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: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 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: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Contact:

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

Post #2981

Post by otseng »

Robert Price - Is The Shroud of Turin Real?



Derek Lambert on MythVision asked Dr Robert Price what he thinks of the TS:
1:31
Dr Price, the Shroud of Turin is still used by many, not all, apologists and like-minded people who want to prove Jesus did exist. We see his imprint, there's like blood stains and you could tell where someone was in there, that had a beard and didn't he look like Jesus, like we all know what he looked like. What are your thoughts on the Shroud of Turin?
Price brings up it's a fake like all other medieval relics.
1:59
Yeah I think it is a fake like all these medieval relics were. It suggest that isn't to try to suggest people were trying to pull a wool over the eyes of their contemporaries. I mean there might have been. There's always been plenty of that going on too. But it could be that such a thing was kind of was made as a sort of an icon. Just like for instance there's a place a monastery off of route 46 in New Jersey where Iused to live. Holy face monastery and they had a copy an admitted duplicate of the shroud as as like an object of contemplation and devotion. The point not being a piece of cloth of course but the idea that Jesus had suffered for you and all that. Well nobody thought that's the real thing they knew it well.
Just because a lot of fake things exist does not demonstrate something cannot be authentic. There exist a bunch of fake Rolexes, fake US dollars, fake images of Trump, and fake images of the Pope, but it doesn't mean the authentic versions of these are fictional.

What is relevant is the evidence. The first one he mentions is the 1988 C-14 dating.
3:22
There's no way to know anymore but it seems to me the carbon dating done with great care on this thing years ago now has settled the question.
Obviously he didn't study much on the C-14 dating because "great care" was not done. I've argued 12 protocol violations can be identified at:
viewtopic.php?p=1113255#p1113255
4:24
That it's the thing stems from the 14th century and which just happens to be the same century in which the pope produced the artist who confessed to having made it. It meshes perfectly with the carbon dating for pete's sake.
I've addressed the d'Arcis memo at:
viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

Since the C-14 dating is suspect and the d'Arcis memo is suspect, their alignment of dates fundamentally has no meaning. Only if both the C-14 dating is valid and the d'Arcis memo is genuine would it be corroborating evidence with each other.
4:31
Also Joseph McCrone, I think his name is, is a great probably the greatest authority on pigments and paint. And because of course you use that in analyzing great works of art and all that from the past. And he says it the stains on the shroud of the blood of Jesus is red paint. It's red ochre I think he says. And if it were blood it would not retain its color and it wouldn't look red after all these years.
It's Walter McCrone, not Joseph McCrone.

I addressed McCrone's claims at:
viewtopic.php?p=1118417#p1118417
5:19
I mean back to the time of Jesus people have said, oh yes but there are microscopic deposits from plants that only existed in the middle east. Well I don't care you can explain that a bunch of waste but that doesn't trump carbon dating.
Since the C-14 dating is not valid, then Price should care about all the evidence for the authenticity.
5:34
That it's like once you start attacking the methodology of science as they do with uh creationism right they have to to start fudging things and getting into pseudoscience.
Actually, it was the C-14 scientists that were fudging things. Obviously they thew away some of their raw data in order to skew their results. And they tried to hide this since they did not release their raw data until Casabianca went to court for them to release it in 2017.
6:17
And did the ancients have the ability to create an image like this that seems to be negative in some way? I forget all the details.
Even if a medieval forger could create a negative (which is disputable), why would he even do it? How did he even conceptualize what is a negative? How did he confirm it was a negative? Why paint a negative when it would be centuries afterwards when people recognize it's a negative? Why even bother to do it even if he was centuries ahead of his time? Why did he not create another other negative images? Why is nobody in the art or photography community recognizing the shroud as the first photographic negative artwork?
6:24
Well yeah people have done it with known ancient methods, including I'm thinking of all these different guys named Joe, the one that does on the committee for the scientific investigation the paranormal. Oh good god I can't believe it he's been a friend of mine for years I can't think of his last name.
His name is Joe Nickell.
6:54
There's another interesting theory that if this were really the impression made by a corpse. The fact that it has wounds like those ascribed to Jesus could mean that this was a print taken of a medieval flagellant. You know these guys that walked around in the time of the black plague and all that lashing themselves to atone for the sins. That they figured had brought on the plague as a punishment from god.

I've never heard it anywhere else but that makes a lot of sense too. It's the right historical period you would have this result.
Yes, that is a unique theory, but it doesn't match up with the evidence. Not only would he have done self-flagellation, but also self-crowning of thorns, self-side wound, and self-crucifixion. It also does not account for how the body image got there, plus a host of unanswered questions.
5:53
The drops of blood on the forehead say chrown of thorns you wouldn't have with an imposed cloth. You wouldn't have discrete drops anymore visible.
But it's acceptable if someone performed self-flagellation?
7:46
And of course oh yeah one other thing that shroud apologists like to say is that the carbon dating can be disregarded because there are patches on the shroud from when it was nearly consumed in a fire. Which is known that's certainly true and you can even tell where the patches are very clearly. And they said the scientists were so stupid that they took samples to test from the obvious patches. Get out of here that's just ridiculous.
No, the patch where the C-14 sample was taken was not the same patch from the 1532 fire repair. So, that's a strawman argument.
8:25
It's like more of what Albert Cchweitzer called the crooked and fragile thinking of christian apologetics.
With Price's weak and fallacious arguments, who's the one with the crooked and fragile thinking?

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 2494
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 467 times

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

Post #2982

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2980

....when a few posts back.....
The Torah is no ordinary book. It has the power to outlast anything in the material world. The truth in it is even contained in each individual letter in the Torah. We are to study all of it, dive deeply in it, treasure it, make it a part of us, teach it, and love it.
I don't think even the Jews would have much disagreement with this view of the Torah.

I don't think even the Jews would have much disagreement with this view of the Torah.
This isn't about the Jews. It's about you claiming to treat the Torah like any other book in this thread and then ascribing special merit to part of the Torah.

You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up.
What passage are you referring to?
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2)

I have now copied and pasted it so I can go back to it easily every time I have to re-quote it here.


The Jews interpret the Torah as not saying that Jesus was their Messiah.
Of course. And this is evidence people can interpret the Torah in different ways.
But it either identifies Jesus as the Messiah or it doesn't, and those who get it right aren't just "interpreting" it.

I've already answered this multiple times, because I'm waiting for you to give me the Hebrew lexicon definition first. Why are you not willing to do this and instead repeatedly ask the same question?
Because you brought it up. You insinuated that I was getting the meaning wrong.
If you have no idea what the words really means, how can you justify your interpretation?
If you know what the word means and I don't, why don't you set me straight?
The text was originally written in Greek and Hebrew. So, to truly understand it, one needs to understand what the words meant in the original languages. This is not so hard to do. There are many freely accessible Greek and Hebrew lexicons.
.....none of which you've used to set me straight.

Since your bluff has been called and you haven't responded, here it is:

"keep" (shamar)
שָׁמַר
Strong’s Definitions

שָׁמַר shâmar, shaw-mar'; a primitive root; properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).

KJV Translation Count — Total: 468x

The KJV translates Strong's H8104 in the following manner: keep (283x), observe (46x), heed (35x), keeper (28x), preserve (21x), beware (9x), mark (8x), watchman (8x), wait (7x), watch (7x), regard (5x), save (2x), miscellaneous (9x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Yes, this is what inerrantists claim. But, sure, I can grant it can't all be profitable for doctrine.
If you're conceding that it's not all profitable for doctrine, then you're conceding that a false statement is made in 2 Timothy 3:16. If any false statement is made in Christian scripture, all of it is cast into doubt.


How can it be authoritative if it isn't all profitable for instruction in righteousness?
Same as any other document. There are no documents that are inerrant, yet they can still be used authoritatively.
That relegates the Christian Bible to being no better than any other document.

No, it's not circular reasoning. Christian text is used to create Christian theology. What other text should be used? Non-Christian texts? Hindus use their own text to create their own theology. Muslims use their own text to create their own theology.
Christian text was written to create Christian theology. You were quoting a Christian claim already written to try to bolster the Christian claim that Jewish scripture points to Jesus. That's circular.

My main argument against your interpretation of Deut 4:2 is that nobody really has your hyper literal interpretation of it. No Christians or Jews has literally not added or subtracted from the words out of Moses mouth. Even Christian critical scholars do not believe only Moses wrote the Torah, but believe others have modified what Moses originally wrote.
You really don't have an argument against my "interpretation"; all you can do is accuse me of being "hyper literal".

It doesn't matter who has added to or taken from the Torah over the centuries. It doesn't even matter how many authors the Torah had. What matters is the incompatible difference between what Jesus says about the law of Moses and what the law of Moses says about itself. It says that keeping it without adding or diminishing is the way the people were to keep the commands of Jehovah. That's what they're told to do and that's how----and why----they're told to do it. There's no getting around that.

Saying, "The law of Moses wasn't to be taken literally because no one takes it literally" is like saying, "Car theft isn't illegal because cars are stolen all the time." It doesn't hold up.


Jesus waffles back and forth between departing from the law and insisting that every jot and tittle of it should be followed.
Where does he state "every jot and tittle of it should be followed"?
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 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." (Matthew 5:18-19)

Another passage I'll have to copy and paste, I suppose.

Are you going to play the semantics game with the word "followed" now?

Imagine being in the crowd while Jesus is giving his sermon in Matthew 5. You know the Torah well enough to know that it allows the swearing of oaths and presenting a bill of divorce. Now here's this new preacher saying that those practices were just passed down by anonymous commentators and are wrong. 'Hmm,' you might say to yourself, 'how peculiar. This guy must be advocating some type of reform.'

But then the new preacher announces that every jot and tittle of the law is still in force and that breaking any of it will leave one least in the kingdom of heaven. You also know that the law prohibits anything from being added to it or taken from it, so now things are really getting strange. You realize that there's no way to follow the new preacher's teaching without violating the law of Moses, but at the same time he says that the law of Moses isn't to be violated.

How can you have any confidence in the new preacher?

We all have to interpret the text. You have your interpretation of it and I have mine. You cannot just simply assert your interpretation is the correct one without analyzing what does it say in the original languages, how does it fit within the entire context of the Bible, and what are the views of others who has studied the Bible.
You're hiding behind "the original languages" and not fitting the passages I've mentioned into context.

And by the way, the Jewish Bible doesn't have to fit the context of the Christian Bible. It's the other way around, since the Jewish Bible was written first and not by Christians.


The evidence doesn't support it. The lack of airtightness in the cloth would allow for vacuum beneath it to be filled all at once, making "angle encoding" implausible. You've responded to this by simply denying it.
I already addressed this by dematerialization by layering...
"Layering" is an outlandish and unsubstantiated assumption in the face of contrary evidence.

The path of dematerialization by layers is perpendicular to the plane of the body. The effect is like an elevator falling, so most of the pressure would be downward for the top part of the cloth and the reverse for the bottom part.
As I pointed out before, the downward pressure would push the cloth against the curvature of the cranium toward the top of the head, but there's no image there.

And you don't have any mechanism for making dematerialization happen in that conveniently odd fashion anyway.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Under Suspension
Posts: 1717
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 410 times
Been thanked: 532 times

Re: They Are Afraid of Having Holes Punched in Their Claims, Literally

Post #2983

Post by boatsnguitars »

OMG! Is that an actual photo from the crucifixion?!? Don't tell Apologists that - they'll believe it!

BTW, Robert Price is great. He gets a lot of bad press because of his Mythicist view, but his argument is well supported in a lot of ways, and certainly much of it is true.

He's dead on about the Shroud in the video: Shroud proved to be Medieval.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Contact:

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

Post #2984

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 3:58 pm This isn't about the Jews. It's about you claiming to treat the Torah like any other book in this thread and then ascribing special merit to part of the Torah.
My starting point is reading the Bible like any other historical document, with no assumption of inerrancy. Then by analyzing the text and external evidence, I come to the conclusion that it is authoritative.
What passage are you referring to?
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2)
We've been covering this passage. So what do you mean I haven't been addressing it by stating, "You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up"? You might not agree with my arguments, but charging I have not been addressing the passage is erroneous.
But it either identifies Jesus as the Messiah or it doesn't, and those who get it right aren't just "interpreting" it.
Who's the one interpreting it correctly? And on what basis are they correct?
Since your bluff has been called and you haven't responded, here it is:
I was not bluffing. All I did was ask you to provide the Hebrew definition.
"keep" (shamar)
שָׁמַר
Strong’s Definitions

שָׁמַר shâmar, shaw-mar'; a primitive root; properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).

KJV Translation Count — Total: 468x

The KJV translates Strong's H8104 in the following manner: keep (283x), observe (46x), heed (35x), keeper (28x), preserve (21x), beware (9x), mark (8x), watchman (8x), wait (7x), watch (7x), regard (5x), save (2x), miscellaneous (9x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/
My point with looking at the Hebrew word shamar is the definition is much larger than to literally follow a set of legal commands, just like "Torah" is much larger than a set of legal commands.

Christians (and non-Christians) have a severely limited view on what does it mean to "follow the law". More properly, we should "shamar the Torah". I gave two talks on this at my church and looked at both shamar and Torah:

Keeping the Law

Loving the Law

https://www.perimeter.org/pages/add-l-m ... s-podcast/
If you're conceding that it's not all profitable for doctrine, then you're conceding that a false statement is made in 2 Timothy 3:16. If any false statement is made in Christian scripture, all of it is cast into doubt.
False dichotomy. It's not either it is all true or all of it is cast into doubt. There is no document that can hold to your standard. Just because any document has a false statement does not mean all of it is cast into doubt.
That relegates the Christian Bible to being no better than any other document.
It's no better than any other document in that inerrancy is not assumed. But even without inerrancy, it is rational to accept the Bible is reliable and authoritative, as what I've been arguing for in this massive thread.
Christian text was written to create Christian theology.
Not sure I'd entirely agree with that. There were fundamental Christian beliefs prior to any of the New Testament books being written. So, basic Christian theology existed prior to the existence of any Christian text. I've already given one example in 1 Cor 15:3-7:

viewtopic.php?p=1126653#p1126653
You were quoting a Christian claim already written to try to bolster the Christian claim that Jewish scripture points to Jesus. That's circular.
By your logic, then aren't you doing the same with the Jewish interpretations?
You really don't have an argument against my "interpretation"; all you can do is accuse me of being "hyper literal".
You can't just hand-wave away my arguments again. I gave you my summary of my arguments:
otseng wrote: Sat Jul 29, 2023 8:13 am I believe Jesus's teachings has no contradiction with the Torah based on the original language meanings, the intent of the teachings, how most Christians (and even Jews) view the Torah, and what is the commonly accepted views of Bible teachers and scholars.
It doesn't matter who has added to or taken from the Torah over the centuries.
Then you concede this has been a practice by the Jews and others?
What matters is the incompatible difference between what Jesus says about the law of Moses and what the law of Moses says about itself.
You keep asserting this, but simply repeating it does not give your argument more weight. Really all of the evidence goes against your interpretation.
Saying, "The law of Moses wasn't to be taken literally because no one takes it literally" is like saying, "Car theft isn't illegal because cars are stolen all the time." It doesn't hold up.
As I said, it requires looking at the original languages to have the proper interpretation.
Are you going to play the semantics game with the word "followed" now?
I'm not playing games. This is how to deeply study the Bible, by looking at the original languages.
'how peculiar. This guy must be advocating some type of reform.'
I would tend to believe that.
You realize that there's no way to follow the new preacher's teaching without violating the law of Moses, but at the same time he says that the law of Moses isn't to be violated.
I would agree with that as well.
How can you have any confidence in the new preacher?
Yes, good question. His hearers had the same question.
And by the way, the Jewish Bible doesn't have to fit the context of the Christian Bible. It's the other way around, since the Jewish Bible was written first and not by Christians.
Both the OT and the NT fit with each other. They are both given by God to reveal himself to us.
And you don't have any mechanism for making dematerialization happen in that conveniently odd fashion anyway.
No, I don't claim to have a mechanism for it. It is beyond today's science to explain it.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Contact:

Re: They Are Afraid of Having Holes Punched in Their Claims, Literally

Post #2985

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 5:28 am He's dead on about the Shroud in the video: Shroud proved to be Medieval.
I'd agree he's dead about the shroud, but not dead on. Please address my counterarguments I presented, instead of simply reasserting what Price claims.

Athetotheist
Guru
Posts: 2494
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 467 times

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

Post #2986

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2984
My starting point is reading the Bible like any other historical document, with no assumption of inerrancy. Then by analyzing the text and external evidence, I come to the conclusion that it is authoritative.
Are you sure you aren't reading the Bible, finding that it's not inerrant and then looking for some outside source to use as an excuse to assume that the Bible is authoritative anyway?


Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2)
We've been covering this passage. So what do you mean I haven't been addressing it by stating, "You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up"? You might not agree with my arguments, but charging I have not been addressing the passage is erroneous.
I asked you what the intent of that law was. You said:
I believe fundamentally the Torah was given for us to experience shalom.
.....which did not address the command in the law I was asking about. If you can pester me for the meanings of Hebrew words, I can pester you for on-topic comments about the text of the Torah.


But it either identifies Jesus as the Messiah or it doesn't, and those who get it right aren't just "interpreting" it.
Who's the one interpreting it correctly? And on what basis are they correct?
You seem to assume that all the Jewish scholars who have read the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh over the centuries have been wrong about it and that you're the one who's right. On what basis do you draw that conclusion?


Since your bluff has been called and you haven't responded, here it is:
I was not bluffing. All I did was ask you to provide the Hebrew definition.
.....while never getting around to providing a definition yourself.

My point with looking at the Hebrew word shamar is the definition is much larger than to literally follow a set of legal commands, just like "Torah" is much larger than a set of legal commands.
That's why context is important. The word clearly refers to following a set of legal commands in the context of Deut. 4:2.


If any false statement is made in Christian scripture, all of it is cast into doubt.
There is no document that can hold to your standard.
It's not "my standard"; it's a basic principle. Where one mistake is made, other mistakes are possible. And while some documents may not hold up to it, documents claiming divine inspiration should be expected to.

Think of it this way: According to Christian theology, how many sins does it take to send a person to hell? Just one? Then how many mistakes does it take for a text claiming divine inspiration to show itself as unreliable?


Christian text was written to create Christian theology.
Not sure I'd entirely agree with that. There were fundamental Christian beliefs prior to any of the New Testament books being written. So, basic Christian theology existed prior to the existence of any Christian text.
Then let's say that Christian text was written to officially establish Christian theology. Only the accepted books made it into the canon.


You were quoting a Christian claim already written to try to bolster the Christian claim that Jewish scripture points to Jesus. That's circular.
By your logic, then aren't you doing the same with the Jewish interpretations?
You mean I'm assuming that the Jewish Bible doesn't point to Jesus? I base my conclusion on my research into Christian mishandling of Hebrew text.

I believe Jesus's teachings has no contradiction with the Torah based on the original language meanings, the intent of the teachings, how most Christians (and even Jews) view the Torah, and what is the commonly accepted views of Bible teachers and scholars.
You're obviously mistaken on that. Otherwise, all Torah-observant Jews would believe in Jesus.


It doesn't matter who has added to or taken from the Torah over the centuries.
Then you concede this has been a practice by the Jews and others?
It doesn't matter whether it has been or not. What matters is what Jesus said about the practice.


What matters is the incompatible difference between what Jesus says about the law of Moses and what the law of Moses says about itself.
You keep asserting this, but simply repeating it does not give your argument more weight. Really all of the evidence goes against your interpretation.
I do keep asserting it, but I also keep providing textual examples of it. All you have to do is go back through this thread and note the verses I've cited. Ignoring those examples doesn't make them go away.

As I said, it requires looking at the original languages to have the proper interpretation.
Have you shown that the original languages refute my "interpretation"?


You realize that there's no way to follow the new preacher's teaching without violating the law of Moses, but at the same time he says that the law of Moses isn't to be violated.
I would agree with that as well.
Then how would you account for his double-mindedness?

Both the OT and the NT fit with each other. They are both given by God to reveal himself to us.
Let's test that claim.

And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, "This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." (Numbers 30:1-2)

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33-37)

Let's say that as soon as the law of Moses was disseminated among the Israelites, one of them swears an oath or makes a vow about something and within a short time fulfills his obligation. He's feeling good about himself because he knows that he has followed what Moses commanded.

Questions:

1. Did the oath or vow the man uttered "cometh of evil"?

2. If it did, why hadn't Jehovah command Moses to tell the people that it would instead of leading this man to believe that everything he had done was "right in his eyes" (Deut. 13:18)?

3. If what the man had done was right in Jehovah's eyes, how could Jesus have been right when he said that such an utterance was "of evil"?


And you don't have any mechanism for making dematerialization happen in that conveniently odd fashion anyway.
No, I don't claim to have a mechanism for it. It is beyond today's science to explain it.
It isn't just text which can be interpreted; events can also be interpreted.

For example, let's say that a centuries-old relic is said to support the veracity of a religious text----except that the relic has the strong appearance of a work of art and the religious text is fraught with inconsistency.

If, for the sake of argument, the relic actually were produced by some supernatural means, what would its message most likely be? Might the message be that we should take the shortcomings in the text into account when evaluating the relic? However impressive the relic may seem, it can't pass muster if the religious text doesn't hold up.

Might the message be a call to think before ascribing too much significance to texts or relics? Might it be a lesson in logic from the God beyond every religious concept of God, who urges us to think critically about what appears before us?

Wouldn't that make for a more reasonable "interpretation"?

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Under Suspension
Posts: 1717
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 410 times
Been thanked: 532 times

Re: They Are Afraid of Having Holes Punched in Their Claims, Literally

Post #2987

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 7:46 am
boatsnguitars wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 5:28 am He's dead on about the Shroud in the video: Shroud proved to be Medieval.
I'd agree he's dead about the shroud, but not dead on. Please address my counterarguments I presented, instead of simply reasserting what Price claims.
There is nothing to address. They tested it, it's Medieval. What else would it be? Honestly?

Again, I get that you don't like this, but I also have no responsibility to debate a Flat Earth, Evolution, the Flood, etc. when it is clearly settled. The only thing to debate, at this point, is why do people feel the need to believe in Supernatural things?
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Contact:

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

Post #2988

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jul 30, 2023 10:03 pmAre you sure you aren't reading the Bible, finding that it's not inerrant and then looking for some outside source to use as an excuse to assume that the Bible is authoritative anyway?
Not sure what you're asking. My methodology in showing the Bible is authoritative and reliable would be the same as for any other book, document, or text. Do you disagree with this? If you disagree, how should any text be assessed to be authoritative?
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2)
We've been covering this passage. So what do you mean I haven't been addressing it by stating, "You were the one doing the handwaving by not addressing the passage I brought up"? You might not agree with my arguments, but charging I have not been addressing the passage is erroneous.
I asked you what the intent of that law was. You said:
I believe fundamentally the Torah was given for us to experience shalom.
.....which did not address the command in the law I was asking about. If you can pester me for the meanings of Hebrew words, I can pester you for on-topic comments about the text of the Torah.
We've addressed all of this as well. Further, nothing you've brought up is on topic. The current topic for debate is the TS and the resurrection.
But it either identifies Jesus as the Messiah or it doesn't, and those who get it right aren't just "interpreting" it.
Who's the one interpreting it correctly? And on what basis are they correct?
You seem to assume that all the Jewish scholars who have read the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic of the Tanakh over the centuries have been wrong about it and that you're the one who's right. On what basis do you draw that conclusion?
We have many scholars who have studied the New Testament and come to a different conclusion. So, who's right?

Again, the debate on why Jews should accept Jesus as the Messiah is a large area of debate that can be covered later.
Since your bluff has been called and you haven't responded, here it is:
I was not bluffing. All I did was ask you to provide the Hebrew definition.
.....while never getting around to providing a definition yourself.
I agree with the definition you provided from blueletterbible, so there's no need to provide additional definitions. But, I did provide my message notes already on discussing more about the Torah and shamar if anybody does want to see my analysis of it.
That's why context is important. The word clearly refers to following a set of legal commands in the context of Deut. 4:2.
Sure, it is in the context of legal commands. But the question is how literally should it be interpreted?
If any false statement is made in Christian scripture, all of it is cast into doubt.
There is no document that can hold to your standard.
It's not "my standard"; it's a basic principle. Where one mistake is made, other mistakes are possible. And while some documents may not hold up to it, documents claiming divine inspiration should be expected to.
Are there any authoritative documents that are inerrant? Is the US Constitution inerrant? Are encyclopedias inerrant? Is Wikipedia inerrant? Are all papers in peer-reviewed journals inerrant?
Think of it this way: According to Christian theology, how many sins does it take to send a person to hell? Just one? Then how many mistakes does it take for a text claiming divine inspiration to show itself as unreliable?
Because Yahweh, not the Bible, is God and the object of worship. We are not to idolize the Bible and make it some object that somehow itself is also divine.
Christian text was written to create Christian theology.
Not sure I'd entirely agree with that. There were fundamental Christian beliefs prior to any of the New Testament books being written. So, basic Christian theology existed prior to the existence of any Christian text.
Then let's say that Christian text was written to officially establish Christian theology. Only the accepted books made it into the canon.
You're conflating two things - text being written and text being selected. They need to be considered separately.

As for text being written, the vast majority of it was written to document the events and capture the early beliefs. Sure, Paul wrote down theology in his epistles, but most of it was to correct errors that had crept in. 1 Cor 15 is a good example. The Corinthians started to believe resurrection does not happen. But, resurrection from the dead was an early belief, even before Paul had written anything. Resurrection from the dead was already an established Christian belief before any NT text was written.

As for canonization, it was a de facto process as people started to read the text that was being generated during the first two centuries. I'm of the position if someone wants to "add to the Bible", go for it. But, there needs to be good justification to consider a work authoritative. Personally, I believe we should take the Didache as authoritative as well. All Christians should be reading it and studying it.
You were quoting a Christian claim already written to try to bolster the Christian claim that Jewish scripture points to Jesus. That's circular.
By your logic, then aren't you doing the same with the Jewish interpretations?
You mean I'm assuming that the Jewish Bible doesn't point to Jesus? I base my conclusion on my research into Christian mishandling of Hebrew text.
I mean you are using the Torah to argue for Jewish interpretations. Isn't that circular according to your logic? My argument is the circular charge is not applicable. People use the text of their own beliefs to support their own beliefs. There's nothing fallacious about that. It would only be fallacious if one claims their beliefs are universally true simply because their text says it. That would be circular.
I believe Jesus's teachings has no contradiction with the Torah based on the original language meanings, the intent of the teachings, how most Christians (and even Jews) view the Torah, and what is the commonly accepted views of Bible teachers and scholars.
You're obviously mistaken on that. Otherwise, all Torah-observant Jews would believe in Jesus.
There is no universal agreement on practically anything, even among scholars in any field. So it's a false requirement for universal acceptance of something in order to argue something can be true.
It doesn't matter who has added to or taken from the Torah over the centuries.
Then you concede this has been a practice by the Jews and others?
It doesn't matter whether it has been or not. What matters is what Jesus said about the practice.
Then I take it you agree people have added and taken away from the Torah over the centuries.
What matters is the incompatible difference between what Jesus says about the law of Moses and what the law of Moses says about itself.
You keep asserting this, but simply repeating it does not give your argument more weight. Really all of the evidence goes against your interpretation.
I do keep asserting it, but I also keep providing textual examples of it. All you have to do is go back through this thread and note the verses I've cited. Ignoring those examples doesn't make them go away.
Yes, you keep repeating the verses as well. And repeatedly saying I've been ignoring them, in light of the fact I've been continually addressing them, is also not helping you.
As I said, it requires looking at the original languages to have the proper interpretation.
Have you shown that the original languages refute my "interpretation"?
You've already provided the refutation of it:
Strong’s Definitions

שָׁמַר shâmar, shaw-mar'; a primitive root; properly, to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man).

KJV Translation Count — Total: 468x

The KJV translates Strong's H8104 in the following manner: keep (283x), observe (46x), heed (35x), keeper (28x), preserve (21x), beware (9x), mark (8x), watchman (8x), wait (7x), watch (7x), regard (5x), save (2x), miscellaneous (9x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Shamar does not only mean to literally follow a set of commands. But it means, "to hedge about (as with thorns), i.e. guard; generally, to protect, attend to, etc.:—beward, be circumspect, take heed (to self), keep(-er, self), mark, look narrowly, observe, preserve, regard, reserve, save (self), sure, (that lay) wait (for), watch(-man)."

It is translated in many ways, including, "keep (283x), observe (46x), heed (35x), keeper (28x), preserve (21x), beware (9x), mark (8x), watchman (8x), wait (7x), watch (7x), regard (5x), save (2x), miscellaneous (9x)."

Let's take one example how it's not used as literally following a set of legal commands.

[Gen 2:15 KJV] 15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep (shamar) it.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen ... _conc_2015

Jews place great emphasis on how a word is used for the first time in the Torah and it sets a pattern for how a word should be understood. Shamar is used first in the Torah in Gen 2:15. In this context, it is to keep a garden. What does it mean to keep a garden? It means to take care of it, tend it, cultivate it, harvest from it, etc. Shamar in Gen 2:15 does not mean to literally follow a set of legal commands.
You realize that there's no way to follow the new preacher's teaching without violating the law of Moses, but at the same time he says that the law of Moses isn't to be violated.
I would agree with that as well.
Then how would you account for his double-mindedness?
It's not double-mindedness. Obviously nobody is able to achieve the high standards that Jesus placed on us. Which man doesn't lust or get angry or want to give up on marriage when we are no longer "in love"? What Jesus is addressing is not our pious outward actions that might convince others we are holy, but our hearts and minds inside of us all of us are bent towards sin. We can literally follow the Torah and yet still be considered sinners, because within us, we cannot remove our sinful hearts and attitudes.
Both the OT and the NT fit with each other. They are both given by God to reveal himself to us.
Let's test that claim.

And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, "This is the thing which the Lord hath commanded. If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth." (Numbers 30:1-2)

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil. (Matthew 5:33-37)
My response would be the same to all your examples. I do not hold to a hyperliteral interpretation of the Bible.
If, for the sake of argument, the relic actually were produced by some supernatural means, what would its message most likely be? Might the message be that we should take the shortcomings in the text into account when evaluating the relic? However impressive the relic may seem, it can't pass muster if the religious text doesn't hold up.
You haven't even brought up any references to the crucifixion, death, and resurrection. Your argument is simply the text must all be inerrant and everything hyperliterally interpreted.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Contact:

Re: They Are Afraid of Having Holes Punched in Their Claims, Literally

Post #2989

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Mon Jul 31, 2023 7:48 am There is nothing to address. They tested it, it's Medieval. What else would it be? Honestly?
There's nothing to address because skeptics cannot refute my counterarguments on evidential grounds. So the only thing left for skeptics is to reassert the claims and bring up red herrings like a flat earth.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20164
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 327 times
Contact:

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

Post #2990

Post by otseng »

Another early Christian oral tradition is Philippians 2:6-11:

Phil 2:6-11 KJV
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth;
11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Even Ehrman acknowledges this passage is early.
The first and most important thing is that it has been widely recognized by scholars for a very long time that this passage is something that Paul appears to be quoting, that it is not simply part of the prose letter.
https://ehrmanblog.org/the-pre-pauline- ... r-members/

Philippians 2:6-11 is often referred to as a hymn, song, or poem.
Philippians 2:5-11 is called THE HYMN OF CHRIST, because scholars tell us that this passage records an actual hymn that was sung in worship by the early church.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/ch ... christ.cfm
Many scholars believe that in Phil 2:6-11 Paul quotes an early Christian hymn describing Christ’s incarnation and subsequent exaltation [as Lord]. Scholars who interpret Phil 2:6-11 as an early Christian hymn point out that it contains a rich vocabulary, a number of poetic elements (e.g., parallelism, paradox, climax), and that, with only one or two small changes, it can stand alone as an independent composition.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/passages/r ... ans-26-11/
The verses in this passage are arranged in couplets and they feature poetic devices. This evidence of prose has led scholars to postulate that this passage may, in fact, be the words of a very early Christian hymn, confession, or creed. While we cannot know with certainty which of these literary genres this passage belongs to, it contains aspects commonly found in creeds. It contains dogma, liturgy, confession, polemic, and doxology. (O’Brien 1991:188)
https://margmowczko.com/the-creed-of-philippians-2/
Rather, he expected that his readers affirm the
Christology in this passage based on what they already knew and affirmed about Jesus. If they
did not affirm this Christology, that Jesus was equal in status with God (divine) and humbled
himself through the incarnation, Paul makes a rather ill informed and vain ethical illustration of
humility to the community in Philippi. Thus the Christology in this hymn dates back at least to
the founding of the church in Philippi sometime in the 40s CE. Paul’s own conversion took
place around one year after the death of Jesus (c. 34 CE) and it was during that early period his
Christology took shape and hardened. Therefore, the Christology in this hymn traces back to the
convictions of the earliest Christians.
https://vc.bridgew.edu/cgi/viewcontent. ... onors_proj
The first strophe of the hymn from Phil 2:6-11
states that Christ existed in the form of God (en morphē theou) but in the
emptying process He took the form of a slave (morphēn doulou). The
Pauline language suggests an antithesis of ‘God’ and ‘slave’, but the
repetition of morphē identifies the two in the way that John in his gospel
identifies crucifixion with exaltation.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... HRISTOLOGY

Post Reply