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

[otseng]

That's exactly right.

There is nowhere in the Bible is a prophecy spoken from the perspective of a Gentile.

How does that mean it can't happen here?

Because this is a basic tenet of hermeneutics, one has to interpret scripture with scripture. If it is the only example in the Bible, then it is a highly suspect interpretation. Might as well just write the entire New Testament without any reference to the Old Testament and just claim the entire New Testament is correct. I can also then just stop the argument here and claim there is no need for Christians to support their belief from the Old Testament.

So, for clarification----are you saying here that Jesus was God?

Yes, that is what the text implies.

[otseng]

Don't really see the point of your argument then. If we don't know if they agreed or not, then what's it got to do with testimonies that generally agree that have minor differences?

What about the witnesses against Jesus? What if their testimonies generally agreed but had minor differences?

That's why I'm asking you - what are their charges?

Jewish claims about Jewish texts are more believable than Christian claims about Jewish texts.

Well, using that logic, Christian claims about Christian doctrine are more believable than skeptic claims about Christian doctrine.

.....if Christians can refute skeptic claims.

Of course Christians can refute skeptic claims, just like they can also refute Jewish claims.

The people to whom the new covenant was promised [the houses of Israel and Judah, the Jews] still teaching each other to "know the Lord" is not textual evidence. It's empirical evidence happening outside the Bible.

It's something that is claimed to have happened from a textual source, so it's not empirical evidence. Again, if you're going to use this argument, then I will cite this as precedence that skeptics claim using the Bible is empirical evidence since it refers to things happening outside the Bible.

You have to end up where the context leads.

Don't understand your point. Can you give me an example of what you're trying to convey?

The text says that they were able, but not always willing.

"For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you;...."
(Deuteronomy 31:29, KJV)

Don't see how that says they were able to follow God's commandments. Not even the high priest was able to be sinless and he had to ritually cleansed by a sacrifice every year at Yom Kippur.

The building of the second temple set a precedent; if you lose the temple you can build it again, no Messiah required as a sacrifice.

Theoretically yes, but practically no. It's been almost 2000 years with no temple rebuilt. How were the Jews able to have their sins atoned for during the past several millennia? They haven't been able to according to Lev 16.

[Lev 16:34 KJV] 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.

He's saying that the Messiah won't be the focal point of the utopian world, not that the Messiah won't be present.

The Messiah might be present, but what verse states there is a clear linkage between the two in the Hebrew scriptures?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3200

Actually, the way I see it is you're just throwing out continual accusations without following through on any of your original accusations. Again, if you accuse BLB of being a Christian source, then what alternative do you suggest?

Well, there's the one I've been using a lot:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... -Bible.htm

Isaiah addresses "House of David". So the question is who is that referring to? Wikipedia states it is the entire Davidic line of kings

The "House of David" refers to Ahaz. That's clear from verses 1 and 2:

And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, that Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah son of Remaliah, king of Israel, marched on Jerusalem to wage war against it, and he could not wage war against it.

And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,"; and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.

Ahaz's heart is trembling at the news that Aram has allied with Ephraim. That's happening in Ahaz's time. It's obviously not being told to any of the Davidic kings before Ahaz, because they're gone and it didn't happen in their time, and it's obviously not being told to any Davidic king after Ahaz, because before Ahaz's reign ends the alliance will be defeated by Assyria and the whole thing will be over. It's clear that the only king being addressed is Ahaz, because he's the only king who would be frightened by the alliance between Aram and Ephraim.

It is not the conception that is special, but a virgin that is specified that makes it unique.

If it's a virgin who's supposed to conceive, the conception would have to be special.

And if a woman is visibly pregnant, there is empirical evidence that she isn't a virgin. What empirical evidence is there that she is a virgin?


......according to the author of Luke.

.....according to the author of Matthew.

Of course. And you reject it because it is a Christian source?

I reject it as evidence because it's hearsay.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3201

If it is the only example in the Bible, then it is a highly suspect interpretation.

Then the prophecy of a virgin birth is a highly suspect interpretation.


So, for clarification----are you saying here that Jesus was God?

Yes, that is what the text implies.

Then let's go back to the divorce issue.

Jesus states that Moses suffered the Israelites to put away their wives for their "hardness of heart". (Matthew 19:8)

He also declares:

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? (John 5:46-47)

Did Jesus believe Moses's writings?

And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spake unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them; (Dt. 1:3)

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you (Dt. 4:2)

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Dt. 24:1)

If Jesus believed what Moses wrote, then he must have believed all the quotes from Deuteronomy above. So when he says, "Moses allowed you to put away your wives for your hardness of heart", he was actually saying," God allowed you to put away your wives for your hardnesss of heart." And if Jesus is God, then he must be saying, "I allowed you to put away your wives for your hardness of heart." And that makes no sense in the context of Moses's command to follow all that he's giving them in order to do what's right in God's eyes. (Dt. 13:18)

Why would Jehovah allow them to put away their wives, tell them not to add to or take from that law, tell them that keeping it as it was given is right in his eyes, and then tell them that he let them do so only because they had hard hearts? And if that last part is the pronouncement of Jesus, how can he be Jehovah?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3202

What about the witnesses against Jesus? What if their testimonies generally agreed but had minor differences?

That's why I'm asking you - what are their charges?

Mark is the one saying that they brought charges, so it's his responsibility to tell you what they were.


You have to end up where the context leads.

Don't understand your point. Can you give me an example of what you're trying to convey?

Text without context is pretext.

It's something that is claimed to have happened from a textual source, so it's not empirical evidence. Again, if you're going to use this argument, then I will cite this as precedence that skeptics claim using the Bible is empirical evidence since it refers to things happening outside the Bible.

When the new covenant is established, those in the houses of Israel and Judah are supposed to cease teaching their neighbors and brothers to "know the Lord".

Rabbi Skobac's lectures are empirical evidence that the new covenant has not been established.

Rabbi Singer's radio show is empirical evidence that the new covenant has not been established.

Here's more empirical evidence that the new covenant has not been established:

https://yadlachim.org/counter-missionary-dept/

Blurring the line between text and empirical evidence won't help.

Don't see how that says they were able to follow God's commandments. Not even the high priest was able to be sinless and he had to ritually cleansed by a sacrifice every year at Yom Kippur.

"Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it." (Genesis 4:7)


The building of the second temple set a precedent; if you lose the temple you can build it again, no Messiah required as a sacrifice.

Theoretically yes, but practically no. It's been almost 2000 years with no temple rebuilt. How were the Jews able to have their sins atoned for during the past several millennia?

The same way they were able to after the first temple was destroyed----by repentance as Ezekiel said.

They could offer the bulls of their lips, as in Hosea:

In urging his fellow Israelites to repent their iniquities, he is aware that the religio-political difficulties prevented free access to the Jerusalem Temple. Therefore, Hosea stresses the universal principle of the biblical sacrificial system ̶ ̶ inward devotion and repentance expressed through contrite prayer brings God’s forgiveness.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... nt-process

[Lev 16:34 KJV] 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.

If that statute is everlasting, the Messiah isn't going to change it.

The Messiah might be present, but what verse states there is a clear linkage between the two in the Hebrew scriptures?

"And the Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto them that turn from transgression in Jacob, saith the Lord..." (Isaiah 59:20)

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3200

Actually, the way I see it is you're just throwing out continual accusations without following through on any of your original accusations. Again, if you accuse BLB of being a Christian source, then what alternative do you suggest?

Well, there's the one I've been using a lot:

https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cd ... -Bible.htm

That's obviously a Jewish source, so your charge of bias is equally applicable.

Also, I do not see any lexicon feature on that site to analyze what alma means.

Let's look at Isa 7:14:

[Isa 7:14 KJV] 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

Virgin is almâ. It can be translated as virgin or young woman.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

As I believe I've pointed out before, the Blue Letter Bible is a Christian source.

The "House of David" refers to Ahaz. That's clear from verses 1 and 2:

Yes, the beginning of the chapter is specifically addressing Ahaz. But then it switches to addressing "house of David". I've already provided a definition of house of David, so my interpretation that Isaiah is addressing the Davidic line makes linguistic sense. The phrase also links with Joseph in the NT.

[Isa 7:13-14 KJV] 13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

[Luk 1:27 KJV] 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

And if a woman is visibly pregnant, there is empirical evidence that she isn't a virgin. What empirical evidence is there that she is a virgin?

Well, since you accept the Bible as empirical evidence, then the Bible is empirical evidence.

[Luk 1:27 KJV] 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

I reject it as evidence because it's hearsay.

If a historian writes down the testimony of another person, would that also be hearsay evidence?

[otseng]

Then the prophecy of a virgin birth is a highly suspect interpretation.

It's also mentioned by the NT, so it's an affirmation of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

[Mat 1:23 KJV] 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

So, for clarification----are you saying here that Jesus was God?

Yes, that is what the text implies.

Then let's go back to the divorce issue.

We already covered that at length, so there's no need to go back to it.

[otseng]

Mark is the one saying that they brought charges, so it's his responsibility to tell you what they were.

No, it's not my responsibility nor Mark's. You were the one who brought up the witnesses against Jesus:

[Replying to otseng in post #3195

Don't really see the point of your argument then. If we don't know if they agreed or not, then what's it got to do with testimonies that generally agree that have minor differences?

What about the witnesses against Jesus? What if their testimonies generally agreed but had minor differences?

You have to end up where the context leads.

Don't understand your point. Can you give me an example of what you're trying to convey?

Text without context is pretext.

If you claim it's pretext, please then explain the full context and how it is contrary to my analysis.

Blurring the line between text and empirical evidence won't help.

Actually, I'm differentiating between textual evidence and empirical evidence. And here you are conflating the two. So who's the one blurring the line?

"Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it." (Genesis 4:7)

If you want to take that literally, it was only addressing Cain, so it only applies to Cain. Also, it's obvious Cain was not able to rule over sin.

The same way they were able to after the first temple was destroyed----by repentance as Ezekiel said.

Repentance is necessary, but it's not sufficient. The entire Levitical sacrificial system is heavily detailed out in the Torah to atone for sins. There are two things necessary for forgiveness - a blood sacrifice and repentance.

The reason Jews now resort only on repentance is because the temple does not exist. But, it is clear from the Jewish scriptures a blood sacrifice was required to atone for sins.

[Lev 16:33-34 KJV] 33 And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. 34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the LORD commanded Moses.

Today is Yom Kippur. According to the Bible, the sacrifice was to be an everlasting statute. As Christians who also believe in the Torah, we accept this. Jesus, as our sinless High Priest, fulfilled the requirements of Yom Kippur of offering innocent blood on the mercy seat. And even now, he is interceding for us all.

[Rom 8:34 KJV] 34 Who [is] he that condemneth? [It is] Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3206

Also, I do not see any lexicon feature on that site to analyze what alma means.

I'm finding it difficult to locate a Hebrew lexicon*, so let's go with the Bible itself. Can you point to any other place in the Tanakh where the word alma refers specifically to a woman's virginity?

Yes, the beginning of the chapter is specifically addressing Ahaz. But then it switches to addressing "house of David". I've already provided a definition of house of David, so my interpretation that Isaiah is addressing the Davidic line makes linguistic sense. The phrase also links with Joseph in the NT.

You cite a definition, but the definition you cite doesn't fit the context of the passage.

And it was told to the House of David, saying, "Aram has allied itself with Ephraim,"; and his heart and the heart of his people trembled as the trees of the forest tremble because of the wind.

Whose heart? Ahaz's heart. Whose people? Ahaz's people. Even if it refers to others in the royal house, they are all living in the time when Ahaz receives the news of the impending attack. They're the ones who tremble, so they're the ones the verse is about.


And if a woman is visibly pregnant, there is empirical evidence that she isn't a virgin. What empirical evidence is there that she is a virgin?

Well, since you accept the Bible as empirical evidence, then the Bible is empirical evidence.

[Luk 1:27 KJV] 27 To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name [was] Mary.

You seem to be claiming that I take the text as empirical evidence to give yourself an excuse to do so.

What empirical evidence was there that Mary was still a virgin while she was pregnant with Jesus? How would anyone look at her, see her pregnant and conclude that she was still a virgin?

If a historian writes down the testimony of another person, would that also be hearsay evidence?

Yes.


*While I was looking, however, I did find this:

"Isaiah (“Yeshayahu”) is the fifth book of the Prophets and is known for its visions of universal peace and renewal. Beginning in the period of the First Temple against the backdrop of a rising Assyrian empire and Israel on the decline, Isaiah rebukes Israel for abandoning God and pursuing corruption, calls for change, and warns the nations of their ultimate downfalls."

https://www.sefaria.org/texts/Tanakh
(bolding mine)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3207

Then the prophecy of a virgin birth is a highly suspect interpretation.

It's also mentioned by the NT, so it's an affirmation of the fulfillment of the prophecy.

Correction: it's invented out of a prophecy about the downfall of two neighboring powers.


Then let's go back to the divorce issue.

We already covered that at length, so there's no need to go back to it.

Then the questions I pose stand unanswered.