boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Thu Aug 03, 2023 5:28 am
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?