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: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 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

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

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

Post #3311

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3310

Then Jesus's own violations make him least in the kingdom of heaven by his own definition.
Of course I'd disagree.
A mere statement of disagreement doesn't go very far.

I'm not assuming the Bible is the "word of God" either. My approach in this entire thread is to treat the Bible as any other text.
Is it really? If any two secular biographies of George Washington said obviously contradictory things about him, would you accept both of them as different "interpretations"?

Understanding the Bible requires interpretation.
Why? Is it so ambiguous that it can't be relied on to convey the most important message in history? And if it is that ambiguous, how can Jehovah rightfully hold anyone accountable for anything they think it says?


Adding to scripture doesn't add to the commandments.
Not so sure about that. One example of where laws have been added is the extensive kosher laws.
If they violate the law by adding to it, then none of them is the Messiah.


Jesus was challenging the Torah itself. He advocated strict adherence to every jot and tittle of the law while scrapping entire commandments. It's like the gospel writers were having him say whatever was politically expedient at the moment.
That's what you assert, but it's much more complicated than what you're asserting.
That's what you assert.
And why exempt yourself from saying things that are expedient for you?
I think my case has been fairly consistent. Besides, no one is trying to make me out to be the Messiah.

There is no requirement that a miracle "look" miraculous either. I don't even know what would constitute a "miraculous look".
If miracles didn't look miraculous, they wouldn't be recognizable as miracles. So there is a requirement that miracles look miraculous.

A talking donkey, the sun moving backwards, leprosy suddenly disappearing.....none of that would look miraculous to you?


Testimony is always indirect.
Don't know what you are referring to. Can you provide a definition that says a testimony is always indirect?
Testimony from a witness, or an alleged witness, is always indirect. It's merely a statement of what's supposed to be true, and statements can be false (Thomas Paine explained it in my quote earlier).

Also don't know what you mean by only empirical evidence is sufficient. Many times we have instances where only testimonial evidence is available and it is sufficient.
That can't be the case where signs and miracles are concerned.
That's debatable. One area that some accept testimony alone as sufficient is near-death experiences. As far as I'm aware, there is no empirical evidence to support it. It's all testimonial evidence. Yet, it's accepted as sufficient.
It's accepted as sufficient by some. That doesn't put it beyond question. There would have to be corroborating evidence, such as the claimant giving accurate descriptions of events they could witness only in an out-of-body experience, and even those experiences could be coroborrated only by other direct witnesses.


I said that if they're right, then you're wrong. That's clear, isn't it?
No, it's not clear and you didn't answer my questions.
I think it is, and I think I did.
I'll let the jury assess.
I guess that's all you can do.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #3312

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Wed Nov 08, 2023 7:00 am
I'm not assuming the Bible is the "word of God" either. My approach in this entire thread is to treat the Bible as any other text.
Is it really? If any two secular biographies of George Washington said obviously contradictory things about him, would you accept both of them as different "interpretations"?
Don't see how your question is relevant. What we are talking about is different standards being applied to the Bible and secular sources:
otseng wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2023 7:28 am
So only matters related to salvation requires direct testimonial evidence while everything else can have indirect testimonial evidence?
See above.
You didn't answer the question. But what you are implying is the answer is yes. It's no big deal about secular history, so indirect testimonial evidence is sufficient. Whereas for Christian claims, only direct testimonial evidence is allowed. I argue this is more special pleading.
How many biographies of Washington are from direct testimony? Not much compared to indirect testimony. Do we throw out all history of Washington based on indirect testimony? No.

As for different statements and interpretations on Washington, we have to analyze them on a case-by-base basis. If you have a specific example, feel free to present it.
Understanding the Bible requires interpretation.
Why? Is it so ambiguous that it can't be relied on to convey the most important message in history? And if it is that ambiguous, how can Jehovah rightfully hold anyone accountable for anything they think it says?
Pretty much everything we read requires interpretation, esp if the original source is in another language and in a different cultural setting. We don't even have a unanimous interpretation of the US Constitution. Lawyers argue all the time over wording of contracts and how to interpret the legalese in them. Poetry obviously requires high interpretive skills. Scientists interpret raw data differently and reach differing conclusions.

As for the understandability of the Bible, it's both easy to understand and difficult to understand. A good example of this is Gen 1:1.

Gen 1:1 KJV - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Pretty obvious what this says in English. But when you look at in the Hebrew, you can study this for quite a long time.
Adding to scripture doesn't add to the commandments.
Not so sure about that. One example of where laws have been added is the extensive kosher laws.
If they violate the law by adding to it, then none of them is the Messiah.
Nobody is claiming any Orthodox Jew is a messiah. Your point is Jesus "sinned" by adding to the law. If he did sin, then so have all Orthodox Jews since they've added a litany of kosher laws.
I think my case has been fairly consistent.
Applying a different standard to the Bible and other texts and a different standard to the Jewish rabbis and Jesus is not consistent.
If miracles didn't look miraculous, they wouldn't be recognizable as miracles. So there is a requirement that miracles look miraculous.

A talking donkey, the sun moving backwards, leprosy suddenly disappearing.....none of that would look miraculous to you?
I'm not arguing for any of those. The more relevant question would be - is rising from the dead considered miraculous?
Testimony is always indirect.
Don't know what you are referring to. Can you provide a definition that says a testimony is always indirect?
Testimony from a witness, or an alleged witness, is always indirect. It's merely a statement of what's supposed to be true, and statements can be false (Thomas Paine explained it in my quote earlier).
That's not a definition, it's only your assertion.
That's debatable. One area that some accept testimony alone as sufficient is near-death experiences. As far as I'm aware, there is no empirical evidence to support it. It's all testimonial evidence. Yet, it's accepted as sufficient.
It's accepted as sufficient by some. That doesn't put it beyond question.
Never claimed it is beyond question. Only claimed some accept it as sufficient.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

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

Post #3313

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3312
How many biographies of Washington are from direct testimony? Not much compared to indirect testimony. Do we throw out all history of Washington based on indirect testimony? No.
Do we assume that believing any of it is required for salvation? No.

Nobody is claiming any Orthodox Jew is a messiah. Your point is Jesus "sinned" by adding to the law. If he did sin, then so have all Orthodox Jews since they've added a litany of kosher laws.
And that would matter if any of them was a supposedly sinless Messiah.

Applying a different standard to the Bible and other texts and a different standard to the Jewish rabbis and Jesus is not consistent.
Applying a higher standard to the Bible is necessary because the Bible claims to be of a higher standard.

The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
(Psalm 12:6)

And I'm not applying different standards to Jesus and the rabbis. I'm pointing out that since the former is supposed to have been sinless, it matters more if he violated the law than if the rabbis do.


A talking donkey, the sun moving backwards, leprosy suddenly disappearing.....none of that would look miraculous to you?
I'm not arguing for any of those. The more relevant question would be - is rising from the dead considered miraculous?
How would any of those be any less miraculous than rising from the dead? And if the Christian Bible is supposed to be a continuation of the Tanakh, how can you not argue for those other miracles?


Testimony from a witness, or an alleged witness, is always indirect. It's merely a statement of what's supposed to be true, and statements can be false (Thomas Paine explained it in my quote earlier).
That's not a definition, it's only your assertion.
What I'm asserting is a logical observation.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #3314

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Nov 09, 2023 9:49 am
How many biographies of Washington are from direct testimony? Not much compared to indirect testimony. Do we throw out all history of Washington based on indirect testimony? No.
Do we assume that believing any of it is required for salvation? No.
Then this is again special pleading if you assert only direct testimony is allowed for anything related to salvation.
Nobody is claiming any Orthodox Jew is a messiah. Your point is Jesus "sinned" by adding to the law. If he did sin, then so have all Orthodox Jews since they've added a litany of kosher laws.
And that would matter if any of them was a supposedly sinless Messiah.
Being a messiah is not relevant. It's either they sinned by adding to the law or they did not sin.
Applying a higher standard to the Bible is necessary because the Bible claims to be of a higher standard.
In this thread, I'm not presuming the Bible by default has a higher position than other texts. Surprised really any skeptic would disagree with this since they typically balk when a Christian presents the Bible while assuming it does have a divine status.

What I'm doing in this thread is approaching the Bible like any other text, having no more and no less of a status than any other historical document. Then by analyzing it, I'm arriving at the conclusion it is reliable and authoritative and confirming it does have a higher status than other texts.
And I'm not applying different standards to Jesus and the rabbis. I'm pointing out that since the former is supposed to have been sinless, it matters more if he violated the law than if the rabbis do.
So all the Orthodox Jews have sinned by adding the kosher laws to the Torah? And they are sinning by following sinful laws?

This makes no sense and casts an extreme negative light on the Orthodox Jews since they follow the kosher laws every single meal.
I'm not arguing for any of those. The more relevant question would be - is rising from the dead considered miraculous?
How would any of those be any less miraculous than rising from the dead? And if the Christian Bible is supposed to be a continuation of the Tanakh, how can you not argue for those other miracles?
I do not think those are important and they are not part of the core. Again, I do not have a monolithic view of the Bible that everything must be treated as inerrant. My view of the Bible is more like the sun where the core is the essential part and the corona is not essential.

If one throws out the stories of the sun standing still, Balaam's donkey, and the healing of Naaman, it does not affect the core of the Bible. But if one throws out the resurrection, then the message of the New Testament is completely dismantled.
What I'm asserting is a logical observation.
What you assert is, "Testimony is always indirect." This is not a logical observation and is contradicted by the definitions that I've already provided.

What I think you're getting at is indirect testimony is not valid for miraculous claims. Sure, I'm sympathetic to that. That is why my initial approach to the miracle of the resurrection has not been the use of testimonies, but by empirical evidence.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #3315

Post by otseng »

David Solomon on "The Messianic Idea in Jewish History"



Solomon confirms the idea of a personal Messianic deliverer is late.
4:54
Many scholars believe that that picture that idea is not really older than say the first century BCE in the late Hellenic already, in fact
later getting to late antiquity.
The idea evolved over time starting with seeds planted in the Torah and expanded with the kings and prophets.
8:11
There are illusions in the Torah itself to the messiah.

10:20
Of course in a very blatant and direct way comes from the great prophets of Israel. The ones that emerge during the second temple period and almost every prophet, every navi, speaks of it.
He claims the Jews were among the first to have the concept of a worldwide future ideal state.
15:20
An ideal society, a society completely just and righteous and free, the eschatological vision, the akharitayam vision of the prophets of Israel also give us and really are among the first to conceive this idea. Already in the 8th century bce of world peace. That ideal scenario of the Jewish people redeemed and returned and setting up this new order, that's not just for themselves, that's part of a totally new order for the world, which is world peace.
Solomon confirms "the Messiah" is not found in the Tanakh.
23:57
The word "the Messiah" does not really appear in Tanakh.
One of the earliest prophecies of a messiah is from Hannah.
24:28
The second chapter Samuel 1. It is from the prayer of Hannah after she brings her little child Samuel to serve in the tabernacle. And she offers this incredible prayer of high praise and prophecy in the course of which she utters the verse he shall give strength he shall give power to his king and shall raise the horn of his anointed one. We don't even have a king yet.
Only six kings have been explicitly mentioned to have been anointed.
25:56
There are only six kings in Tanakh that are explicitly said to have been anointed.

Of course that has mystical meaning in itself because we're
waiting for the seventh.
David is a proginator of the messiah.
32:06
We're going to have to look at David himself. Why is it that he is the progenitor of the messianic picture? What is it about David?

First of all on the one hand he comes from. He is anointed in adversity and has to come in as an agent of change in the social order. That is one thing that David represents in the transition from the Benjamite kingdom of Saul to the Judean kingdom of David.
The legitimacy of David's kingdom was based not on military or economic strength, but on justice and righteousness.
32:51
But also on the other hand his entire kingdom is predicated on justice. It derives its legitimacy from justice.

33:04
David's kingdom is undone more by injustice than it is by military threat. Many of the subsequent kings of Israel thought, and rulers of Israel at various times thought that their power would be secured and that their kingdom would be legitimated by force by military prowess or even by economic treaty. But the kingdom of David the kingdom that David avowedly sought to set up and did an attempt to set up was a kingdom predicated on justice and which drove drew its legitimacy from.

33:54
Closest David himself came to being undermined was through injustice, not through any enemy at the gates.
The God of the Bible is not limited to just the Jews, but to the entire world. And God wants justice for the whole world.
36:11
There's world peace seems to work in parallel with the increasing universalization of the concept of God itself. That God is not merely the God of the Jewish people but in fact that universal God of the whole world. And of everything and therefore demands justice and righteousness from the whole world, which is one of the great revolutionary moments in the prophetic tradition.
Moses was also a prototype of the messiah.
38:09
Joseph Klausner's famous work from the 1920s, "The messianic idea in Israel", where he posits the ultimate prototype of the messiah is in fact Moses.

He was the first redeemer, he was the last one, and of course being the
giver of the Torah.

These points to Moshe as the messianic prototype.
Hezekiah was also another proginator and perhaps the greatest one.
39:58
You've got to understand Hezekiah was the greatest of the Judean kings. The Tanakh itself says of him before him there wasn't after him there isn't, including David.

Why was he regarded as such a phenomenal king? Hezekiah what did he do?

41:57
The fact that he saw the northern kingdom vanquished. Vanquished meaning obliterated, annihilated. Its population ethnically cleansed completely. And the entire project of the 10 tribes ended. But 20 years later the Assyrians came back to do the same thing to Judah. And this was the end of Jewish history. This was the a full existential moment of the end of Jewish history. This was the annihilation of the Judean kingdom. There was no Israel there's only Judah. And Judah has been completely conquered and ravished and there's only one little
pixel left on the map and that is Jerusalem.

Hezekiah the king takes these letters and he goes to the roof of the temple and he opens up the letters to heaven. And he says God this is it. If you're going to intervene in history now is the moment. And the divine intervenes in history. Because that is the point at which all of the historical background in Tanakh, everything from bereshit elohim in the beginning God created the world, and then the Abraham, and Moshe, and then all of the judges, and the leaders and the kings, and the whole history of the David, and the temple, and the Jewish people, everything is dragged into objective real history at that moment.

The fact that Jerusalem was saved and the Assyrian army went elsewhere is recorded outside of the Tanakh, it's recorded by the Assyrians, it's recorded by other ancient world historians, it is the moment that we talk about that is the beginning of history. That's not to say that anything that happened before that moment didn't happen. Obviously the Tanakh is reflecting a reality that's eventually going to be brought in total sync with what we know from archaeology from chronology from
history. But that's the moment where they merge that's the moment when we start to have corroboration from other sources that's the divine intervention.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

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

Post #3316

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:40 am If one throws out the stories of the sun standing still, Balaam's donkey, and the healing of Naaman, it does not affect the core of the Bible. But if one throws out the resurrection, then the message of the New Testament is completely dismantled.
Q: If one throws out the magical stories of the sun standing still, of the talking donkey, of Jonah being swollen by a magical giant fish and surviving for 3 days, of Samson and his magical hair, the global flood, of Exodus and the magical plagues, of Adam, Eve and of the magical garden and trees, of magical giants and dragons, of Nephilim's and so on; the awful Old Testament passages about genocides, bigotry and laws for slavery, killing witches, gays and so on; what remains?

Cherry picking does not seems very honest approach of finding the truth.
Bending the reality and religious texts around one's preconceived notions and dogma seems like a pathetic attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.
otseng wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:40 am In this thread, I'm not presuming the Bible by default has a higher position than other texts. Surprised really any skeptic would disagree with this since they typically balk when a Christian presents the Bible while assuming it does have a divine status.
What I'm doing in this thread is approaching the Bible like any other text, having no more and no less of a status than any other historical document. Then by analyzing it, I'm arriving at the conclusion it is reliable and authoritative and confirming it does have a higher status than other texts.
The religious text that comprise the Bible have no higher position then other religious texts(Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Rig Veda, Book of Mormon and so on).
Off course biased people would consider their religious text the one true path to divinity and the others religions texts wrong.

From an non-believer perspective they are all on the same level. Nonsensical, illogical, not consistent ramblings full of magical stories, bigotry, awful things written by ancient ignorant morons. Who did not knew elementary things about their reality.

They cannot be all true for they contain mutually exclusive things about important doctrinal teachings.
The evidence supporting is laughably poor: hundred/thousand of years old first/second hand/... testimonies and stories.
There is no rational reason to believe any of this.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

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

Post #3317

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3314

Do we assume that believing any of it is required for salvation? No.
Then this is again special pleading if you assert only direct testimony is allowed for anything related to salvation.
I most certainly do not assert that only direct testimony is allowed when I'm asserting that there is no "direct testimony".

What I'm doing in this thread is approaching the Bible like any other text, having no more and no less of a status than any other historical document. Then by analyzing it, I'm arriving at the conclusion it is reliable and authoritative and confirming it does have a higher status than other texts.
What argument have you made for the Christian Bible which can't be made for the Book of Mormon?

So all the Orthodox Jews have sinned by adding the kosher laws to the Torah? And they are sinning by following sinful laws?

This makes no sense and casts an extreme negative light on the Orthodox Jews since they follow the kosher laws every single meal.
As before, I argue with a conditional "if".

If none of their kosher laws negate or countermand anything in the Torah, then those laws are not in violation of the Torah.

For example, the Torah allows a man to put away his wife with the presentation of a bill of divorce. The rabbis go into detail on what the bill is to include, but those details don't negate or countermand the original Torah law.

As for the whole thing coming out of not seething a kid in its mother's milk, here's a different take on that:

https://seekingscripture.com/do-not-boi ... ssibility/

The additional details of kosher laws serve as safeguards in modern times when direct supervision of substances isn't always possible.

Jesus, on the other hand, expressly forbids practices which the Torah allows. In the case of oath-taking, he even goes so far as to assert that it comes of evil (Matthew 5:37), which is a pretty stern judgement on something which Moses condoned (Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 6:13).

If one throws out the stories of the sun standing still, Balaam's donkey, and the healing of Naaman, it does not affect the core of the Bible.
Then 2 Timothy 3:16-17 becomes meaningless, as you have scripture which

is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works

expendable and easily thrown aside.

What you assert is, "Testimony is always indirect." This is not a logical observation and is contradicted by the definitions that I've already provided.
What I specified is that witness testimony is always indirect.

What I think you're getting at is indirect testimony is not valid for miraculous claims. Sure, I'm sympathetic to that. That is why my initial approach to the miracle of the resurrection has not been the use of testimonies, but by empirical evidence.
And as we've seen, the empirical evidence has problems of its own.

And you don't have empirical evidence which you should have, such as empirical evidence of a virgin birth, and so have to downplay its significance.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #3318

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 8:01 am
otseng wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 5:40 am If one throws out the stories of the sun standing still, Balaam's donkey, and the healing of Naaman, it does not affect the core of the Bible. But if one throws out the resurrection, then the message of the New Testament is completely dismantled.
Q: If one throws out the magical stories of the sun standing still, of the talking donkey, of Jonah being swollen by a magical giant fish and surviving for 3 days, of Samson and his magical hair, the global flood, of Exodus and the magical plagues, of Adam, Eve and of the magical garden and trees, of magical giants and dragons, of Nephilim's and so on; the awful Old Testament passages about genocides, bigotry and laws for slavery, killing witches, gays and so on; what remains?
There is no requirement that being a Christian (or even a Jew) requires taking all these things in the Old Testament to be literally true. There are Christians who do not believe in a global flood. There are Jews that don't believe the Exodus account literally happened. But, what these do believe is the Bible can be metaphorically true.

Myself, I do believe in a literal global flood and a literal Exodus account. And I've spent extensive time arguing for both of these in this thread.

As for the "awful Old Testament passages", I do realize this is a major stumbling block for non-Christians. I will be addressing this next after concluding the current topic.
The religious text that comprise the Bible have no higher position then other religious texts(Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Rig Veda, Book of Mormon and so on).
That's what skeptics claim and believe. But, as I've extensively argued for over 300 pages in this thread, the Bible is historically reliable, archaeologically reliable, scientifically reliable, and prophetically reliable. If any other religious text can do the same, they are free to create such a thread and present their evidence.
There is no rational reason to believe any of this.
Actually, it's quite the opposite. I've been presenting rational arguments in this entire thread. Whereas skeptics have to appeal to irrational arguments such as mocking, calling people morons, asserting things presented are "laughably poor", and so on. If skeptics have actual rational counterarguments with evidence, feel free to present them.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #3319

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2023 11:33 pm I most certainly do not assert that only direct testimony is allowed when I'm asserting that there is no "direct testimony".
If you assert there is no "direct testimony", then all I'm presenting is just "testimony".
What argument have you made for the Christian Bible which can't be made for the Book of Mormon?
Mormons are free to present their case.
If none of their kosher laws negate or countermand anything in the Torah, then those laws are not in violation of the Torah.
And neither has Jesus.
For example, the Torah allows a man to put away his wife with the presentation of a bill of divorce. The rabbis go into detail on what the bill is to include, but those details don't negate or countermand the original Torah law.
Likewise, Jesus allows for a bill of divorce, but not for any reason other than sexual immorality.
The additional details of kosher laws serve as safeguards in modern times when direct supervision of substances isn't always possible.
I'm not disputing the purpose of the kosher laws. But I am disputing adding laws to the Torah is sinful and a violation of the Torah, which is what you've been arguing for all along.
In the case of oath-taking, he even goes so far as to assert that it comes of evil (Matthew 5:37), which is a pretty stern judgement on something which Moses condoned (Numbers 30:1-2, Deuteronomy 6:13).
Here's what Jesus said:

Mat 5:33 ESV - "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.'
Mat 5:34 ESV - But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God,
Mat 5:35 ESV - or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.
Mat 5:36 ESV - And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black.
Mat 5:37 ESV - Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.

Jesus is not saying that oath-taking is evil. He is saying that oath-taking is not necessary. If you say you will do something, then do it. If you say you won't do something, then don't do it. What is evil is saying, "Yes, I said I would do it, but since I didn't swear I'd do it, then I'm not bound to do it."
Then 2 Timothy 3:16-17 becomes meaningless, as you have scripture which

is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works
Yes, that passage is correct. But I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting everything in the Bible is a doctrinal statement?

Also, this passage doesn't say everything in the Tanakh must accepted as literally true.
What you assert is, "Testimony is always indirect." This is not a logical observation and is contradicted by the definitions that I've already provided.
What I specified is that witness testimony is always indirect.
Here's what you stated:
Athetotheist wrote: Mon Nov 06, 2023 7:05 pm Testimony is always indirect.
And you don't have empirical evidence which you should have, such as empirical evidence of a virgin birth, and so have to downplay its significance.
Why should I have to if I've never made a claim there is empirical evidence for it and Jesus never even made a claim it authenticates his authority? I do claim there's testimonial evidence for it, so it's sufficient for me. If skeptics want to reject the virgin birth because there is no empirical evidence, then I have no objection to it. But if skeptics want to reject the resurrection in light of the fact I have presented empirical evidence for it, then that's another matter.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2713
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 487 times

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

Post #3320

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3319
If you assert there is no "direct testimony", then all I'm presenting is just "testimony".
Right----and testimony alone doesn't cut it when it comes to signs and miracles.


What argument have you made for the Christian Bible which can't be made for the Book of Mormon?
Mormons are free to present their case.
Why should they have to? Why can't they present the same evidence you've presented to support their book along with yours? That's what Christians claim to do with the Tanakh.


If none of their kosher laws negate or countermand anything in the Torah, then those laws are not in violation of the Torah.
And neither has Jesus.
I've illustrated otherwise.

Likewise, Jesus allows for a bill of divorce, but not for any reason other than sexual immorality.
Moses allows for more than that and never says anything about it being for their "hardness of heart". On the contrary, Moses repeatedly declares that everything in the law is to be kept, not turning to the right or to the left, in order "to love the Lord your God and to serve him with all your heart and with all your soul". So Jesus's "hardness of heart" statement makes Moses out to be a deceiver, which isn't something the Jewish Messiah would do.

I am disputing adding laws to the Torah is sinful and a violation of the Torah, which is what you've been arguing for all along.
I base my argument on Deuteronomy 4:2. What part of the Torah do you base your rebuttal on?

Jesus is not saying that oath-taking is evil. He is saying that oath-taking is not necessary. If you say you will do something, then do it. If you say you won't do something, then don't do it. What is evil is saying, "Yes, I said I would do it, but since I didn't swear I'd do it, then I'm not bound to do it."
If he isn't saying that it's evil, why does the text use the word "πονηρός" for what he says?

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

He explicitly says that what's evil is anything more than "yes" or "no". He says nothing about backing out of doing something you said you would do. He's talking about the way you say you will do something. You can try to change what he says, but that's what he says.

Yes, that passage is correct. But I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting everything in the Bible is a doctrinal statement?
2 Timothy 3:16 states that "all scripture" is "profitable for doctrine", which indicates that all scripture has a doctrinal application related to whatever a particular passage is about.


And you don't have empirical evidence which you should have, such as empirical evidence of a virgin birth, and so have to downplay its significance.
Why should I have to if I've never made a claim there is empirical evidence for it and Jesus never even made a claim it authenticates his authority?
You can't claim that there's empirical evidence for it, and trying to limit it to the lens of Jesus's "authority" is a diversion. The "virgin birth" isn't supposed to be about his authority. It's supposed to be about his nature.

What's important is that Jesus's "virginal" conception was supposed to be a sign, but it wasn't a sign because his conception wasn't observable, so even Matthew's take on Isaiah 7:14 doesn't apply to Jesus.
If skeptics want to reject the virgin birth because there is no empirical evidence, then I have no objection to it. But if skeptics want to reject the resurrection in light of the fact I have presented empirical evidence for it, then that's another matter.
And that other matter has been addressed by pointing out not only shortcomings in the appearance of the Turin cloth image itself, but also textual disqualifiers which show that even a genuine image couldn't be that of the Jesus of the Christian Bible.

Post Reply