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

[Falling Light 101]

.

is it truthful to say or think that even those who believe that the Bible is not inerrant - " they still place much trust in the Bible,

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3130

Everyone should use the same principles of proper hermeneutics

What are those principles, specifically?

your argument is not even found in any of the resurrection skeptics sources I've ever encountered.

That shows that I don't depend on others for all of my arguments. I can formulate my own.

So, really it is only you that believe it is evidence against the resurrection.

So you know for a fact that no one reading this agrees with me?


(I've even pointed out that the image on the cloth can be "interpreted" as evidence of Jesus having been an incarnation of Vishnu).

Anyone can claim anything they want, but they need evidence to back it up. We've already looked at the text and there's no direct or indirect reference to Jesus. For reference, here's what I posted:

Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, and there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I Myself come forth;

For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, for the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age.

https://vivekavani.com/bhagavad-gita-ch ... verse-7-8/

There is no direct or indirect reference to Jesus, so it's entirely speculation this is referring to him.

And I believe that I pointed out the same about Isaiah 53.


If the image on the Turin cloth is Jesus, which Jesus is it? Is it the Jesus who told the crowd that every jot and tittle of the law of Moses should still be followed, or is it the Jesus who violated that same law by forbidding divorce and oath taking when the law said not to forbid them?

How many Jesus of Nazereth are there?

The text mentions at least the two identified above.


Those preposition differences reverse what the text says.

Hebrew and Greek allows that flexibility. So, it's difficult to translate into the English.

Difficult for a deity who doesn't author confusion?


If no one should assume inerrancy in the Christian Bible, then why can't anyone just as easily regard....
“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
....as errant text, especially on the basis of so much textual evidence that it's errant?

It's similar to any witness in a courtroom. It's not that everything they say is either true or false. We have to use the totality of evidence to determine what is true or false.

That's why we have to include the textual evidence of Jesus's contradictory teaching.

Yes, earlier it mentions a new covenant. But in verse Jer 31:34 where it says shall "all know me" and it also says "I will forgive their iniquity", so is it only the Jews that would have their sins forgiven?

I've already answered that question, and the question doesn't change the fact that "they shall all know me" is the definitive feature of the new covenant.

Since I've already presented my case Jesus resurrected from the dead, then I'm going to the next step of presenting the case he's the Messiah. But it's a non sequitur to argue he's not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead.

I'm not just arguing that he's not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing first that his teaching was contradictory and incompatible with the law of Moses, therefore he wasn't the Messiah.


Jeremiah didn't say that it would be Jesus who established the covenant.

Who did Jeremiah say would fulfill his prophecy?

He didn't have to specify an individual. What he did specify is what would happen when the new covenant was established: no more teaching each other to "know the Lord" because they would all know him.


The whole thing is about realizing it.

What do you mean by "realize"? Do you mean to actualize it and bring into reality? Or do you mean recognizing it and understanding it?

It would be both. The nations would recognize it, and their recognition of it would bring about their redemption.


Since that bears directly on the reliability of the Christian Bible, it's quite enough to get at.

Still don't see your point. This is not a debate on the inerrancy of scripture.

We have to use the totality of evidence to determine what is true or false.

Then I'm asking you since you're arguing for the Jewish perspective. Here's the questions again:
And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?

I've quoted Jewish perspectives on some of this. How individual Jews would answer these questions is for them to determine and irrelevant beyond that.

You claim hermeneutics is not even necessary, so why should anyone accept your interpretations?

I'm not "interpreting". I'm quoting the text directly and letting it speak for itself.

You asked what I meant by "realize". What do you mean by "hermeneutics"? Do you mean examining the text to determine what it actually means, or do you mean assuming that it can mean only what you want it to mean?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3128

7:28
Please consider the following Prophecy from Isaiah 52 verse 13. See my servant will act wisely he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted just as there were many who were appalled at him his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness. So Yeshua was so disfigured there was no recognizing him even as a man yet looking at the Shroud you see an image of a man hardly scarred at all in comparison to Isaiah 52.

Not even sure what image he is looking at. There are scourge marks over most of the body.

But not on the face. He's looking at the same image you're looking at, and he's noticing that it is not the image of someone who was marred beyond human likeness.

Even without considering the shroud, how was Jesus disfigured and marred? What does the Bible say happened to him?

8:56
Pilate had Yeshua flogged. Yeshua was beat so bad he wasn't even recognizable the cloth would have been covered in blood.

And we see the shroud body image covered with scourge marks.

But, again, not the face. If the suffering servant of Isaiah was marred beyond human likeness and you're trying to make the suffering servant into Jesus, then you definitely don't have a match on the Turin cloth.

[otseng]

is it truthful to say or think that even those who believe that the Bible is not inerrant - " they still place much trust in the Bible,

Yes, one does not need to accept inerrancy to place trust in the Bible.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3130

Everyone should use the same principles of proper hermeneutics

What are those principles, specifically?

Why would it even be relevant to you if you say it's not even necessary?

your argument is not even found in any of the resurrection skeptics sources I've ever encountered.

That shows that I don't depend on others for all of my arguments. I can formulate my own.

It's OK to have a novel idea, but it would require substantial evidence and rational logic to make it viable. And to claim it's a "indisputable fact" is obviously hyperbolic since it's a novel idea.

So, really it is only you that believe it is evidence against the resurrection.

So you know for a fact that no one reading this agrees with me?

If there's another forum member here that agrees with you, let them summarize your argument in a single post.

And I believe that I pointed out the same about Isaiah 53.

It's not even close as a comparison. I'll post in a separate post how Isa 53 points to Jesus of Nazareth.

If the image on the Turin cloth is Jesus, which Jesus is it? Is it the Jesus who told the crowd that every jot and tittle of the law of Moses should still be followed, or is it the Jesus who violated that same law by forbidding divorce and oath taking when the law said not to forbid them?

The text mentions at least the two identified above.

There is no text that mentions two different Jesuses existing. It is only your interpretation that might result in having two Jesuses, which is further evidence your interpretation is faulty.

Difficult for a deity who doesn't author confusion?

I've never claimed God wrote the Bible, so it's a straw man statement. Further, you're the only who says hermeneutics is not required, so the confusion is more with your interpretation.

That's why we have to include the textual evidence of Jesus's contradictory teaching.

And your argument is like bringing in a spurious witness into the courtroom. It really does not hold any weight.

Yes, earlier it mentions a new covenant. But in verse Jer 31:34 where it says shall "all know me" and it also says "I will forgive their iniquity", so is it only the Jews that would have their sins forgiven?

I've already answered that question, and the question doesn't change the fact that "they shall all know me" is the definitive feature of the new covenant.

It's hard to nail down your position since I ask yes/no questions but you rarely respond with a yes or no.

Who is "all"? The entire world population?

Why are you asking that when you should know that it's not the answer?
According to the text, the new covenant is to be made with the houses of Israel and Judah. That would be Jews, so if the covenant being established means that from the least to the greatest they will all "know the Lord", from a Christian perspective it means that the Jews should all convert to belief in Jesus.

Since we're discussing Jer 31:34, you imply the "all" is only the Jews.

[Jer 31:34 KJV] 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Then you imply more than the Jews would be forgiven.

So only the Jews would be forgiven of their sins?

No, you can't rebuild my argument into that strawman. The text doesn't say that only the sins of the Jews would be forgiven. It does say that the Jews are the ones the covenant is made with.

So "all" in Jer 31:34 cannot be both only the Jews and also more than the Jews.

I'm not just arguing that he's not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing first that his teaching was contradictory and incompatible with the law of Moses, therefore he wasn't the Messiah.

Can't get another yes or no response, but I'll just go on anyways.

Using your logic, I can as well claim since Jesus rose from the dead and showed he was the Messiah, it demonstrates he did not teach erroneously.

Jeremiah didn't say that it would be Jesus who established the covenant.

Who did Jeremiah say would fulfill his prophecy?

He didn't have to specify an individual.

Exactly.

What he did specify is what would happen when the new covenant was established: no more teaching each other to "know the Lord" because they would all know him.

From the Christian perspective, this would be fully realized during the second coming and the institution of the new heaven and earth for all who trust in Jesus.

What do you mean by "realize"? Do you mean to actualize it and bring into reality? Or do you mean recognizing it and understanding it?

It would be both. The nations would recognize it, and their recognition of it would bring about their redemption.

How would the Gentiles nations understand that the nation of Israel suffered and bore their sins?

Then I'm asking you since you're arguing for the Jewish perspective. Here's the questions again:
And are any Jews grateful God afflicted them with the holocaust?
How specifically did the Jewish holocaust benefit the Gentiles?
Were they in some way a propitiation for the sins of the Gentiles?

I've quoted Jewish perspectives on some of this. How individual Jews would answer these questions is for them to determine and irrelevant beyond that.

No, it's not irrelevant since it is claimed the nation of Israel suffered for the Gentile nations. I would argue the holocaust is the greatest suffering the Jews have endured in modern history, so it is relevant.

You claim hermeneutics is not even necessary, so why should anyone accept your interpretations?

I'm not "interpreting". I'm quoting the text directly and letting it speak for itself.

You acknowledge it's a novel argument. How can it be so obvious if nobody else is even using this argument against the resurrection?

What do you mean by "hermeneutics"?

- the study of the methodological principles of interpretation (as of the Bible
- a method or principle of interpretation

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hermeneutic

Hermeneutics is the study of interpretation.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hermeneutics/

Hermeneutics is the science and the art of biblical interpretation. It is a science because there are rules for interpreting Scripture, just as there are rules for driving a car. If you do not know the rules, you will not know how to drive properly. Beyond knowing the principles, however, you must also know when to apply them. Because of this, hermeneutics can also rightly be called an art. Since Scripture is not monolithic because it contains multiple genres and was written over a vast period of time, by many authors, in different languages, it requires discernment to know which rules of interpretation to apply to any given text to find its intended meaning. That, ultimately, is the goal of hermeneutics: to understand how to interpret the text to find its intended meaning.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles ... rmeneutics

Do you mean examining the text to determine what it actually means, or do you mean assuming that it can mean only what you want it to mean?

The former is exegesis and the latter is eisegesis. Hermeneutics of the Bible is exegesis.

[otseng]

But not on the face. He's looking at the same image you're looking at, and he's noticing that it is not the image of someone who was marred beyond human likeness.

But, again, not the face. If the suffering servant of Isaiah was marred beyond human likeness and you're trying to make the suffering servant into Jesus, then you definitely don't have a match on the Turin cloth.

There's no requirement in this passage that his face had to be marred beyond human likeness.

Here's Isa 52:14:
"As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/isa/52/14/s_731014

"visage" is mar'ê
It means: appearance (35x), sight (18x), countenance (11x), vision (11x), favoured (7x), look upon (4x), fair (with H2896) (2x), miscellaneous (15x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

Who else in human history has been beaten, scourged, crowned with thorns, whipped, crucified, and pierced in the side and been more marred?

[otseng]

Passages of Isa 52:13 - Isa 53:8 that were fulfilled by Jesus:

Be exalted and very high.

[Isa 52:13 KJV] 13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.

[Jhn 8:28 KJV] 28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.

[Phl 2:9 KJV] 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

Preached to the Gentiles.

[Isa 52:15 KJV] 15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for [that] which had not been told them shall they see; and [that] which they had not heard shall they consider.

[Rom 15:16 KJV] 16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

Not all will believe.

[Isa 53:1 KJV] 1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?

[Rom 10:16 KJV] 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?

Carried our griefs and sorrows. Was stricken, smitten, and afflicted.

[Isa 53:4 KJV] 4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

[Mat 8:17 KJV] 17 That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare [our] sicknesses.

Wounded for our transgressions and iniquities. We are healed by his stripes.

[Isa 53:5 KJV] 5 But he [was] wounded for our transgressions, [he was] bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace [was] upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

[Heb 9:28 KJV] 28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

[1Pe 2:24 KJV] 24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Sheep gone astray.

[Isa 53:6 KJV] 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

[1Pe 2:25 KJV] 25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Did not open his mouth to slaughter.

[Isa 53:7 KJV] 7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

[Mat 27:12 KJV] 12 And when he was accused of the chief priests and elders, he answered nothing.

[Act 8:32 KJV] 32 The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth:

Stricken because of sins of the people.

[Isa 53:8 KJV] 8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

[Jhn 11:50 KJV] 50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3135

What are those principles, specifically?

Why would it even be relevant to you if you say it's not even necessary?

If it's relevant to you, you should be able to identify them.

It's OK to have a novel idea, but it would require substantial evidence and rational logic to make it viable. And to claim it's a "indisputable fact" is obviously hyperbolic since it's a novel idea.

I've provided copious textual evidence----your desire to dismiss textual evidence notwithstanding----and made logical connections between my examples. And it's easily possible for a "novel" idea to be logical.

There is no text that mentions two different Jesuses existing. It is only your interpretation that might result in having two Jesuses, which is further evidence your interpretation is faulty.

The text has Jesus imparting mutually exclusive teachings, which amounts to either more than one Jesus or one Jesus with an extremely poor memory.

I've never claimed God wrote the Bible, so it's a straw man statement. Further, you're the only who says hermeneutics is not required, so the confusion is more with your interpretation.

If the text isn't supposed to be God-written, it's supposed to be God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), isn't it?


That's why we have to include the textual evidence of Jesus's contradictory teaching.

And your argument is like bringing in a spurious witness into the courtroom. It really does not hold any weight.

You recently said that we have to consider the "totality" of evidence to discern truth from falsehood, but you dismiss evidence you find inconvenient as "spurious".

Yes, earlier it mentions a new covenant. But in verse Jer 31:34 where it says shall "all know me" and it also says "I will forgive their iniquity", so is it only the Jews that would have their sins forgiven?

I've already answered that question, and the question doesn't change the fact that "they shall all know me" is the definitive feature of the new covenant.

It's hard to nail down your position since I ask yes/no questions but you rarely respond with a yes or no.

You ask a question. I answer it. Later on you ask the same question again. I point out that I've already answered it.

Since we're discussing Jer 31:34, you imply the "all" is only the Jews.

[Jer 31:34 KJV] 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Then you imply more than the Jews would be forgiven.

I have not implied anything. I've stated flat-out that the text says nothing about the Jews being the only ones to be forgiven. It states that the houses of Israel and Judah are the ones the covenant is made with, but it doesn't limit redemption to those in that covenant.


No, you can't rebuild my argument into that strawman. The text doesn't say that only the sins of the Jews would be forgiven. It does say that the Jews are the ones the covenant is made with.

So "all" in Jer 31:34 cannot be both only the Jews and also more than the Jews.

And I didn't say it was both. You're still strawmanning my point.


I'm not just arguing that he's not the Messiah, therefore he did not rise from the dead. I'm arguing first that his teaching was contradictory and incompatible with the law of Moses, therefore he wasn't the Messiah.

Using your logic, I can as well claim since Jesus rose from the dead and showed he was the Messiah, it demonstrates he did not teach erroneously.

No, you can't. The teaching of Jesus and the law of Moses can be put side by side and the inconsistencies clearly and plainly seen. My logic begins with what the text says. Your "logic" begins with what you want to be true.


What he did specify is what would happen when the new covenant was established: no more teaching each other to "know the Lord" because they would all know him.

From the Christian perspective, this would be fully realized during the second coming and the institution of the new heaven and earth for all who trust in Jesus.

Standard procedure when things don't come out as expected.....

In 1911, Russell wrote that October 1914 would witness the "full end" of Babylon, or nominal Christianity, "utterly destroyed as a system". At first, the hopes for 1914 were stretched to "near the end of A.D. 1915." A few months before his death in October 1916, Russell wrote: "We believe that the dates have proven to be quite right. We believe that Gentile Times have ended. ... The Lord did not say that the Church would all be glorified by 1914. We merely inferred it, and, evidently, erred." He interpreted the war in Europe to be the first of three phases of Armageddon and the destruction of Christendom to take place in 1918.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschatolo ... _Witnesses


Just as Jesus predicted, his “presence” as heavenly King has been marked by dramatic world developments​—war, famine, earthquakes, pestilences. (Matthew 24:3-8; Luke 21:11) Such developments bear powerful testimony to the fact that 1914 indeed marked the birth of God’s heavenly Kingdom and the beginning of “the last days” of this present wicked system of things.​—2 Timothy 3:1-5.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/books/bib ... -prophecy/
(bolding mine)

If Jesus established the new covenant----even though it hasn't been established but somehow it supposedly has been established, did he also returned invisibly in 1914? Between all the eschatology and "interpretation", how could you prove that he didn't? How do you prove that something invisible isn't there?

Teaching to "know the Lord" has not ceased, so the empirical evidence says that the covenant of Jeremiah 31 has not been established.

How would the Gentiles nations understand that the nation of Israel suffered and bore their sins?

By seeing Israel exalted.


I'm not "interpreting". I'm quoting the text directly and letting it speak for itself.

You acknowledge it's a novel argument. How can it be so obvious if nobody else is even using this argument against the resurrection?

I may use certain passages of text in a "novel" combination, but letting the text speak for itself has been around for a long time (the Protestant Reformers thought highly of the practice).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3136

There's no requirement in this passage that his face had to be marred beyond human likeness.

The human face has a human likeness. For the form to be marred beyond human likeness, the marring must include the face.

his visage was so marred more than any man......

Who else in human history has been beaten, scourged, crowned with thorns, whipped, crucified, and pierced in the side and been more marred?

That's hardly being marred "more than any man". Where being marred is concerned, the guy on the Turin cloth got off easy compared to severe burn victims.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3137

Passages of Isa 52:13 - Isa 53:8 that were fulfilled by Jesus:

Passages of Isaiah that Christian authors have said were fulfilled by Jesus