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]

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 they believe the BoM is authoritative, then the burden is on them to support it. I do believe the Bible is authoritative, so I've been presenting my arguments and evidence to support it. Anyone who claims their religious book is authoritative should also do likewise.

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.

Hardness of heart was used by Moses as well, so even that phrase was not novel by Jesus. But, no, Jesus was not making out Moses to be a deceiver.

I base my argument on Deuteronomy 4:2. What part of the Torah do you base your rebuttal on?

I base it on all of the Bible. You can't just take a passage and apply a hyperliteral interpretation of it and make it mean what you want it to say. The mere fact there are other books in the Bible besides the Torah refutes your argument, since obviously other words have been added to the Torah. And as I've also pointed out, not even the Jews have this interpretation that you do. So, really, it's only your own interpretation.

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?

I already explained it. It means let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. If your yes means no or your no means yes, then that's evil.

[Mat 5:37 KJV] 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil (πονηροῦ).

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.

No, it doesn't mean everything in the Bible is a doctrinal statement or even have a doctrinal application. There are no Christians who believe this, so this would be a straw man argument.

In 2 Tim 3:16, the word doctrine is didaskalia. It means "teaching, instruction, doctrine, precepts".
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

Here are other translations of that verse:

(CJB)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is valuable for teaching the truth, convicting of sin, correcting faults and training in right living;

(ESV)
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteous

(NASB)
All Scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for teaching, for rebuke, for correction, for training in righteousness

(NIV)
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

(RSV)
All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

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.

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.

We're argued at length about these already. I'll let readers assess by what has already been posted.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3321

I do believe the Bible is authoritative, so I've been presenting my arguments and evidence to support it.

You're trying to ride both sides of the fence, admitting that it isn't inerrant but still claiming that it's authoritative.

Hardness of heart was used by Moses as well, so even that phrase was not novel by Jesus. But, no, Jesus was not making out Moses to be a deceiver.

Moses tells the people to "be no longer stiff-necked" (Deuteronomy 10:16) and to keep all of the law he is giving them.

You can't just take a passage and apply a hyperliteral interpretation of it and make it mean what you want it to say.

There's the meaningless term "hyperliteral" again.

You can't change the entire context of a passage and make it mean what you want it to say.

The mere fact there are other books in the Bible besides the Torah refutes your argument, since obviously other words have been added to the Torah.

You keep falling back on this argument which has already been refuted. The additional narrative scriptures don't add to the law.

I already explained it. It means let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. If your yes means no or your no means yes, then that's evil.

You're ignoring my additional point. Jesus says nothing about not intending to do what you say. What he's talking about is saying what you intend to do or not do with an oath. When he tells them to let their yes mean yes and their no mean no, what he means is, "When you mean yes, say nothing more than yes, and when you mean no, say nothing more than no."

"for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."

He's saying that they should not use oaths at all, and the problem is that Moses condoned the use of oaths. Jesus is setting himself in opposition to Moses.

No, it doesn't mean everything in the Bible is a doctrinal statement or even have a doctrinal application. There are no Christians who believe this, so this would be a straw man argument.

An argument isn't made a straw man by how many people reject it.

"training in right living"

"training in righteous"

"training in righteousness"

"training in righteousness"

"training in righteousness"

If all scripture is profitable for training in righteousness, then the scriptures allowing divorce are profitable for training in righteousness.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

When reality meets moronic beliefs the "metaphor" card and cherry picking comes to the rescue.
For every Christian there a subjective, personal cherry picking.
Billions of subjective, personal cherry pickings.
All doing the same dishonest thing: bending the reality and religious texts around one's preconceived notions and dogma seems like a pathetic attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable.

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.

The Muslim will say what you say. The Hindu will say what you say. The Mormom will say what you say.
The Muslim apologist will say Quran for example is historically reliable, archaeologically reliable, scientifically reliable, and prophetically reliable. He will be rational in his analysis of other religions(Christianity) but fail to be as rational when analyzing Islam.

Every simpleton in the last hundred of thousand of years since Animism was a thing, believed he was right about some magical reality.
Off course your special. You got it right. Lucky you. Poor billions of other Homo Sapiens Sapiens. They were not so lucky.

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.

Dear sir,

It is laughably stupid to believe in 2023 in the Bible magical stories considering the huge amount of knowledge available.

Rational arguments LOL.
You cherry pick everything you don't think can't defend and use the metaphor card to make them into anything you want in order to make the whole thing somewhat consistent.
You can make anything into anything if cherry picking is allowed.
I can use cherry picking to make a person's writings say almost what I want them to say if I select certain parts.
This is clearly a dishonest tactic and mechanism.
But when a religious does it is rational.

[otseng]

You're trying to ride both sides of the fence, admitting that it isn't inerrant but still claiming that it's authoritative.

I've already discussed this many times. This thread does not assume inerrancy of the Bible. The whole point of this thread is to argue the Bible can be authoritative without the assumption of inerrancy. We have many texts that we consider authoritative (constitutions, laws, references, books, journals), but none of those claim to be inerrant. It is more special pleading that the Bible must be inerrant in order for it to be considered authoritative.

Moses tells the people to "be no longer stiff-necked" (Deuteronomy 10:16) and to keep all of the law he is giving them.

Jesus as well had a high view of the Torah.

[Mat 5:17-18 KJV] 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

There's the meaningless term "hyperliteral" again.

It's not a meaningless term. Here's the definition:

"Extremely literal"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyperliteral
https://www.yourdictionary.com/hyperliteral
https://glosbe.com/en/en/hyperliteral

You can't change the entire context of a passage and make it mean what you want it to say.

I'm not changing the context. My interpretation is consistent with Matt 5:17-18. How then can you reconcile your view with Matt 5:17-18?

You keep falling back on this argument which has already been refuted. The additional narrative scriptures don't add to the law.

That's why I brought up the Jews have added laws that are outside of the Torah, like the kosher laws.

Another thing Jews have added is not saying, or even writing, God's name. Is there even a command found in the Bible for this? No. Yet it is regularly practiced by the Jews to substitute other words for God's name in speech and writings.

Do any Orthodox Jews have your view of Deut 4:2? No. Are they all also violating Deut 4:2 since they are adding additional things they must do? By your interpretation, yes.

[Deu 4:2 KJV] 2 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.

He's saying that they should not use oaths at all, and the problem is that Moses condoned the use of oaths. Jesus is setting himself in opposition to Moses.

Moses never commanded you must make an oath. Moses only commanded you may make an oath. As a matter of fact, Moses did say not making an oath is not a sin.

[Deu 23:22 NKJV] 22 "But if you abstain from vowing, it shall not be sin to you.

So Jesus saying don't make an oath at all doesn't violate anything Moses said, but actually supports what Moses has said.

An argument isn't made a straw man by how many people reject it.

If nobody is making that claim, then it's a straw man.

[otseng]

When reality meets moronic beliefs ... like a pathetic attempt ... Every simpleton ... It is laughably stupid ... This is clearly a dishonest tactic and mechanism.

What I asked for is rational counterarguments with evidence, not for more irrational and uncivil comments.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3324

We have many texts that we consider authoritative (constitutions, laws, references, books, journals), but none of those claim to be inerrant.

None of them have a religion founded on them either.

It is more special pleading that the Bible must be inerrant in order for it to be considered authoritative.

No it isn't, because the Bible is supposed to have a supernatural source whether you want to admit it or not.

[Mat 5:17-18 KJV] 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

If Jesus wasn't adding to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", where does the law say, "Do not swear at all"?

It's not a meaningless term. Here's the definition:

"Extremely literal"

If you want to go with that meaning of it, then you have to go all the way.

"Not one jot or tittle" is extremely literal.

I'm not changing the context. My interpretation is consistent with Matt 5:17-18.

Matthew 5:17-18 isn't consistent with Deut. 4:2, Numbers 30:1-2 or Matthew 5:33-37.

That's why I brought up the Jews have added laws that are outside of the Torah, like the kosher laws.

You said:

The mere fact there are other books in the Bible besides the Torah refutes your argument, since obviously other words have been added to the Torah.

Do any Orthodox Jews have your view of Deut 4:2? No. Are they all also violating Deut 4:2 since they are adding additional things they must do? By your interpretation, yes.

What's your interpretation? If you take the position that the Jews keep the law, you eliminate the need for Jesus to be a sacrifice. If you take the position that the Jews don't keep the law because they can't, you have to admit that Jesus didn't keep the law either.

Moses never commanded you must make an oath.

Irrelevant.

Moses only commanded you may make an oath.

And Jesus undermined him by saying that it was evil to do so.

Moses did say not making an oath is not a sin.

Irrelevant.

So Jesus saying don't make an oath at all doesn't violate anything Moses said, but actually supports what Moses has said.

In Numbers 30:1, Moses begins by saying, "This is the thing which the Lord has commanded:". He then gives the command allowing the swearing of oaths. Thus, when Jesus says, "Do not swear at all", he's commanding what Jehovah had not commanded and is undermining his own claim in John 12:49-50 that everything he says is what Jehovah gave him to say.


An argument isn't made a straw man by how many people reject it.

If nobody is making that claim, then it's a straw man.

It would be a straw man if I claimed that people had made the claim. I didn't make that claim, so it's not a straw man.

[otseng]

None of them have a religion founded on them either.

What are you suggesting? That all religious texts should be inerrant? This would again be special pleading.

Really what is the issue is how should a text be considered authoritative, regardless if it's a religious or secular document. They should all start from the same starting point and none should have a presumed starting point that is different from another.

It is more special pleading that the Bible must be inerrant in order for it to be considered authoritative.

No it isn't, because the Bible is supposed to have a supernatural source whether you want to admit it or not.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming it is not of a supernatural origin and approaching it like any other textual document. Now, I might personally believe it also has a divine origin, but I'm not using that to argue for the authority of the Bible. Again, I'm surprised any skeptic would disagree with this. Every time I see skeptics argue with Christians about this, they say the Bible cannot be assumed to be divine when arguing for the authority of the Bible because that's just circular logic.

"Extremely literal"

If you want to go with that meaning of it, then you have to go all the way.

"Not one jot or tittle" is extremely literal.

I'm not the one who's claiming we should approach the Bible in a hyperliteral way. What I claim is we should not interpret the Bible hyperliterally.

I'm not changing the context. My interpretation is consistent with Matt 5:17-18.

Matthew 5:17-18 isn't consistent with Deut. 4:2, Numbers 30:1-2 or Matthew 5:33-37.

It's your interpretation that makes them inconsistent. Further, it's also inconsistent with the practice of Orthodox Jews. So it's an indication you are the one changing the context.

If Jesus wasn't adding to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", where does the law say, "Do not swear at all"?

Technically, yes, Jesus added to the law, though this one is a poor example. A better example would be where he specifically stated, "a new commandment I give you".

The mere fact there are other books in the Bible besides the Torah refutes your argument, since obviously other words have been added to the Torah.

Do any Orthodox Jews have your view of Deut 4:2? No. Are they all also violating Deut 4:2 since they are adding additional things they must do? By your interpretation, yes.

What's your interpretation? If you take the position that the Jews keep the law, you eliminate the need for Jesus to be a sacrifice. If you take the position that the Jews don't keep the law because they can't, you have to admit that Jesus didn't keep the law either.

False dichotomy.

Fundamentally, most people (including Christians) have a misunderstanding of what it means to "keep the law". This would take a sermon series to cover this. I gave a talk at church about "Keeping the Law" and "Loving the Law" at:
https://www.perimeter.org/pages/add-l-m ... s-podcast/

I also debated this at Should Christians keep the law? and talked about it in Keeping the commandments.

Moses never commanded you must make an oath.

Irrelevant.

Moses did say not making an oath is not a sin.

Irrelevant.

Hand waving my rebuttals do not make them irrelevant. Obviously Moses never commanded one must make an oath and also Moses specifically said not making an oath is not a sin. So, it refutes your argument Jesus was violating any law with your example.

And Jesus undermined him by saying that it was evil to do so.

I already explained this multiple times and will let the readers judge.

Thus, when Jesus says, "Do not swear at all", he's commanding what Jehovah had not commanded and is undermining his own claim in John 12:49-50 that everything he says is what Jehovah gave him to say.

As to "adding to the law", I've argued even other rabbis have done the same thing.

If nobody is making that claim, then it's a straw man.

It would be a straw man if I claimed that people had made the claim. I didn't make that claim, so it's not a straw man.

You said:

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.

Then who's making the claim that all scripture in the Bible has a doctrinal application?

[alexxcJRO]

When reality meets moronic beliefs ... like a pathetic attempt ... Every simpleton ... It is laughably stupid ... This is clearly a dishonest tactic and mechanism.

What I asked for is rational counterarguments with evidence, not for more irrational and uncivil comments.

1. Dear sir those things were metaphorical in meaning.
Don't jump to conclusions please. Don't do the things your complaining about in others. Golden rule-->Jesus.
Those phrases do not mean what they convey at first glance. There are several literal devices used by the writer(me) to convey a deeper truth.

2.
You have proved my point by using the same mechanism on my post: masterful cherry picking. Ignoring the important parts.
So funny!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3327

What are you suggesting? That all religious texts should be inerrant? This would again be special pleading.

No, it wouldn't. All true religious texts should be inerrant.

Really what is the issue is how should a text be considered authoritative, regardless if it's a religious or secular document. They should all start from the same starting point and none should have a presumed starting point that is different from another.

And if they all turn out to be errant, one shouldn't be presumed any more authoritative than the others.

For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming it is not of a supernatural origin and approaching it like any other textual document. Now, I might personally believe it also has a divine origin, but I'm not using that to argue for the authority of the Bible.

Then why do you assume that even the most glaring inconsistencies aren't inconsistent?


"Not one jot or tittle" is extremely literal.

I'm not the one who's claiming we should approach the Bible in a hyperliteral way. What I claim is we should not interpret the Bible hyperliterally.

Then why is it written "hyperliterally"? Have you read Deuteronomy 28's punishments for not keeping the law?

What you seem to be claiming is that we should not "interpret" the Bible in any way which shows inconsistency.


Matthew 5:17-18 isn't consistent with Deut. 4:2, Numbers 30:1-2 or Matthew 5:33-37.

It's your interpretation that makes them inconsistent.

It's my reading of the text and the context which shows me that they are inconsistent.

Further, it's also inconsistent with the practice of Orthodox Jews. So it's an indication you are the one changing the context.

You must believe that Orthodox Jews keep all of the law. In that case, what need do they have of Jesus as a sacrifice?


If Jesus wasn't adding to the law by saying, "Do not swear at all", where does the law say, "Do not swear at all"?

Technically, yes, Jesus added to the law, though this one is a poor example. A better example would be where he specifically stated, "a new commandment I give you".

Then you admit that he violated the law against adding to the law. "A new commandment I give you" may be a violation you prefer to focus on, but it doesn't make "Do not swear at all" any less a violation.

Fundamentally, most people (including Christians) have a misunderstanding of what it means to "keep the law". This would take a sermon series to cover this. I gave a talk at church about "Keeping the Law" and "Loving the Law" at:
https://www.perimeter.org/pages/add-l-m ... s-podcast/

I also debated this at Should Christians keep the law? and talked about it in Keeping the commandments.

I believe that you've brought this up before. The way you play with the words "keep" and "law" is just equivocation.

"The fallacy of equivocation occurs particularly in arguments involving words that have a multiplicity of meanings, such as capitalism, government, regulation, inflation, depression, expansion, and progress...To expose the fallacy of equivocation you give accurate and specific definitions of terms and show carefully that in one place the definition of the terms was different from the definition in another."
(From "Influencing Through Argument" by Robert Huber and Alfred Snider)

https://www.thoughtco.com/equivocation- ... rm-1690672

Hand waving my rebuttals do not make them irrelevant. Obviously Moses never commanded one must make an oath and also Moses specifically said not making an oath is not a sin. So, it refutes your argument Jesus was violating any law with your example.

Red herrings. You're dancing around the fact that Jesus, who says that Jehovah commanded him to say everything he says, prohibits something which Jehovah does not prohibit.


And Jesus undermined him by saying that it was evil to do so.

I already explained this multiple times and will let the readers judge.

You didn't explain anything. You simply made up a different rule for Jesus to issue in complete disregard for the context of the passage.

As to "adding to the law", I've argued even other rabbis have done the same thing.

And it's either a tu quoque argument to get Jesus off the hook or an admission that they can keep the law without needing Jesus as a sacrifice.


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.

Then who's making the claim that all scripture in the Bible has a doctrinal application?

The author of 2 Timothy.

[otseng]

And if they all turn out to be errant, one shouldn't be presumed any more authoritative than the others.

And if a secular text is errant, should it likewise no longer be authoritative?

Then why do you assume that even the most glaring inconsistencies aren't inconsistent?

They all have to assessed individually. Sure, some can be inconsistent, but since inerrancy is not assumed, it doesn't affect the others.

Then why is it written "hyperliterally"?

Things can be interpreted hyperliterally and things can be stated hyperbolically. Jesus said many thing hyperbolically. Do people actually gouge out their eyes if it causes them to stumble? Not really.

Have you read Deuteronomy 28's punishments for not keeping the law?

Those could be written hyperbolically as well.

What you seem to be claiming is that we should not "interpret" the Bible in any way which shows inconsistency.

Actually, I'm neutral on the approach. I do allow for possible inconsistencies and do not automatically accept everything needs to be consistent. Each needs to be assessed individually.

It's my reading of the text and the context which shows me that they are inconsistent.

And the Orthodox Jews are likewise inconsistent?

You must believe that Orthodox Jews keep all of the law. In that case, what need do they have of Jesus as a sacrifice?

Obviously they haven't been since the temple has not existed for close to 2000 years.

Then you admit that he violated the law against adding to the law. "A new commandment I give you" may be a violation you prefer to focus on, but it doesn't make "Do not swear at all" any less a violation.

I do not interpret it hyperliterally, so no, there is no violation. These things that Jesus added were not a countermand to any of the laws, but are in agreement with the spirit of the laws. The law was not meant as a strict legal document like a contract drawn up by lawyers.

The way you play with the words "keep" and "law" is just equivocation.

Obviously you haven't even read any of the material I presented. Fundamentally, it's a misunderstanding by skeptics and many believers on what does "keep" and "law" mean.

And it's either a tu quoque argument to get Jesus off the hook or an admission that they can keep the law without needing Jesus as a sacrifice.

I've already given my arguments and will let readers also judge this.

Then who's making the claim that all scripture in the Bible has a doctrinal application?

The author of 2 Timothy.

No, it's only your interpretation. Again, no Christians have this interpretation.