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

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

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

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[boatsnguitars]

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.

... is exactly what the Evolution-deniers, Flood-advocates, anti-Climate Change people say.

As this seems to be a very specific interest to you, and perhaps deserves an entire thread in it's own right, maybe you can post all your "research" there? I'd love for you to create a single document and submit it to a science forum. Please let me know if you do.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for someone to answer the OP: "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?"

[Diogenes]

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.

If, by 'skeptics' you mean mainstream sindonologists (who actually follow the relevant scientific protocols) then you are wrong. OTOH if you refer to those associated with Liberato de Caro et al., they failed to disclose their bias that they personally believe the Shroud is 2000 years old.

Look up WAXS and the first half dozen hits are all from Roman Catholic Church related sources AND they all simply quote de Caro's claims; they do not discuss details. But, since all this hocus pocus is not taken seriously in the scientific world, you will eventually find a less biased source that blows the WAXS dating of de Caro completely out of the water.

The premise is simple enough, and not at all improbable; that cloth deteriorates with age, mostly by oxidation, under conditions of temperature and humidity, and that, other things being equal, this deterioration might be measured and calibrated, giving us a possible method of dating textiles without recourse to radiocarbon dating.

We have been here before, and, as we shall see, the new findings are closely related to the previous ones. However, although “alternative dating techniques have contradicted the radiocarbon findings” is a popular trope among podcasters, the earlier experiments have not found much favour among mainstream sindonologists, for sensible reasons, in particular due to the selection of materials and the statistical manipulation that was necessary for the ‘correct’ conclusion to be drawn.

https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/ [a deep dive into this article will answer the claims of anyone credulous enough to believe de Caro et al.]

This is all a familiar pattern and one employed by flat Earthers, astrologists, evolution deniers, global floodists, Babelists, Noah's Arkists, and other assorted conspiracy theorists:
"Find an obscure 'expert' who is highly biased who publishes something arcane where a deep dive into the details exposes the frailty of the conclusion, and publish and republish the conclusions without the data and proclaim 'Victory!!

It ain't worth the cloth it's printed on.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2988

My methodology in showing the Bible is authoritative and reliable would be the same as for any other book, document, or text.

Do you consider the Quran or the Book of Mormon authoritative? If not, why not?

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.

The topic of this whole thread is trusting the Bible if it's not inerrant.

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.

And your notes seem to be general points which don't address the specific issue of the meaning of "keep" in Deut. 4:2.

Sure, it is in the context of legal commands. But the question is how literally should it be interpreted?

According to Jesus in Matthew 5:18, every-jot-and-tittle literally.

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?

Does the US Constitution claim divine inspiration? Do encyclopedias claim divine inspiration? Does Wikipedia claim divine inspiration? Do all papers in peer-reviewed journals claim divine inspiration?

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.

You don't have to worship a book to expect it to be inerrant if it's supposed to be from a divine source.

Resurrection from the dead was already an established Christian belief before any NT text was written.

Swearing oaths was already established as right in Jehovah's eyes (Num. 30:2, Dt. 13:18) before Jesus came along and called it evil (Mt. 5:37).

People use the text of their own beliefs to support their own beliefs. There's nothing fallacious about that.

There is when they use the claims of their own beliefs as arguments for their own beliefs, as in:

Another purpose of the law was to serve as a tutor to lead us to Christ. He both fulfilled the law and superseded it.

Galatians 3:24 (KJV)
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

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.

This isn't about "any field". It's about text which is supposed to be divinely inspired. No deity can establish or enforce divine truth with writing which is so ambiguous that it can be interpreted in myriad ways.


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.

I employ this as a hypothetical, and you seem to cling to that hypothetical as if you have nothing else.

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.

You haven't been addressing them; all you've been doing is accusing me of being "hyper literal".

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.

What does it mean to keep a garden? It means to prune it, douse it with water and keep the bugs out of it.

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may prune, douse with water and keep the bugs off of the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

The very fact that there are various definitions, depending on context, shows that there isn't a single "pattern" for every use of a word. Words have different definitions in different contexts, but that doesn't give you licence to switch their definitions willy-nilly to suit your preference.


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.

This is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Poetic Language. You're simply burying Jesus's inconsistent doctrine under a heap of sentiment. His "high standard" is unattainable because his directives are mutually exclusive. Following them isn't just humanly impossible; it's logically impossible. That's what makes it double-minded.


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.

So you can't answer any of the questions I posed?

Any of the excuses you're making for Jesus's inconsistent teaching could be made just as easily for inconsistency in the teaching of any other religion's founder.

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.

What I've brought up bears on the veracity of the resurrection claim. And yes, my argument is that the text must all be inerrant, because if it isn't then it's no better than any other errant book, and no more authoritative than any other errant book. I'm not being "hyperliteral" just because I won't make up excuses for its inconsistency.

[otseng]

... is exactly what the Evolution-deniers, Flood-advocates, anti-Climate Change people say.

As this seems to be a very specific interest to you, and perhaps deserves an entire thread in it's own right, maybe you can post all your "research" there? I'd love for you to create a single document and submit it to a science forum. Please let me know if you do.

Actually, there have been several threads on evolution and the global flood that I've participated in. And I also discussed the flood in this thread.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for someone to answer the OP: "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?"

Just read through this thread and you'll find my arguments and evidence.

[otseng]

If, by 'skeptics' you mean mainstream sindonologists (who actually follow the relevant scientific protocols) then you are wrong. OTOH if you refer to those associated with Liberato de Caro et al., they failed to disclose their bias that they personally believe the Shroud is 2000 years old.

Look up WAXS and the first half dozen hits are all from Roman Catholic Church related sources AND they all simply quote de Caro's claims; they do not discuss details. But, since all this hocus pocus is not taken seriously in the scientific world, you will eventually find a less biased source that blows the WAXS dating of de Caro completely out of the water.

Oh yeah, forgot to add akeptics also use accusations of bias.

Even Hugh Farey makes an accusation of bias.

Although the authors declare no conflict of interest, which may in its commonly recognised financial sense be true, at least two are deeply personally convinced of the authenticity of the Shroud

https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/

I would consider Farey to be the top shroud skeptic. Is he not biased as well? He could be considered the most biased skeptic.

Bias really should not be considered in debates. Everyone is biased. What is important is the evidence, not making charges of motivation.

The premise is simple enough, and not at all improbable; that cloth deteriorates with age, mostly by oxidation, under conditions of temperature and humidity, and that, other things being equal, this deterioration might be measured and calibrated, giving us a possible method of dating textiles without recourse to radiocarbon dating.

We have been here before, and, as we shall see, the new findings are closely related to the previous ones. However, although “alternative dating techniques have contradicted the radiocarbon findings” is a popular trope among podcasters, the earlier experiments have not found much favour among mainstream sindonologists, for sensible reasons, in particular due to the selection of materials and the statistical manipulation that was necessary for the ‘correct’ conclusion to be drawn.
https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/

There are two main things Hugh Farey addresses - Giulio Fanti’s optical-mechanical dating and WAXS.

As for Fanti's optical-mechanical dating, I've never even presented it as evidence. So, that critique does not apply.

Another charge is it is not clear exactly where the sample came from. We know it's from the Raes corner, but we don't know exactly if it was from Raes or from a C-14 reserve. But since the sample was from the shroud, don't really see the point in quibbling where exactly it was from.

Fanti claims that this Shroud sample is “a thread taken in proximity of the 1988/ radiocarbon area (corner of the TS corresponding to the feet area of the frontal image) near the so-called Raes sample.” When this thread was taken and who took it is not mentioned. Was it, in fact extracted from the Raes sample? Why not say so? Or was it extracted, by Luigi Gonella, from the Riserva portion of the strip cut off by Riggi di Numana in 1988? In his paper for Thermochimica Acta, Ray Rogers writes: “I received samples of both warp and weft threads that Prof. Luigi Gonella had taken from the radiocarbon sample before it was distributed for dating. Gonella reported that he excised the threads from the center of the radiocarbon sample,” and the provenance of these was thoroughly investigated by Thibault Heimburger. Did Fanti get his sample from Gonella? Why not say so?

https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/

Farey then hypothesizes there could be contamination to skew the results.

To mainstream sindonologists (mostly American) this will present a challenge. One school of thought is that the Shroud in that area is so covered in grime and contamination that any kind of experimentation with it is bound to be fruitless. Another claims that this area was substantially repaired during the Middle Ages and that threads from this region are either medieval cotton or closely interwoven with medieval cotton, and a third claims that the miracle of the Resurrection flooded the area with neutrons, which must surely have had some deleterious effect on the cellulose. Actually discovering that this piece of Shroud might be accurately dateable will disturb some of these ideas.

https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/

It could be, but he brought up no evidence for this, esp when there's no visual evidence of this in the photos.

He mentioned few others have cited the optical-mechanical dating papers, which is true. Even I don't cite it as evidence.

If mechanical deterioration could really be used as a chronograph, then surely it would have been taken up by now, but a glance at Google Scholar tells us that ‘Multi-parametric micro-mechanical dating of single fibers coming from ancient flax textiles’ has only been cited 11 times since publication in 2014, 7 times by Fanti himself, and all of them solely in connection with the Shroud. The archaeological world, it seems, remains unimpressed.

https://medievalshroud.com/waxsing-and-waning/

As for WAXS citation statistics, he does not discuss it. I also cannot find stats on this as well.

[otseng]

Do you consider the Quran or the Book of Mormon authoritative? If not, why not?

This thread is not about the Quran or the Book of Mormon or any other document. Feel free to start another thread on it to debate those.

You did not answer my question...

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?

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.

The topic of this whole thread is trusting the Bible if it's not inerrant.

Yes, but like I've mentioned multiple times before, I want to keep it semi-organized and debate one topic at a time. As one readily sees, this thread is massive already, to keep jumping from one topic to another will make the entire debate unmanageable.

And your notes seem to be general points which don't address the specific issue of the meaning of "keep" in Deut. 4:2.

The message was a general overview of the meaning of Torah and shamar and it was not an exhaustive treatment of all verses. But the general application of the meanings of the terms can be applied here as well.

Sure, it is in the context of legal commands. But the question is how literally should it be interpreted?

According to Jesus in Matthew 5:18, every-jot-and-tittle literally.

Even if one takes this passage literally, it says nothing about following every jot and tittle. So, actually you are not taking it literally, but adding your own interpretation that this passage refers to obeying every single detail of the law.

Mat 5:18 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.

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?

Does the US Constitution claim divine inspiration? Do encyclopedias claim divine inspiration? Does Wikipedia claim divine inspiration? Do all papers in peer-reviewed journals claim divine inspiration?

No they don't. Now your turn to answer my question.

You don't have to worship a book to expect it to be inerrant if it's supposed to be from a divine source.

Not sure what you mean. Again, for the purposes of this debate, the Bible is treated as any other book. There is no claim it is inerrant or from a divine source. Yes, the Bible itself claims it is God breathed, but for analyzing the text itself, this is not assumed to be true.

Resurrection from the dead was already an established Christian belief before any NT text was written.

Swearing oaths was already established as right in Jehovah's eyes (Num. 30:2, Dt. 13:18) before Jesus came along and called it evil (Mt. 5:37).

Not relevant to the discussions. I mean we can talk about all sorts of passages and supposed contradictions in the Bible, but let's limit it to the resurrection.

The very fact that there are various definitions, depending on context, shows that there isn't a single "pattern" for every use of a word. Words have different definitions in different contexts, but that doesn't give you licence to switch their definitions willy-nilly to suit your preference.

Well, you are also doing that as well by only applying a very specific definition to all the passages you've brought up.

Following them isn't just humanly impossible; it's logically impossible. That's what makes it double-minded.

From a human point of view, yes it's impossible. That was what Jesus was getting at. We are not able to hold up to Jesus's standards in our own strength. Our only way out of the impossible situation is for God to save us, not we ourselves.

Eph 2:8-9 KJV
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.

So you can't answer any of the questions I posed?

You're asking me this?

Any of the excuses you're making for Jesus's inconsistent teaching could be made just as easily for inconsistency in the teaching of any other religion's founder.

Could be. This is why I do not argue from a textual perspective to demonstrate the uniqueness of Jesus, but from an artifact perspective. Why is it you want to focus on the textual perspective when I'm not even doing that?

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.

What I've brought up bears on the veracity of the resurrection claim. And yes, my argument is that the text must all be inerrant, because if it isn't then it's no better than any other errant book, and no more authoritative than any other errant book. I'm not being "hyperliteral" just because I won't make up excuses for its inconsistency.

Well, by your own admission you are then assuming the text must all be inerrant. This is contrary to the fundamental assumption of this debate, which is not assuming this is inerrant. So your entire argument for the past several pages is not even valid in this debate.

[otseng]

Another early Christian tradition is the "kerygma".

Kerygma (from the ancient Greek word κήρυγμα kérugma) is a Greek word used in the New Testament for "proclamation" (see Luke 4:18-19, Romans 10:14, Gospel of Matthew 3:1). It is related to the Greek verb κηρύσσω (kērússō), literally meaning "to cry or proclaim as a herald" and being used in the sense of "to proclaim, announce, preach". Amongst biblical scholars, the term has come to mean the core of the early church's teaching about Jesus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

Transliteration of the Greek word that means proclamation or preaching. Depending on the context, it may refer to either the content proclaimed or the act of proclaiming. The word is used once in Matthew ( 12:41 ), once in Luke ( 11:32 ),and six times in Paul's letters ( Rom 16:25 ; 1 Col 1:21 ; 2:4 ; 15:14 ; 2 Tim 4:17 ; Titus 1:3 ). All of these New Testament occurrences appear to refer to what is being proclaimed.

https://www.biblestudytools.com/diction ... rygma.html

Kerygma is a borrowed term from the Greeks.

The Greek word kerygma describes what was a well-known practice in the ancient world. When a king wanted to publicize his decrees throughout his realm, he would send a kerux, what we know in English as a town crier or herald. Often a trusted advisor or confidant of the king, the kerux or herald would travel throughout the empire announcing the kerygma–the news the king wanted delivered. This was especially important in the context of war. When the king’s army won a great battle thereby conquering new territory, the herald would travel within the newly acquire regions announcing the victory and proclaiming the order of the newly expanded kingdom.

The New Testament apostles quickly adopted this imagery and language to describe their roles as heralds traveling through the earthly realm announcing the arrival and victory of King Jesus and explaining the order of his kingdom. They were declaring a kerygma–a proclamation they were called to deliver to the world. The essence of this proclamation is the good news (euangelion). It is the announcement that the time all of history was waiting for had come; the king had arrived; and through his death, resurrection and exaltation, he had won the victory and was enforcing his kingdom. This message animated the early church. It drove Paul and the other apostles to risk–and ultimately give up–their lives for just another opportunity to make the announcement.

https://kerygmaventures.com/about/what-is-kerygma/

The main message of the kerygma is the foundational message of the gospel of Christ. It does not encompass deeper teachings of the Bible.

The content of the kerygma is the gospel of Christ (cf. Mk 1.14), what is to be believed (Rom 10.18), or simply the logos, or word (Acts 17.11; 2 Tm 4.2). Jesus had announced the coming of the kingdom with His call for repentance (Mk 1.15). The central object of the apostolic kerygma was Christ (Acts 8.5; 19.13; 1 Cor 1.23), in whom, according to the prophecies, is salvation (2 Cur1.19–20). It was the cross with the implication of the Resurrection (1 Cor 1.23; Rom 8.17) and Christ's return as judge (Acts 10.42).

The earliest exponents of the Christian faith had worked out a distinct way of presenting the fundamental convictions of their religion. The Christian preacher thought of himself as the divinely authorized announcer, or herald, of very important news after the manner of John the Baptist (Mt 3.1–2; Mk 11.30–33). The preacher recounted the life and work of Jesus Christ in brief form, demonstrating that in Christ's conflicts, sufferings, death, and Resurrection, the divinely guided history of mankind had reached its climax. God Himself had now most personally intervened in the history of mankind to inaugurate His kingdom on earth. This announcement was bracketed between that of the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies and the new Christian community's, or Church's, eschatological destiny in the Second Coming of the Savior to reader judgment. The preacher sought to convince his hearers that they were now confronted by God Himself as represented in His kingdom and that they stood liable to immediate and inescapable judgment. They had only to accept His invitation to embark on a new life wherein through God's mercy they would be unburdened of past delinquencies and have the opportunity of enjoying a new relationship with God, in the Lord Christ Jesus.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/e ... ps/kerygma

The book of Acts indicates that the Apostles and other Christians followed a two-step process in reaching the world for Christ. Generally, it seems that they preached a basic gospel message with a simple outline focused on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus (see Acts 17:1–3, for example). This core gospel message, sometimes called the kerygma, or "proclamation," did not contain everything Jesus taught His disciples but only the basics of salvation. After people believed the kerygma, however, the Apostles would remain for some time and give further in-depth teaching in God's Word. Acts 19:1–10, for instance, tells us that Paul spent two years in Ephesus instructing people in "the word of the Lord." Discipleship followed evangelism.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotion ... ng-kerygma

What is the message of the kerygma?

Archbishop Allen H. Vigneron writes, “The ‘kerygma’ is the New Testament word for the simple, radical, countercultural and joyful message of the Gospel — that ‘initial ardent proclamation by which a person is one day overwhelmed and brought to the decision to entrust himself to Jesus Christ by faith.’”

https://www.unleashthegospel.org/2019/0 ... -creation/

The Kerygma is the declaration that:

1. The coming of Jesus Christ fulfills all the promises of history and inaugurates the kingdom of God on earth;
2. Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection accomplishes the forgiveness of sin;
3. From his exalted position as ascended Messiah, Jesus rules all things;
4. The presence of the Holy Spirit signifies his present reign and empowers believers to fulfill their destiny as image-bearers; and
5. This declaration demands a response of repentance and complete trust.

https://kerygmaventures.com/about/what-is-kerygma/

Though kerygma contains the message of Christ, the core of the kerygma is his crucifixion.

"Kerygmatic" is sometimes used to express the message of Jesus' whole ministry, as "a proclamation addressed not to the theoretical reason, but to the hearer as a self"; as opposed to the didactic use of Scripture that seeks understanding in the light of what is taught. The meaning of the crucifixion is central to this concept.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerygma

Kergyma is from kēryssō (κηρύσσω).

preach (51x), publish (5x), proclaim (2x), preached (with G2258) (2x), preacher (1x).

1) to be a herald, to officiate as a herald
a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald
b) always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed
2) to publish, proclaim openly: something which has been done
3) used of the public proclamation of the gospel and matters pertaining to it, made by John the Baptist, by Jesus, by the apostles and other Christian teachers

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

Some passages that use the word:

Mat 3:1
In those days came John the Baptist, preaching G2784 in the wilderness of Judaea,

Mat 4:17
From that time Jesus began to preach, G2784 and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Mar 1:14
Now after that John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching G2784 the gospel of the kingdom of God,

Luk 3:3
And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching G2784 the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

Act 10:42
And he commanded us to preach G2784 unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

Rom 10:14
How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? G2784

1Co 1:23
But we preach G2784 Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

2Co 4:5
For we preach G2784 not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake.

[boatsnguitars]

Actually, there have been several threads on evolution and the global flood that I've participated in. And I also discussed the flood in this thread.

Did anti-Evolutionists, or Global Flood proponents change their view because of your arguments (assuming you were taking the Scientific position)?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2996

This thread is not about the Quran or the Book of Mormon or any other document. Feel free to start another thread on it to debate those.

You did not answer my question...
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 don't consider the Quran or Book of Mormon authoritative, then no, I don't agree with it.


According to Jesus in Matthew 5:18, every-jot-and-tittle literally.

Even if one takes this passage literally, it says nothing about following every jot and tittle. So, actually you are not taking it literally, but adding your own interpretation that this passage refers to obeying every single detail of the law.

Mat 5:18 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.

I'm not adding my own "interpretation"; what I'm adding is what Jesus says in the very next verse:

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.

Do you believe that he was referring to every jot and tittle for those who did them? If so, how do you deny that he was referring to every jot and tittle for those who broke them?


Does the US Constitution claim divine inspiration? Do encyclopedias claim divine inspiration? Does Wikipedia claim divine inspiration? Do all papers in peer-reviewed journals claim divine inspiration?

No they don't. Now your turn to answer my question.

My question shows that your question is irrelevant.


You don't have to worship a book to expect it to be inerrant if it's supposed to be from a divine source.

Not sure what you mean. Again, for the purposes of this debate, the Bible is treated as any other book. There is no claim it is inerrant or from a divine source. Yes, the Bible itself claims it is God breathed, but for analyzing the text itself, this is not assumed to be true.

Then why do you keep referring to it as "authoritative" and "reliable"?


Swearing oaths was already established as right in Jehovah's eyes (Num. 30:2, Dt. 13:18) before Jesus came along and called it evil (Mt. 5:37).

Not relevant to the discussions. I mean we can talk about all sorts of passages and supposed contradictions in the Bible

You declare that the Bible isn't inerrant, but you still refer to its contradictions as "supposed". Do you concede that there are contradictions in the Bible or do you not?

but let's limit it to the resurrection.

That won't change anything. There are plenty of inconsistencies between the resurrection narratives.


The very fact that there are various definitions, depending on context, shows that there isn't a single "pattern" for every use of a word. Words have different definitions in different contexts, but that doesn't give you licence to switch their definitions willy-nilly to suit your preference.

Well, you are also doing that as well by only applying a very specific definition to all the passages you've brought up.

That's because I'm applying definitions which fit the contexts of all the passages I've brought up.


Following them isn't just humanly impossible; it's logically impossible. That's what makes it double-minded.

From a human point of view, yes it's impossible. That was what Jesus was getting at. We are not able to hold up to Jesus's standards in our own strength. Our only way out of the impossible situation is for God to save us, not we ourselves.

I said:

"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."

You responded:

I would agree with that as well.

Here you concede that Jesus is telling his audience to follow his teaching, which breaks the law of Moses, while telling them at the same time not to break the law of Moses.

"Doublethink is a term from George Orwell's 1949 dystopian novel, 1984, which refers to the mental ability of believing two contradictory ideas at the same time for the purpose of rending critical thinking impossible."
---Google (bolding in original)

What makes the situation "impossible", and how is God supposed to save us from it? Is God supposed to say, "Oops, sorry.....what I commanded Moses to tell you was wrong, so I sent Jesus to fix my mistake"?


So you can't answer any of the questions I posed?

You're asking me this?

Yes.


Any of the excuses you're making for Jesus's inconsistent teaching could be made just as easily for inconsistency in the teaching of any other religion's founder.

Could be. This is why I do not argue from a textual perspective to demonstrate the uniqueness of Jesus, but from an artifact perspective. Why is it you want to focus on the textual perspective when I'm not even doing that?

To show that the artifact doesn't even have the text behind it, so it can't be relied on to have anything else behind it.

Well, by your own admission you are then assuming the text must all be inerrant. This is contrary to the fundamental assumption of this debate, which is not assuming this is inerrant. So your entire argument for the past several pages is not even valid in this debate.

You claim that the procedures of the Turin cloth C-14 test weren't "inerrant". Can you prove that this kept the results from being authoritative and reliable?

[oldbadger]

In the meantime, I'm still waiting for someone to answer the OP: "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?"

It is a strange question, but only because it includes a double negative..... 'How can we trust the bible if it's errant' just seems less complicated.

Actually ...... no.......it is a very strange question, even in its less complex form.
Asking that question is like asking 'How can we trust in the Daily (pick a paper) if it has an incorrect report in it?
....very strange!

There are so many individual books in the bible and that includes in the New Testament. For instance the gospels change the character, personality and mission of Jesus in so many ways......... so a smart reader will review and scrutinize the books, and put some accounts to one side while paying more attention to others.

So if you find an error or contradiction in the bible all you have to do is a little investigating, and a little smart thinking.