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

[otseng]

And this is crucial, there is no basis for supporting WAXS as a reliable method of dating. There are simply too many variables and those variables are subject to opinion which is sometimes fueled by irrational (faith based) beliefs. This is why we can't find stats on it. It simply is not a reliable method for dating as the number of variables in the article demonstrate.

More assertions without providing evidence and a citation. And more accusations of irrational faith based motivation.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3001

Then how should a text be determined to be authoritative?

For one thing, by inerrancy.

Again, are there any authoritative documents that are inerrant?

Not even sure why you're trying to focus so much on inerrancy. From the very premise of the OP, we are assuming the Bible is not inerrant. If you're going to assume inerrancy is true to argue against the Bible, that is for another thread.

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

Because the Bible is the highest authority on Christian doctrine, faith, and practice. We can rely on the testimony of the Bible in regards to historical, moral, and spiritual claims. It contains the testimony of Jesus Christ and what he has done for us.

That's pretty high praise for text which, for the purposes of this thread, isn't presumed inerrant or even of divine origin.

Yes, and I've been backing it up with arguments and evidence throughout this thread without appealing to inerrancy or divine origin. If I have, you can call me out on that.

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

Yes there are inconsistencies. I've never claimed the Bible is inerrant. So it is your argument of inconsistencies in the Bible that does not change anything.

My argument doesn't have to change anything. The inconsistencies are there, and your effort to downplay them doesn't render them irrelevant.

Again, they have all been irrelevant because inerrancy is not assumed to be true in this thread.

I already gave my arguments based on the evidence. Please provide the counterevidence to what I've already argued.

Why should your interpretation of the data be preferred over the interpretation of the scientists who performed the test?

Because I've presented the counterevidence. If you have logical counters to my evidence, please present them.

[otseng]

And so your thread title was speaking to a particular group of people, I guess. Where I live not that many people even go to church, and so like those folks I just did not understand why the question had to be less clear.

The term inerrancy is more an American thing. I doubt many in Europe use this term.

Yes, it doesn't take much to find an "error" or a "contradiction". It takes awhile to flesh this out. Again, I refer readers to Mike Licona's series "Why are there differences in the gospels?" to address this:
https://www.perimeter.org/pages/add-l-m ... s-podcast/

I clicked on your link and there was no article by Mr Licona about this subject to see...........

Don't know why you can't find it. It looks like:



https://www.perimeter.org/pages/add-l-m ... s-podcast/

But, you can also just get the book:

In my opinion the gospels altered the character, actions, timeline and miracles of Jesus to fit with the new churches ideas about who and what he was. By the time that G-John was written the casting of demons was considered to be less acceptable, Jesus had become less patient with his disciples, the timeline had expanded from 11-12 months out to three years, and Jesus did not get involved in violent demonstration and picketing in the Great Temple (during that last week) at all, those actions were demoted to a brief mention at the beginning of the account. The enemy had changed from the Temple Priesthood and self-righteous Pharisees to 'The Jews' and Jesus was no longer the working-class man of God, but the Son of God and a Lord.

There is no spin that can explain that away, imo.

No, it's not really viable. That is why I've been presenting the early beliefs, even before anything had been written down. For example, see:
viewtopic.php?p=1127985#p1127985

[otseng]

If you could show how or where the bible is accurate or inaccurate then that would help.

Let me qualify that by saying it should be limited to the resurrection and how it contradicts the evidence of the Turin Shroud. I do not want this thread to be a general debate about inerrancy.

[otseng]

I feel the OP was pretty clear: If one doesn't accept some claims in a text, what process does one use to trust other claims in the text? Is that not a worthy discussion?

What process should be used? By confirming if the major claims are veridical through examination of the non-Biblical evidence and see if it corroborates with the Bible. A major claim is a doctrinal claim. Minor claims are non-doctrinal issues. The most significant doctrinal claim of Christianity is the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And I'm providing evidence to support this claim through the Turin Shroud.

[boatsnguitars]

I feel the OP was pretty clear: If one doesn't accept some claims in a text, what process does one use to trust other claims in the text? Is that not a worthy discussion?

What process should be used? By confirming if the major claims are veridical through examination of the non-Biblical evidence and see if it corroborates with the Bible. A major claim is a doctrinal claim. Minor claims are non-doctrinal issues. The most significant doctrinal claim of Christianity is the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And I'm providing evidence to support this claim through the Turin Shroud.

I think you'll find that few serious historians think that the supernatural claims in any religious text are to be taken seriously. So, there's a Bayesian threshold that you'd have to overcome first - which no religion has.

• Was the source created at the same time of the event it describes? If not, who made the record, when, and why?

• Who furnished the information? Was the informant in a position to give correct facts? Was the informant a participant in the original event? Was the informant using secondhand information? Would the informant have benefited from giving incorrect or incomplete answers?

• Is the information in the record such as names, dates, places, events, and relationships logical? Does it make sense in the context of time, place, and the people being researched?

• Does more than one reliable source give the same information?

• What other evidence supports the information in the source?

• Does the source contain discrepancies? Were these errors of the creator of the document or the informant?

• Have you found any reliable evidence that contradicts or conflicts with what you already know?

• Is the source an original or a copy? If it’s a copy, can you get a version closer to the original?

• Does the document have characteristics that may affect is readability? Consider smears, tears, missing words, faded ink, hard-to-read handwriting, too dark microfilm, and bad reproduction.

https://www.margotnote.com/blog/verify-reliability

Analzying Historical Documents
The Nature of Evidence: Historians use a wide variety of evidence to build their interpretations of the past. The discussion below applies to a particular type of evidence called historical documents. Much historical evidence is testimonial or anecdotal. However, other types of evidence, such as experimental and observational, also exist. What do these terms mean? Experimental evidence, common to the natural sciences, often involves the measurement of physical artifacts or processes. Thanks to precise methods and measurements, such data should be replicable. Observational evidence comes from recording data under controlled conditions. Social scientists, for example, can construct experiments for human subjects that measure responses and, like experimental evidence, are replicable.

Most historical evidence, however, comes to us from past events. Thus we cannot replicate those past conditions nor provide the level of control present in experimental or observational evidence. That makes the historian's job a bit more difficult but nevertheless, with training and practice, possible. Much historical evidence is anecdotal, "an individual's personal accounts of his or her experiece." Examples include mainly primary sources, such as diaries, letters, transcriptions of conversations or interviews, or memoirs. We valid the reliablity of anecdotal evidence by checking for internal consistency and by gauging its statements against those of other, external evidence. Testimonial evidence comes for someone speaking or writing with authority, expertise, and credentialing. Much testimonial evidence comes from secondary sources, such as authoritative, refereed monographs (journal articles and books). Regardless of the type of evidence confronted, the historian must evaluate its relative strengths and weaknesses. Oliver North's diary[The foregoing discussion owes a debt to Jon Stratton, Critical Thinking for College Students (1999, pp. 243-49). Now on to an evaluation of various types of historical evidence. [Document to the right is a page from Oliver North's diary, admitting that the US-supported contras ran drugs into the US.]

Physical characteristics and provenance
1. What type of document are you analyzing? Is it a Newspaper editorial? Map? Government Report? Official Letter? Personal Letter? Memorandum? Telegram? Press Release? Advertisement? Congressional Speech? Other-- specify.
2. If you had an original document, you would also examine it for any unique physical qualities. These might include Interesting letterhead, nature of the handwriting, any seals, notations, or other official stamps.
3. What is the date of the document? (Dates written, sent, annotated, and received, if applicable)
4. To whom was the document addressed or for what audience was it prepared?

Content Analysis
5. List the author's three most important points.
6. Why do you think the document was written?
7. What specific evidence or examples help you determine why it was written?
8. Identify a question or issue that is left unanswered by the document.

Tests of Document Reliability
9. How trustworthy do you consider the document? Does it accurately reflect the historical past? Why or why not? Apply the tests of validity below.
1. Relevance: Is the evidence presented really relevant to the claim being made?
2. Recency: Has the situation described by the evidence changed? Just being old isn't enough to disqualify evidence: The situation must have changed since the evidence was published.
3. Validity: Is the document what it appears to be or is it possibly a fraud or forgery?
4. Identification: Is the author or source clearly identified? His/her position? title? Historians do not rely on "anonymous" or hearsay.
5. Expertise: Is the source qualified to provide this evidence? Sources may be qualified by training/education or by experience with the topic of the evidence.
6. Bias: Does the author have a vestesd interest in the topic of the evidence that might distort the evidence? Reluctant testimony, in which the source testifies against self-interest (e.g., a Republican exposing illegal actions of the Republican Party) is very persuasive. Biased sources do not always distort their evidence.
7. Internal Consistency: Do various elements of the source remain consistent within itself or does one or more parts contradict other parts?
8. External Consistency: Is the evidence consistent with outside qualified sources?

Adoptation and extension of the Written Document Analysis Worksheet, developed by the US National Archives and Records Administration

https://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/h ... idence.htm

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3012

Then how should a text be determined to be authoritative?

For one thing, by inerrancy.

Again, are there any authoritative documents that are inerrant?

I assume you're taking the position that the Quran and Book of Mormon are authoritative.


Why should your interpretation of the data be preferred over the interpretation of the scientists who performed the test?

Because I've presented the counterevidence. If you have logical counters to my evidence, please present them.

Why should anyone have to interpret your counterevidence the way you do?


If Christian scripture isn't inerrant (it isn't without error), as you admit, perhaps the "evidence" of the Turin cloth more likely supports this interpretation of Jesus:

https://www.reform-magazine.co.uk/2016/ ... dus-jesus/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3015

A major claim is a doctrinal claim. Minor claims are non-doctrinal issues.

Not if.....

He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much. (Luke 16:10)

[oldbadger]

Again, I find you disingenuous. I think you must be aware of the myriad discussions surrounding the accuracy of the Bible - EVEN AMONG CHRISTIANS!
You know this, but seem play ignorant. Why?

Because this is our conversation about trusting the bible...or not.

Are you not aware that some Christian denominations and sects treat the Bible more literally than others? Are you not aware of the main points of contention?

But this is our conversation.

Since you are aware of these issues (I must assume), I wonder why you ask me to re-state them - especially since the OP isn't asking for evidence, but asking "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?"

But you're going to give me an example soon, anyway........

"if it's not inerrant?" what logically follows?

If.... If...... ! There are over 65 books in the bible, and some folks want to chuck the whole library out because there are errors in some of them..... I can't help that kind of mindset any more than I can help somebody who insists that God caused its publication and sao it's all correct.

I don't care what these folks think at present..... I care about what you think.

What would a Christian say, if they say the Flood wasn't literally Global, but wants to assert the Rez was real? What logic would they use? I think you are also familiar with all those arguments, too.

Well you'd need to write to a Christian that thinks that.
I've read the depositions in the New Testament and the one which I believe is the most accurate doesn't mention 'the rez' as you put it.

Or, like Bishop Spong who believes the Rez is an allegory. How does he trust the Bible in it's claims of redemption, God, etc. when - on the basic face - he doesn't believe in the literal truth of key point in the Bible.

But you're talking to me....... and I'm waiting for your opinion about whether the bible should be trusted...at all.

I feel the OP was pretty clear: If one doesn't accept some claims in a text, what process does one use to trust other claims in the text? Is that not a worthy discussion?

If it's inerrant then the OP is moot.

..... because it was written by so many pens, and compiled over hundreds of years, even I can see that so many of its accounts, reports, laws and claims are worth taking notice of.

When I think of 'the Flood' I am reminded of the many mass-extinction events that have happened here, and whilst I don't think that any human author back then could have been aware of these, I just find those events to be most interesting in connection with 'the Flood'.

I don't have to believe in 'the Rez' because the deposition that I take most notice of doesn't mention it. You see, even the gospel writers had different agendas, and one was horribly fixated upon propaganda.

And so to answer the OP, we can trust many of the accounts in the bible, even knowing about the hyperbole, metaphorical accounts and some outright deceptions that can be found.

Or did you think that God wrote it?

[oldbadger]

Let me qualify that by saying it should be limited to the resurrection and how it contradicts the evidence of the Turin Shroud. I do not want this thread to be a general debate about inerrancy.

No problem at all!
The resurrection:- What about 60+ books in the bible claim, the exactness or errancy of those can't have much influence upon depositions about the resurrection, so we only have to worry about three books which make this claim. All those written accounts of people seeing Jesus after the crucifixions don't actually prove that he had died, but imo show how he survived.

Matthew's deposition ..... I put to one side because I can see that his account errs, and that's easy to explain because he wasn't even there himself, he copied much of the original reports shown in G-Mark. Some of his stories are valuable and some need to be put aside.

Luke's deposition....... he was honest about not being a witness himself and so his collection of stories and his copying of parts of G-Mark are just based upon his genuine belief, but some of his stories are very valuable and some need to be put aside.

John's deposition........... whilst 'they' did use many true stories from whatever bundle of accounts had been collected, the whole account is a wicked distortion about Jesus, what he did, and who his enemies really were. Some of his stories were true imo, which he used as 'truth pills' for the gullible to swallow, but if you're looking for errancy you'll find it here in pages.

G-Mark......... I feel sure that this is the true story, written by a partial witness and the closest account for accuracy, but it has later been fiddled with then this needs to be redacted as well.

The Shroud...? I put that piece of cloth in the same box with all the pieces of wooden cross, teeth, cups, bones and any other items that Christianity 'found and displayed' for grooming the faiths of the unaware.