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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20829
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 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

Waterfall
Banned
Banned
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 8 times

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

Post #2931

Post by Waterfall »

[Replying to otseng in post #2930]

Namaskaram otseng

Well, now we have another and better source than the Bible ;-) What does this source tell us about Jesus life and is it credible? The book can be downloaded here for free and in english (scroll down)...

https://vandrer-mod-lyset.dk/e-boeger/#page-content

First this about the book...
PREFACE

THE the work that is hereby entrusted to humanity has come into being by means of intuition and inspiration through a female intermediary, my wife Johanne Elisabeth, née Malling-Hansen.
The book is divided into the following main parts: Ardor's Account , a historical presentation from the earliest times to our day, two ethical-religious speeches, The Speech of Christ and The Speech of God's Servant with related Parables , and a Commentary to Ardor's Account, chapter by chapter - except for chapters 18, 20 and 21. To this has been added a Summary of ethical, religious and philosophical content. The footnotes , unless otherwise indicated, are by the intermediary's spiritual guide, who is also the author of the Commentary and the Summary.
The Biblical names occurring in this work have been conveyed by the authors as they are known to the Danish people.
Further information about the circumstances surrounding the provenance and compilation of this work can be found in the more detailed Postscript , which is by the same author as the Commentary.

The main purpose of this work is to enlighten human beings on their origin, God's relationship to them, and the struggle between Good and Evil, Light and Darkness; and also to impart the true teachings of Christ, freed from the inventions and distortions of the centuries. In this respect it continues and concludes the work of the reformers of the Church.
As for the remainder of the content, reference is made directly to the text itself.
The transcendental world has requested that the following warning be given to all who come into possession of this book:
Those who read these writings should neither judge nor condemn until they have closely considered every thought in this book. Then they should let their conscience be the judge. Once their conscience has spoken, then they can speak and write according to its dictates. But everyone should bear in mind that those who speak against their conscience sin against the divine within themselves, they commit that which the Bible terms "the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost", and of which Christ says (see Ardor's Account 22 ): "But that which you have sinned against the holy within you, that shall you not be forgiven until you have suffered for it and repented of the evil you have done. Yea, I say unto you: beware the Day of Judgment; for then shall your words bear witness against you, then shall your words judge you."

Finally I wish to state that my sole task as publisher of this book has been to present the work as accurately as it was received by the intermediary. (See the preceding statement).

New Year's Eve, 1919
The Publisher

Since the authors of "Toward the Light" and its supplementary writings belong to a spiritual world, a world infinitely higher than ours, a human being was needed to represent them on Earth. They therefore addressed themselves to my husband and asked him to undertake this work, and he readily accepted. Although my husband passed away several years ago, in this third (Danish) edition, and in all subsequent editions, the name of the publisher will be his, whether I or anybody else will be performing the actual task of publishing the book.

May, 1939.
Johanne Agerskov,
née Malling - Hansen.
I will jump to question 11 and this time give you the commentary to the text...
11.
What were Jesus’ own Thoughts Concerning his Mission on Earth?

In evil times he was born unto the Earth.
In evil times he grew up among mankind.
His thoughts were pure. His eye saw and his ear heard more than the feeble eyes and the deaf ears of human beings.
Love and compassion filled his heart. And his hands brought healing unto many.
But his countenance was sorrowful, for he bore the heaviest burden upon his shoulders.
And he was a stranger among human beings.
His eye saw much sin, many sorrows and much suffering.
And he heard people in the synagogue and in their homes cry unto their god to free them from the yoke of bondage and soon, soon to send them the Messiah , the promised, the long awaited One.
Slowly, God called to life the thought in the mind of Jesus that he was sent unto the Earth to deliver the people from the yoke of sin , and to cleanse their hearts of all impurity; that he was sent unto the Earth to teach the people to love one another, to strengthen their faith in their Heavenly Father.
Slowly the hope awoke in the heart of Jesus that he was the promised, the long awaited One.
But he dared not fully trust this hope.
And he pondered much on these thoughts.

Often he sat in the synagogue and studied the ancient Scriptures.
And he listened to the elders and to the scribes expounding the words.
But he found not the peace that he sought.
Long and deeply he studied the ancient Scriptures. And his heart became heavy, for the god of the Scriptures was often vengeful, and he was in no manner just .
But Jesus did not grow weary, he continued to seek until he faintly discerned a fond and gentle countenance — the God of Truth, of Love and of Compassion.
But the God of Truth and of the Light, whose countenance he discerned behind the Lord of wrath and vengeance, reminded him of the Father, whose image he bore within his heart.
And unto this Father he prayed fervently for help, for peace and for strength.
And God heard his prayer.
And He granted him strength, purity and peace of heart.
But at the moment Jesus knew himself to be strengthened, he went unto the synagogue and stood forth, and he spoke against the elders and against the scribes.
And all who heard his words wondered greatly, for his words were clear, and he spoke with much authority.
But some of the words of Jesus were these: „Behold, I say unto you; the god you fear and worship is not the God of Truth but the God of Falsehood! For I say unto you: should you search with care in the ancient Scriptures, which speak of this your god, then would you see how weak and faltering he is. Now he wields the scourge of vengeance and retribution over the heads of your forefathers and drives his people into exile, then he calls them back. Now he bids their leaders, through the prophets, take arms against their neighbouring peoples to plunder, to pillage and to slay, and when thus he has raged for a time with might and power, then he repents of his actions, repents of the evil that he has done, and promises to temper his wrath, promises to show greater mercy. Truly, truly I say unto you: this is not the God of Truth, this is not the God of Justice! – –
And what worship he craves of you!
How many beasts does he not bid you slaughter before his countenance, that this sacrifice may please him! How much blood is not spilt upon his altar, that the scent thereof may rise unto the heavens and delight his heart! — — — — —
Behold, I ask of you: is it not said unto you in the Law of Moses that you should not kill one another? And how often has your god not spoken, through the prophets, unto your forefathers and bid them slay thousands upon thousands of their enemies? And has he not promised your forefathers to reward them for these evil deeds with much glory, many riches and much land! Truly, I say unto you: that God who says, thou shalt not kill and that god who bids you kill are not the same; for that god who bids you slay your enemies, he is of the evil, and you should shun him. “
And Jesus continued to speak; for deep silence had fallen upon them all;
And he sought by the words of the Scriptures to show them the God of Love, of Truth and of the Light; the God who with perfect righteousness punishes the transgressions of mankind. He sought to show them the God whose embrace was open unto each repentant sinner, the true, the highest, the only God. He, who was not only the God of the Jewish people, but of all the world — yea, even the God of the heathen.
But when he fell silent, all were dismayed.
And the scribes spoke harsh and condemning words against him.
And the ruler of the temple stood forth and forbade him ever again to speak in the synagogue, yea, forbade him to expound the words of the Scriptures.
But Jesus answered him and said: „None has the power to bid me keep silent in my Father’s House.“
Then they all became yet more dismayed, and some cried: „Behold, the Evil One has possessed him and speaks through his mouth; hear how he profanes the holy and scorns the exalted.“
And they sought to drive him out of the synagogue.
But Jesus answered them not. And he walked of his own accord out of his Father’s House.

When the people in the city heard of that which had come to pass they wondered much, and many were angered.
But the parents of Jesus, the carpenter Joseph and his wife Mary, rebuked him sternly for the words that he had spoken in the synagogue against the elders and the scribes.
But Jesus answered them and said: „Know you not that I love you, and have I not sought to do your bidding? How much more, then, should I not seek to do the bidding of Him , who sent me? How much more, then, should I not love my Heavenly Father, love Him who reigns over all the Heavens?“
But they understood him not, and they grieved much, for they believed that his thoughts were confused.
The commentary...
XI
To the great sorrow of his parents Jesus had no interest in the trade of carpentry, in which his father wished to train him.
At an early age he sought instruction from the priests and the scribes and learnt to form his own opinions, which were often at variance with received tradition. He read the ancient Scriptures eagerly and was well versed in Egyptian religious cults. He also had some knowledge of Persian, Indian and Assyrian forms of religious worship. He often went to Jerusalem and studied there under the eldest and most learned of the scribes and scholars of the time. Jesus also visited other places where there were major synagogues in order to investigate and to study the ancient writings that existed there. His knowledge of languages was quite extensive for his time, and he had some acquaintance with Greek philosophy.
Jesus went about a great deal before his emergence as a religious founder and conversed at length with well-travelled people such as merchants and itinerant philosophers, but he himself never travelled beyond the borders of his homeland.
At the age of twenty-three he appeared in public for the first time, at the synagogue of his native town of Nazareth. Accounts of this event can be found in the Gospels, but they are all inaccurately reported (Matthew 13:54–57; Mark 6:2–3; Luke 2:42–50 and 4:16–30; John 7:14–20).
The fragments of Jesus’ speech in the synagogue at Nazareth quoted in Ardor’s Account are fully correct. On the whole the words of Jesus as they were spoken at the time are quoted by Ardor as accurately as possible, though allowance must be made for the fact that they are quoted in another language. For this reason it was not always possible, through the medium, to find words that fully expressed the Aramaic speech — but nothing has been changed or distorted in the thoughts that underlay the words used at that time.
The speech in the synagogue at Nazareth gave the scribes and high priests their first grounds for anger and hatred toward Jesus. Up to that time he had been regarded as a disciple and prospective „Rabbi“, but his words concerning their incorrect understanding of Yahweh, or Jehovah, put an immediate end to such hopes.
Your friend forever

Waterfall
Love is the salt of life. It takes a moment to understand and eternity to live.

Carsten Ploug Olsen

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 2179
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 354 times
Been thanked: 272 times

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

Post #2932

Post by oldbadger »

otseng wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2023 5:40 am
Waterfall wrote: Fri Jul 21, 2023 10:02 am God works in mysterious ways ;-) God made the body disappear and left a footprint. That is all you can say. No bodily resurrection. The spirit of Jesus was seen.
Well, if it was a spiritual resurrection, then the spirit could as well be physically touched and could eat and drink. So, it was not a disembodied ghost-like appearance.

John 20:17
Jesus replied, "Do not touch me, for I have not yet ascended to my Father. Go to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Luke 24:39
Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.' When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.

John 20:27
Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and examine my hands. Extend your hand and put it into my side. Do not continue in your unbelief, but believe."

Luke 24:41-43
But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, he said to them, 'Have you any food here?' So they gave him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And he took it and ate it in their presence.

Act 10:41
not by all the people, but by us, the witnesses God had already chosen, who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.
The rest is just makeup stories = bodily resurrection. What do you think about that? Let me come with the true story about the crucifixion and the missing body and so on. It is from this book (scroll down to download it in english)...

https://vandrer-mod-lyset.dk/e-boeger/#page-content
Anybody can make up any claims, but it's got to have some evidence to back it up. The primary textual source for our information about Jesus is the Bible. Simply asserting claims without scriptural support holds little weight.
I firmly believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, was taken down and survived, and got clear away. There was a very strong tradition here that Joseph of Arimathea was a merchant who traded on the centuries old connection between Tyre/Sidon and Cornwall and we as children often sang a well known hymn about exactly that at roll call.

Now all the passages that that you have shown are clear evidence that Jesus did survive and live on after the cross, whereas the other two convict's legs were broken to speed up their deaths.

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20829
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

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

Post #2933

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Jul 21, 2023 11:06 am That doesn't stop them from declaring that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven, and they don't even have anything physical to point to on that.
The Catholics have many beliefs that I do not believe are true. But I'll also add that there are many things evangelical Christians believe that I do not accept as well. So, what any group espouses to be true is not a final arbiter of truth. What matters really is evidence. So, it does not matter what the Catholic church says about the TS (or any other relic), but what is the evidence.
He's going back to what he says is the original intent of marriage, but "original intent" doesn't matter.
Why should anyone accept your belief that original intent does not matter?
What matters is what the law being given by Moses tells people to do (present a bill for divorce) and what not to do (don't add to or take from the law).
I still don't understand what you mean by don't add or take from the law. Specifically where does it say this? Are you referring to Numbers 30:2?

Again, it's obvious the Torah (law) has expanded throughout history. It originally started as the 5 books of Moses, then the prophets and writings were added to it, then the Mishnah and Talmud were added to it. Jesus was not doing anything new here by expanding the Torah.
I've seen this red herring tossed out there before. It isn't about the law not commanding divorce; it's about the law not forbidding divorce.
Isn't this entire topic of discussing divorce a red herring since it has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus?

My point is you would have a stronger case if Moses had commanded people to divorce and Jesus commanded people not to divorce. Then there would be an obvious contradiction. But even with the case of Moses allowing a divorce, Jesus also had allowed it in the case of sexual immorality. So, I don't see much of an issue here.
Moses does not say, "Do not swear at all" and does say, "Do not add to the law".
Again, where does it say "do not add to the law"?
The law of Moses directs the actions of man, and Jesus declares in Matthew 5 that every jot and tittle of the law was still in force and still to be kept.
"Keep" is another word many people have a misunderstanding of.
So why should your "interpretation" be preferred over another?
Well, I'm pretty much stating the evangelical interpretation of John 14:6. What other interpretation of the passage do you have in mind?

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20829
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

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

Post #2934

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Jul 21, 2023 11:36 pm A comment of mine from elsewhere:

"In the Mishnaic period the theory of the law that the husband could divorce his wife at will was challenged by the school of Shammai. It interpreted the text of Deut. xxiv. 1 in such amanner as to reach the conclusion that the husband could not divorce his wife except for cause, and that the cause must be sexual immorality (Git. ix. 10; Yer. Soṭah i. 1, 16b). The school of Hillel, however, held that the husband need not assign any reason whatever; that any act on her part which displeased him entitled him to give her a bill of divorce (Giṭ. ib.). The opinion of the school of Hillel prevailed."
---JewishEncyclopedia.com

Read literally, the texts of Mark and Matthew suggest that the authors were on opposite sides of the Hillel/Shammai debate and that each author has Jesus supporting his respective position.
Since there were differences of interpretation between the Shammai and Hillel, why should it be unusual for another rabbi, Jesus, to have another interpretation?

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20829
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

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

Post #2935

Post by otseng »

Waterfall wrote: Sat Jul 22, 2023 7:21 am Well, now we have another and better source than the Bible ;-)
What does this source tell us about Jesus life and is it credible? The book can be downloaded here for free and in english (scroll down)...

https://vandrer-mod-lyset.dk/e-boeger/#page-content
vandrer-mod-lyset.dk is a better source than the Bible? Actually, it's quite the opposite. This "source" of yours can be considered to be spamming the forum.

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20829
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

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

Post #2936

Post by otseng »

oldbadger wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2023 1:46 am I firmly believe that Jesus did not die on the cross, was taken down and survived, and got clear away. There was a very strong tradition here that Joseph of Arimathea was a merchant who traded on the centuries old connection between Tyre/Sidon and Cornwall and we as children often sang a well known hymn about exactly that at roll call.

Now all the passages that that you have shown are clear evidence that Jesus did survive and live on after the cross, whereas the other two convict's legs were broken to speed up their deaths.
Evidence please that Jesus survived the scourging, crucifixion, and burial and did not die. With the evidence of the TS and the Bible, it is clear he had died.

Waterfall
Banned
Banned
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 8 times

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

Post #2937

Post by Waterfall »

[Replying to otseng in post #2935]

Namaskaram otseng

I am just presenting another and better source than the Bible? Is that not allowed? Who can correct the Bible? What is wrong with it? Where to begin...

Your friend forever

Waterfall
Love is the salt of life. It takes a moment to understand and eternity to live.

Carsten Ploug Olsen

Online
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20829
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

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

Post #2938

Post by otseng »

Waterfall wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2023 9:32 am I am just presenting another and better source than the Bible? Is that not allowed? Who can correct the Bible? What is wrong with it? Where to begin...
You have posted this site multiple times, which is not even in English and often which has nothing to do with the topic.

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keyw ... d-lyset.dk

This is evidence of spamming the forum with the purpose of promoting a site. We have banned others for less than this. I would suggest you stop mentioning this site (or any other irrelevant site) or you will also be censured.

Waterfall
Banned
Banned
Posts: 531
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2016 10:08 am
Has thanked: 108 times
Been thanked: 8 times

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

Post #2939

Post by Waterfall »

[Replying to otseng in post #2938]

Namaskaram otseng

Let me see if I understand you correct :heart: I am not allowed to come with another and better source than the Bible? May I talk about the book Toward the Light and quote from it? What if people want to read the book? May I then link to the site where they can download the book? Is it allowed to link to a Biblesite? Is that promoting the site? Everybody can find a site where they can read the Bible, but what about Toward the Light? How to get people interested in the book...

Your friend forever

Waterfall
Love is the salt of life. It takes a moment to understand and eternity to live.

Carsten Ploug Olsen

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3338
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 594 times

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

Post #2940

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2933
What matters really is evidence. So, it does not matter what the Catholic church says about the TS (or any other relic), but what is the evidence.
The Catholic Church, which has a vested interest in the Turin cloth being genuine, doesn't place as much stock in the "evidence" as you do.

I still don't understand what you mean by don't add or take from the law. Specifically where does it say this? Are you referring to Numbers 30:2?
I'm referring to Deuteronomy 4:2.

Again, it's obvious the Torah (law) has expanded throughout history. It originally started as the 5 books of Moses, then the prophets and writings were added to it, then the Mishnah and Talmud were added to it. Jesus was not doing anything new here by expanding the Torah.
Then was Muhammed "expanding the Torah"? Was Joseph Smith "expanding the Torah"?

The Torah, prophets and writings together are the Tanakh, but the Torah (law) is still the Torah.

Jesus isn't just "expanding"; he's contradicting. And he isn't just contradicting Moses; he's contradicting himself. He says that every jot and tittle of the law is still in effect and then disregards the jots and tittles commanding that nothing be added to the law.

My point is you would have a stronger case if Moses had commanded people to divorce and Jesus commanded people not to divorce. Then there would be an obvious contradiction. But even with the case of Moses allowing a divorce, Jesus also had allowed it in the case of sexual immorality. So, I don't see much of an issue here.
My point is that Jesus contradicts Moses on why divorce was allowed. Jesus claims that Moses allowed divorce----for reasons other than just sexual immorality----as a concession to men's "hard hearts". Moses says no such thing, repeatedly declaring in the law that all of the law is right in Jehovah's eyes (Dt. 13:18).

Jesus contradicts himself again in Matthew 22:37-40....

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

If that last statement is true, then Jesus had no legitimate criticism of their practice of giving their wives bills of divorce as Moses directed.

There's also the inconsistency of Matthew having Jesus allow divorce for sexual immorality and Mark having him not do so.

Again, where does it say "do not add to the law"?
Again, Deut. 4:2.


The law of Moses directs the actions of man, and Jesus declares in Matthew 5 that every jot and tittle of the law was still in force and still to be kept.
"Keep" is another word many people have a misunderstanding of.
That's a convenient assumption when the word's obvious meaning weakens your position.


So why should your "interpretation" be preferred over another?
Well, I'm pretty much stating the evangelical interpretation of John 14:6. What other interpretation of the passage do you have in mind?
Why couldn't it be "interpreted" as having been true in Jesus's time but not after that?

If that verse has only one interpretation, how does any other verse have any more than that?

Post Reply