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: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 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: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3141

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:27 am If it's relevant to you, you should be able to identify them.
Of course I'm able to. But unless you change your mind and say hermeneutics is necessary, then it's pointless for me to present it.
]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.

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'll let readers make this decision for themselves.
]If the text isn't supposed to be God-written, it's supposed to be God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), isn't it?
So what does God-breathed mean? This is a rhetorical question because nobody really knows what that means. What we do know it does not mean is God directly wrote the Bible. So, for the purposes of this thread, we simply assume men wrote the Bible.
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, I've already argued why your claim is spurious. I'll let readers go through what I've posted to assess for themselves.
You ask a question. I answer it. Later on you ask the same question again. I point out that I've already answered it.
I'm not saying you did not respond to my questions, but what I was expecting was a yes or no so it's clear what is your position.
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.
It's not a straw man. It doesn't make any sense to completely change the identity of what is being referred to in this verse:
Know the LORD: for they shall all (Israel) know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their (Gentile nations) iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It would make more sense if the "all" and "their" referred to the same thing.
Your "logic" begins with what you want to be true.
Exactly.
Standard procedure when things don't come out as expected.....
Yes, some have made such predictions.
How do you prove that something invisible isn't there?
Same as anything else, we have to go by the evidence. But it's their burden to provide the evidence to back up their claims. I've never claimed the Second Coming has already happened.
Teaching to "know the Lord" has not ceased, so the empirical evidence says that the covenant of Jeremiah 31 has not been established.
Sure. I don't claim the Second Coming has already happened.
How would the Gentiles nations understand that the nation of Israel suffered and bore their sins?
By seeing Israel exalted.
There is no direct correlation between the two. It will require first someone to tell the Gentiles what is the message and then to persuade them it is true. Nobody on their own is going to see Israel exalted (whatever that entails) and then automatically realize Israel suffered and bore their sins. It's like I don't expect people to automatically know Jesus died for their sins if I tell them Jesus is Lord.
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
My point is if it is so obvious, why are you the first one to come up with this? There has been untold number of people (Christians, Jews, scholars, skeptics, etc) who have been studying the Bible for a long time.
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:54 am [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
Of course. Now, if you have any counter arguments, please present them.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3142

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 12:47 am The human face has a human likeness. For the form to be marred beyond human likeness, the marring must include the face.
This is simply your assertion. You'll need to demonstrate it from the text to have a valid argument.
Where being marred is concerned, the guy on the Turin cloth got off easy compared to severe burn victims.
Not so sure one can claim crucifixion is "getting off easy". It's not getting away with anything since it typically results in death. It was also one of the most brutal methods of execution ever devised in human history.
https://www.history.co.uk/articles/ouch ... ient-world

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3143

Post by otseng »

If the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel, then it means God was the instigator of the suffering upon Israel.

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

[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 (Israel) the iniquity of us all.

[Isa 53:10 KJV] 10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him (Israel); he hath put [him] (Israel) to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see [his] seed, he shall prolong [his] days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

There is no other greater suffering in the modern era that the Jews have suffered than the Holocaust. Between 5 to 6 million Jews were killed, roughly one third of the entire Jewish worldwide population at that time. Millions more had endured the concentration camps and even tortured.

So, it would mean God was involved in causing the Jews to suffer during the Holocaust.

There are several problems with this. The immediate problem is it puts God as the institagor of evil, which is contrary to God being an omnibenevolent God.

The person who first proposed this idea was Ignaz Maybaum.
He is most frequently remembered for his controversial view in The Face of God After Auschwitz (1965) that the suffering of Jews in the Holocaust was vicarious atonement for the sins of the rest of the world. He was connecting the Jewish people to the figure of the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 52 and 53 in the Tanakh (the Christian Old Testament). In the same work he employed Christian imagery, speaking of Auschwitz as the new Golgotha and the gas chambers as replacing the cross.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Maybaum

His comparison of the Jews dying in the Holocaust and Jesus dying on the cross has several problems.

1. In the Jewish law, the animal that bore sin had to be perfect. Jews are not sinless, whereas Jesus was sinless.

[1Pe 1:19 KJV] 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

2. The Jews had no concept they were suffering for the sins of the world. Jesus knew he would be suffering for the sins of the world.

[Mat 16:21 KJV] 21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

3. The Jews went to concentration camps and died against their will. Jesus willingly laid down his life to die on the cross.

[Jhn 10:18 KJV] 18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

4. The Jews were not joyful going to their death. Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him of the salvation of mankind.

[Heb 12:2 KJV] 2 Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.

5. There was no victorious moment for the death of the Jews. Jesus was victorious over death because he resurrected from the dead.

[Jhn 11:25 KJV] 25 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Another problem with the view the Jews underwent vicarious suffering during the Holocaust is it is a minority view among Jews. I'll post more about that in a separate post.

User avatar
Data
Sage
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2023 8:41 am
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 33 times

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

Post #3144

Post by Data »

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

Is science inerrant? Is math? History? Are we inerrant and if not how can we trust ourselves to trust anything?
Image

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3145

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3143
There is no other greater suffering in the modern era that the Jews have suffered than the Holocaust. Between 5 to 6 million Jews were killed, roughly one third of the entire Jewish worldwide population at that time. Millions more had endured the concentration camps and even tortured.

So, it would mean God was involved in causing the Jews to suffer during the Holocaust.

There are several problems with this. The immediate problem is it puts God as the institagor of evil, which is contrary to God being an omnibenevolent God.
Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.

In the Jewish law, the animal that bore sin had to be perfect. Jews are not sinless, whereas Jesus was sinless.
You assume that he was sinless because the Christian Bible says he was sinless. How can someone who repeatedly violated the law of Moses be considered sinless?

The Jews were not joyful going to their death. Jesus endured the cross for the joy set before him of the salvation of mankind.
....after fervently praying that the cup might be taken from him.

There was no victorious moment for the death of the Jews. Jesus was victorious over death because he resurrected from the dead.
The nazis meant to destroy all of the Jews. They failed. Many Jews survived. That was the Jews' victory.

And again, you assume that Jesus was resurrected.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3146

Post by Athetotheist »

[deleted]
Last edited by Athetotheist on Sun Sep 10, 2023 7:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3147

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3142

The human face has a human likeness. For the form to be marred beyond human likeness, the marring must include the face.
This is simply your assertion. You'll need to demonstrate it from the text to have a valid argument.
If you'll accept textual evidence for this, why won't you accept all my textual evidence that Jesus violated the law of Moses, indicating that he wasn't the Messiah?

Not so sure one can claim crucifixion is "getting off easy". It's not getting away with anything since it typically results in death. It was also one of the most brutal methods of execution ever devised in human history.
Severe burning is also brutal and can result in death......

......especially when it's deliberate.

The period between 1560 and 1630 is what scholars believe to be the peak of witch trials with fatalities estimated to be around 50,000 individuals who were burned at the stake.

https://salemwitchmuseum.com/2021/12/17 ... itchcraft/

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 496 times

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

Post #3148

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3141

If it's relevant to you, you should be able to identify them.
Of course I'm able to. But unless you change your mind and say hermeneutics is necessary, then it's pointless for me to present it.
And you don't think you can formulate an argument which can change my mind?

So what does God-breathed mean? This is a rhetorical question because nobody really knows what that means.
Well, we know what it's supposed to mean. It's supposed to mean "....profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness". It doesn't take "hermeneutics" to figure that out.


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, I've already argued why your claim is spurious.
You've claimed that my argument is spurious.
I'll let readers go through what I've posted to assess for themselves.
.....as I've been letting readers do with my arguments, rather than "summarize them in a single post".

I'm not saying you did not respond to my questions, but what I was expecting was a yes or no so it's clear what is your position.
I elaborate on my positions in my answers.

It's not a straw man. It doesn't make any sense to completely change the identity of what is being referred to in this verse:
Know the LORD: for they shall all (Israel) know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their (Gentile nations) iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

It would make more sense if the "all" and "their" referred to the same thing.
They are referring to the same thing. It's saying that all Israel will know Jehovah, and that he will remember their (Israel's) sin no more. You seem to be confusing Jeremiah's reference to Israel and Isaiah's reference to the nations.


Standard procedure when things don't come out as expected.....
Yes, some have made such predictions.
Like Paul.


Teaching to "know the Lord" has not ceased, so the empirical evidence says that the covenant of Jeremiah 31 has not been established.
Sure. I don't claim the Second Coming has already happened.
Why should you have to wait for the second coming when Paul says in Hebrews 8 that Jesus has already received ministry as mediator of the new covenant?

Nobody on their own is going to see Israel exalted (whatever that entails) and then automatically realize Israel suffered and bore their sins. It's like I don't expect people to automatically know Jesus died for their sins if I tell them Jesus is Lord.
No one you talk to saw Jesus die. If Israel is exalted before the nations, that will be seen.

My point is if it is so obvious, why are you the first one to come up with this? There has been untold number of people (Christians, Jews, scholars, skeptics, etc) who have been studying the Bible for a long time.
If you were to come up with a new argument in favor of the Christian Bible and I asked you, "If that makes sense, how come nobody found it before?", how would you respond?


Passages of Isaiah that Christian authors have said were fulfilled by Jesus
Of course. Now, if you have any counter arguments, please present them.
......as if I haven't been doing so for some time now.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3149

Post by otseng »

Data wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 9:51 am [Replying to otseng in post #1]

Is science inerrant? Is math? History? Are we inerrant and if not how can we trust ourselves to trust anything?
No area of human knowledge is inerrant, yet we can trust things. Likewise, we can trust the Bible even if it's not inerrant.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20682
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3150

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Sep 10, 2023 7:19 pm Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.
What I'm addressing is towards the Jewish viewpoint of the holocaust. Jews would never respond back this way since they would have to address this same problem from their own scriptures.

But using their logic, couldn't all the "innocent people" who died from the flood be considered a propitiation for those who survived the flood?
How can someone who repeatedly violated the law of Moses be considered sinless?
Only you are claiming this.
....after fervently praying that the cup might be taken from him.
Yes, and he also said for "thy will be done".

[Mat 26:42 KJV] 42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
The nazis meant to destroy all of the Jews. They failed. Many Jews survived. That was the Jews' victory.
It was not a victory for those that died. And it's arguable any that survived claimed they were victors over the Nazis, rather they were victims.
And again, you assume that Jesus was resurrected.
That's why I presented the evidence of the Shroud of Turin.

Post Reply