses gave the law of divorce, because of the hardness of peoples' hearts.
That's what he claims, but it's refuted by what Moses says in the law.

There is no misquoting of the law from Jesus. The religious people back then (and even now) were more concerned with the letter of the law, whereas Jesus was focusing on the heart of the law.
According to Deut. 4:2, 11:13 and 13:18, following the letter of the law was the heart of the law. And Jesus certainly can't justify his departure from the letter of the law in light of what he says in Matthew 5:18-19.

Jesus came to fulfill the law, not to abolish the law.
How do you fulfill a law by insinuating that the lawgiver wasn't forthcoming about why the law was given?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2913

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jul 16, 2023 12:05 pm There are numerous remarkable phenomena which raise intriguing questions. Look at how long it took for someone to come up with a viable solution to the mystery of the sliding stones of Death Valley. With all this going on all the time, the Turin cloth isn't that "extraordinary".
There are many things historians and scientists cannot explain from the past. Even the most simple things they say, "I don't know." So, the shroud is not exceptional because it is also an artifact that cannot be explained. What other artifact has been studied so much? What other artifact testifies to the central claims of Christianity?
There are many things Jesus said about the law of Moses. The question is whose interpretation is correct? The Pharisees', Sadducees', ours', or Jesus'?
It isn't about any interpretation. It's about what the law of Moses says.
It's about the interpretation of what the law of Moses says. At the time of Jesus, there were at a minimum two ways the law could be interpreted by the Jews - the Pharisaical and Sadducaical. There were also the Essenes' views and the Zealots' views, though their views were not explicitly stated in the Bible. Among Christians, there are a myriad of ways the law is interpreted. Just on the topic of divorce alone there are many views.
Jesus already explained why Moses gave the law of divorce, because of the hardness of peoples' hearts.
That's what he claims, but it's refuted by what Moses says in the law.
If you agree that's what Jesus claimed, then why should your claim of what is in the law take precedence over Jesus' claim?
According to Deut. 4:2, 11:13 and 13:18, following the letter of the law was the heart of the law.
Here are the verses:

Deut 4:2 (KJV)
2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [aught] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deut 11:13 (KJV)
13 And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto my commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul,

Deut 13:18 (KJV)
18 When thou shalt hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep all his commandments which I command thee this day, to do [that which is] right in the eyes of the LORD thy God.

Again, it's your interpretation, it's not what the text explicitly says. Further, I've never heard from anyone say that it is the letter of the law that we should follow.
How do you fulfill a law by insinuating that the lawgiver wasn't forthcoming about why the law was given?
One reason the law was given was because God had delivered them Egypt.

Exod 20:2 (KJV)
2 I [am] the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

I think fundamentally, what you are espousing is a wooden interpretation of the Bible. Every single word in the Bible must be inerrant, interpreted literally, and given absolute equal weight. This is not the only way to interpret the Bible.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2914

Post by otseng »

Another possible indirect reference to the post-resurrection shroud is in Acts 1:3.

Acts 1:3 (KJV)
To whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

"Infallible proof" is tekmērion (τεκμήριον).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

The word is used only once in the Bible.

Definition of tekmērion:
- that from which something is surely and plainly known
- on indubitable evidence, a proof
Tekmērion – a necessarily valid sign. “On Rhetoric” 1.2.16: “In the case of signs [sēmeia], some are related as the particular to the universal, some as the universal to the particular. Of these, a necessary sign is a tekmērion”

A subset of signs (sēmeia), a tekmērion is necessary in forming a “[logically valid] syllogism” (Aristotle 43). It is an irrefutable sign and relates the universal to the particular (whereas sēmeia inversely relate the particular to the universal, and therefore are refutable); for example, “if someone were to state that there is a sign that someone is sick, for he has a fever, or that a woman has given birth, for she has milk, that is a necessary sign” (Aristotle 43). And “to denote ‘proof’ Pernot groups tekmērion with the other Greek pistis, eikos, and sēmeion.” To chart the semantic transfer of terms, he notes that Latin uses “argumentum, probabile, signum [to denote proof] without precisely matching one Latin word to one Greek word, but bringing into play resources proper to the Latin language.” Moreover, he states that Latin words “often took over the meanings of the Greek they were matching … [and] it was from Latin that the rhetorical terminology of modern Western languages mostly derived” (103–104).
http://greekrhetoricalterms.pbworks.com ... %C4%93rion

"many" is polys (πολύς).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

It can be translated as many, much, great, large, strong.

Words that start with poly:
- polygon
- polymer
- polygamy
- polytheism

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/words ... -with-poly

Other translations of the passage:

(AMP)
To them also He showed Himself alive after His passion (His suffering in the garden and on the cross) by [a series of] many convincing demonstrations [unquestionable evidences and infallible proofs], appearing to them during forty days and talking [to them] about the things of the kingdom of God.

(ESV)
To them he presented himself alive after his suffering by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days and speaking about the kingdom of God.

(Recovery)
To whom also He presented Himself alive after His suffering by many irrefutable proofs, appearing to them through [a period of] forty days and speaking the things concerning the kingdom of God.

(Riverside)
By many proofs he revealed himself to these men as still alive after his sufferings; for he was seen by them for forty days and spoke of things relating to the kingdom of God.

(T4T)
After he had suffered and died on the cross, he became alive again. As he appeared to them often during the next forty days, the apostles saw him many times. He proved to them in many ways that he was alive again. He talked with them about how God would rule [MET] the lives of people who accepted him as their king.

So, what are the many infallible proofs?

The most obvious candidate are the eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus again after he died. But this is just one line of evidence, unless you consider the multitude of eyewitnesses as multiple lines of evidence.

Another way to interpret the passage is the risen Jesus did many things to prove he was alive and was not just a hallucination (eg he could eat, he could be touched). But, this would only apply to those who witnessed it.

I think there could be more to it than these. With the shroud, it could be the additional proof. It is evidence for people who did not see the risen Jesus.

The passage hints there was a general skepticism of Jesus being alive again, even by the disciples. It required "many infallible proofs" to be demonstrated. People in the first century knew that dead people don't come back to life, especially after a brutal torture and crucifixion. Would hearing the testimony from someone else that they saw Jesus alive be convincing? Obviously in all the debates we hear about the resurrection of Jesus, skeptics today do not readily accept this. Why should people in the past be any different? For many, unless they see something with their own eyes, it can be difficult to accept. The shroud would be something they could see with their own eyes.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2915

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2913
There are many things historians and scientists cannot explain from the past. Even the most simple things they say, "I don't know." So, the shroud is not exceptional because it is also an artifact that cannot be explained.
Then no greater claim can be made for it than can be made for any other unexplained phenomenon. Its imagery being connected to a particular religion doesn't mean that it should be accorded special merit.

It's about the interpretation of what the law of Moses says. At the time of Jesus, there were at a minimum two ways the law could be interpreted by the Jews - the Pharisaical and Sadducaical. There were also the Essenes' views and the Zealots' views, though their views were not explicitly stated in the Bible. Among Christians, there are a myriad of ways the law is interpreted.
Was the law of Moses written to be interpreted in myriad ways? If so, then why even call it "law"?

Just on the topic of divorce alone there are many views.
Then Jesus must not have done a very good job of distinguishing between the actual law and "human traditions" which had crept into it. The myriad interpretations can't all be correct.


"That's what he claims, but it's refuted by what Moses says in the law."
If you agree that's what Jesus claimed, then why should your claim of what is in the law take precedence over Jesus' claim?
What I'm saying is in the law is in the law (I cited the specific verses). What Jesus is saying is in the law.....isn't.

Again, it's your interpretation, it's not what the text explicitly says.
But you yourself quoted what the text explicitly says, and in your own quotations it explicitly says what I said it says.

I've never heard from anyone say that it is the letter of the law that we should follow.
I did mention Matthew 5:19.

I think fundamentally, what you are espousing is a wooden interpretation of the Bible. Every single word in the Bible must be inerrant, interpreted literally, and given absolute equal weight. This is not the only way to interpret the Bible.
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me."

How many ways are there to interpret that statement, and how many of those interpretations are legitimate?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2916

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jul 17, 2023 11:41 am Then no greater claim can be made for it than can be made for any other unexplained phenomenon. Its imagery being connected to a particular religion doesn't mean that it should be accorded special merit.
It's on the basis of the sheer amount of scientific, artistic, and historic study of the shroud that makes it unique. There are a myriad of unexplained religious phenomenon, but none approach the TS in the amount of study on it. I don't really care about Our Lady of Guadalupe or having a NDE and going to heaven or statue of Mary crying or the thousands of other unexplained religious claims. However, there is one other that comes in second with the amount of scientific study that I might discuss later.
Was the law of Moses written to be interpreted in myriad ways? If so, then why even call it "law"?
Actually, it's not "Law", but "Torah". There is a huge misunderstanding among Christians, and esp non-Christians, about this distinction. I gave a talk at my church earlier this year about it. Unfortunately they didn't record it, but here are my slides:
https://perimeter-files.s3.amazonaws.co ... he-Law.pdf
Then Jesus must not have done a very good job of distinguishing between the actual law and "human traditions" which had crept into it.
Jesus actually spent a lot of time countering all the legalistic traditions that crept in. This would be an interesting study, but it would be for another thread.
What I'm saying is in the law is in the law (I cited the specific verses). What Jesus is saying is in the law.....isn't.
What do you think the law means?
Again, it's your interpretation, it's not what the text explicitly says.
But you yourself quoted what the text explicitly says, and in your own quotations it explicitly says what I said it says.
It also says what I said it says, it depends on the perspective. I have my interpretation and you have your interpretation. Now, it could be I'm wrong and you're right or it could be vice-versa. But given the position that we should follow the letter of the law is an extreme minority position, you'll need to have significant evidence to support this.
I've never heard from anyone say that it is the letter of the law that we should follow.
I did mention Matthew 5:19.
No doubt we should keep the law. But the questions is should we follow the "letter of the law" or the "spirit of the law"?

Mat 5:19
Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Then Jesus expounds and repeatedly states, "You have heard that it was said by old time ... but I say to you". For example:

Mat 5:21 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

The letter of the law says to not kill. But Jesus taught on the spirit behind the law and says if anyone is even angry with another is liable to judgment.
I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me.

How many ways are there to interpret that statement, and how many of those interpretations are legitimate?
There's probably a lot more to that verse than anyone can imagine.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2917

Post by otseng »

Another passage with an indirect reference to the shroud could be Acts 10:11:

Acts 10:11 (KJV)
And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/act/10/11/s_1028011

Sheet is othonē (ὀθόνη) - G3607

It means a linen cloth.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

Other translations:

(AMP)
And he saw the sky opened and something like a great sheet lowered by the four corners, descending to the earth.

(EBR)
And he beholdeth heaven opened, and, corning down, a kind of vessel, like a large linen cloth, by its four corners, being let down upon the earth,

(ISV)
and saw heaven open and something like a large linen sheet coming down, being lowered by its four corners to the ground.

(TPT)
As the heavenly realm opened up, he saw something resembling a large linen tablecloth that descended from above, being let down to the earth by its four corners.

Luke and John uses a similar word, othonion, in reference to the burial shroud.

othonion - G3608
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

Luk 24:12
Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

Jhn 19:40
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.

So, the large linen cloth in Acts 10:11 fits the physical description of the burial shroud.

The most common interpretation of the vision is God is saying to preach to the Gentiles, who were classified as "common or unclean".

Act 10:14
But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.

This is how Peter interpreted the vision.

Act 10:28
And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

Though this interpretation is correct, I think there could be additional meanings in the vision.

As I mentioned earlier, there were several factors influencing how they viewed the post-resurrection shroud. The post-resurrection shroud was considered unclean since it touched a dead body and was covered with blood. I'm sure Peter was wondering what to make of the shroud. Keep it buried? Hide it? Maybe burn it? With the vision Peter saw, God was revealing the shroud should not be considered unclean and can be used as an instrument to reach others, in particular the Gentiles.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2918

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2916
There are a myriad of unexplained religious phenomenon, but none approach the TS in the amount of study on it.
Again, the amount of study doesn't matter. The sliding stones of Death Valley were studied for years before a viable solution was suggested.

Actually, it's not "Law", but "Torah".
The word "torah" means "law".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

What do you think the law means?
I would say that the law of Moses means what it says and doesn't mean what it doesn't say, and it doesn't say that divorce was allowed because anyone's "hearts were hard".

Then Jesus expounds and repeatedly states, "You have heard that it was said by old time ... but I say to you".
Yeah----check this one out:

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill to the Lord the vows you have made.’ But I tell you, do not swear an oath at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything beyond this comes from the evil one." (Matthew 5:33-37)

He says that they had heard that this was said.

But who said it?

"Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands: When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said." (Numbers 30:1-2)

Another addition to the law of Moses, violating the law's command not to add to it.


"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
There's probably a lot more to that verse than anyone can imagine.
What's the bare minimum it should be taken to mean?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2919

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Jul 18, 2023 10:50 pm Again, the amount of study doesn't matter. The sliding stones of Death Valley were studied for years before a viable solution was suggested.
Of course the amount of study matters. It's extraordinary for the shroud to attract scientists to even study the shroud. Do we see that with any other religious artifact? None comes close. Why would non-religious scientists even want to study it? Why has the study of it lead many of them to believe it's authentic? Why has the shroud generated so many peer-reviewed articles, papers, conferences, books, journals, etc?

Joe Marino has cataloged the areas of scientific study has been done on the shroud so far:
aerodynamics, anatomy, anthropology, applied mathematics, archaeology atomic resolution studies, bacteriology, biochemistry, capillarity, botany, chemistry, computer eidology, computer technology, criminology, digital imaging processing, elasticity, electrical engineering, electron microscopy, endocrinology, entomology, epistemology, ethnology, forensic medicine, geochemistry, glycobiology, hematology, hermeneutics, high voltages, image recognition, immunology, information theory, infrared photography, inorganic chemistry, intelligent design/engineering, kinematics of rigid bodies, legal medicine, linguistics, logic, mass spectrometry, materials engineering, mechanical dissipation, mechanical engineering, mechanics of fluids, medicine, microchemistry, microscopy, molecular biology, molecular flows in porous media, molecular physics, musicology, mycology, nuclear physics, numismatics, ontology, optical microscopy, optics, organic chemistry, palaeography, palinology, pathology, philosophy of science, photography, photomicrography, physiology, plasticity, polarized image overlay technique, properties of porous media, probability and statistics, radiography, radiology, reverse engineering, rheology, SEM, microscopy, shape reconstruction, spectral analysis, spectroscopy, stress analysis, systems engineering, thermodynamics, thermography, traumatology, uncertainty analysis, UV photography, volconology, volumetric anatomical analysis, X-radiography, white light photography
https://www.academia.edu/81353305/The_P ... d_of_Turin
Actually, it's not "Law", but "Torah".
The word "torah" means "law".

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/
Law is only one of the meanings. From your source, it is "law, direction, instruction".

Let's see what Jews have to say on what the Torah means:
In ancient times, the word “torah” wasn’t a proper noun at all, or even necessarily a Jewish word — it was simply a Hebrew word that meant instruction and could refer to something as simple as a parent’s directive to a child.

The Hebrew word torah literally means direction or instruction. The root, yod-resh-hey (ירה), originally likely meant to throw or shoot an arrow. The noun torah is rendered in a causative conjugation, which is just a way of saying that it literally means to cause something (or someone) to move straight and true. A torah is therefore something that directs, having connotations of offering strong and virtuous guidance.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... orah-mean/
The word Torah literally means “instruction”—meaning some sort of guidance in life.
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... /Torah.htm
The Torah, or Jewish Written Law, consists of the five books of the Hebrew Bible – known more commonly to non-Jews as the “Old Testament” – that were given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai and include within them all of the biblical laws of Judaism. The Torah is also known as the Chumash, Pentateuch, or Five Books of Moses.

The word “Torah” has multiple meanings, including a scroll made from kosher animal parchment, with the entire text of the Five Books of Moses written on it; the text of the Five Books of Moses, written in any format; and the term “Torah” can mean the entire corpus of Jewish law. This includes the Written and the Oral Law.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/th ... -law-torah
In its broadest sense, Torah is sometimes used to refer to the vast library of Jewish text. More specifically Torah usually refers to the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These books make up the story of the Jewish people. These ancient stories touch upon science, history, philosophy, ritual and ethics. Included are stories of individuals, families, wars, slavery and more. Virtually no subject was taboo for Torah. Running through these stories is the unique lens through which the Jewish people would come to view their world and their God.
https://www.reformjudaism.org/learning/ ... -tree-life

Yes, one of the definitions of Torah is law, but it is much larger than that. In the strict sense, it is just the 5 books of Moses. Yet in these books, it obviously contains more than laws, but also history, narrative, genealogies, poetry, etc. In the widest sense, it contains all the written and oral traditions of the Jews.

The problem is a translation issue. When they created the Septuagint, the translators had to pick a Greek word for Torah. They chose nomos. This unfortunately does not fully capture what Torah means. But it was the only Greek word that came close. Nomos was carried into the New Testament to refer to the Torah as well.
The translators of the Septuagint (LXX) when translating the Torah (specifically the five books of Torah) translated the Hebrew word Torah as “nomos” 200 out of the 220 times that it is found in the Pentateuch.
https://torahfocus.com/index.php/white- ... law-is-it/

English readers of the Bible have been stifled by our understanding of the Torah when we simply view it as "law".
Bruce points out that Hakham Shaul uses “nomos” in four ways.

- The Law of G-d
- Torah specifically the Pentateuch
- The “Tanakh”
- The Oral Torah
- Principle

Missing from Bruce’s explanations are other meanings of the Hebrew word “Torah.” For example, Torah also means…

- Instruction
- Directive
- Mitzvah
- Choq (supra-rational laws)
- Mishpat (judgments, specifically from a Bet Din)
- Halakhah
- Divine teachings, revelation of the Divine will
- Prophetic moral exhortations
- Rule
- Guide

We cannot read this list as being exhaustive. The concept of “Torah” is by far more far reaching that any simple definition.
https://torahfocus.com/index.php/white- ... law-is-it/
In light of these distinctions, it is unfortunate that the ancient Jewish translators of the Scriptures (i.e., the Septuagint) chose to use the word "law" (i.e., nomos) for the word Torah, since this can lead to essential misunderstanding about the meaning of the Torah.
https://hebrew4christians.com/Articles/ ... torah.html
What do you think the law means?
I would say that the law of Moses means what it says and doesn't mean what it doesn't say, and it doesn't say that divorce was allowed because anyone's "hearts were hard".
As I argued above, the Torah is much more than a set of legal documents. More properly, it is instructions and guidance from a large body of Hebrew tradition.

It's like the difference between traffic laws and a car manual. Christians commonly view it as strictly to be the former. Instead, I argue it should be more viewed as the latter.
But who said it?

"Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: “This is what the Lord commands: When a man makes a vow to the Lord or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said." (Numbers 30:1-2)
Of course Moses said it. And it's also obvious Jesus expounded on it.
Another addition to the law of Moses, violating the law's command not to add to it.
Jews have been doing this all the time. Strictly speaking the Torah is just the 5 books of Moses. But the Torah has expanded to the entire Hebrew Bible and also into the Mishnah and Talmud and oral traditions.
"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man cometh unto the Father but by me."
There's probably a lot more to that verse than anyone can imagine.
What's the bare minimum it should be taken to mean?
There is no other way to God except through Jesus Christ. Jesus is the way to the Father. Jesus alone is the truth. Jesus is the source of all life.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2920

Post by otseng »

Another reference I believe could be a reference to Jesus' burial clothes is Acts 19:12.

Act 19:11-12
And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: So that from his body were brought unto the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the evil spirits went out of them.

https://simple.uniquebibleapp.com/bible ... /19#v19_11

Handkerchief is soudarion (σουδάριον).

"a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse"

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

This word is also used in John 20:7 to refer to the napkin that wrapped Jesus' head in the tomb.

Jhn 20:7
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/20/7/s_1017007

Apron is simikinthion (σιμικίνθιον).

"a narrow apron, or linen covering, which workmen and servants were accustomed to wear"

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

This word is only used once in the Bible.

The word is of Latin origin from semicinctium.

"narrow girdle, narrow apron"

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semicinctium

Body is chrōs (χρώς).

"the surface of the body, the skin"

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

This word is also only used once in the Bible.

Normally, body is soma (σῶμα) in the Bible.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

Why would a special word for body (chrōs) have to be used instead of the typical word for body (soma)? Could it be a reference to a special body? Should "his body" need necessarily refer to Paul's body? Wouldn't Jesus' body be more special than Paul's body?

Interestingly, it says "handkerchiefs or aprons" and not "handkerchiefs and aprons". Don't know what to make of that.

Acts 19:12 is most likely one reason for the popularity of relic veneration among Catholics (and even Charismatic faith healers). Here they have scriptural justification for the veneration and use of relics.

What does it mean for a soudarion and simikinthion to have touched the body of Paul and to be able to heal others? Wouldn't it be more likely to heal others if it had touched Jesus' body?

Given all this, I believe the soudarion and simikinthion more likely refers to the burial garments of Jesus.

Post Reply