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

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #3570]

They pull the Faith Card and say, " God allowed that interpolation, so it's either historically accurate, or theologically accurate- you can still trust the Bible to be true, even when lying."

Or perhaps "theatrically accurate".

[Data]

It's about being trustworthy.

No, it isn't. No matter how you look at it, it isn't about trustworthiness. I believe the Bible. I don't trust it. You have an unsophisticated argument that can't be realistically upheld to your own scrutiny. I'll show why that is.

If God had some hand in its preservation, it could full of "errors" - alleged flaws that don't change the trustworthiness of the message - but you'd still be right to call it trustworthy because your faith tells you it is trustworthy in whatever manner supports your faith.

I've noticed lately that a great deal of the arguments of the skeptic are dependent upon the alleged stupidity of the faithful, which is a really stupid argument. It would be more advantageous to assume the alternative. Even if it is patently false. The Bible itself says not to believe the inspired spirit. 1 John 4:1 Do you trust that? I certainly do.

Errors are expected. What isn't expected is a book to somehow retain its trustworthiness despite errors.

And the same then, would apply to any book? All books? Everything? Science has never made errors? There has never been fraud, madness, corruption, mistakes, lies . . . in science? Science books?

And were not talking a few misspellings, or a wrong name.
For example, if the Bible was found to have a story inserted long after the original story, like the Pericope Adulterae, you can say : " She, we can't know if the Bible can be trusted."

Right. Same goes for history. Pseudoscience. Your argument is like saying the Hemline Theory means we can't know if science can be trusted. Of course, we can't. Nothing can be truly trusted. Too many variables of an untrustworthy nature. The Bible isn't God. God isn't the Bible. If someone's idea of God is some traditional distorted cash cow derivation commonly accepted out of complete ignorance that isn't a reflection of God, it's a reflection of the person and what they made their God. The same with atheism, science, politics. Everything. The misuse of something does not eliminate the possibility of its correct use; ab abusu ad usum non valet consequential. Seems to suggest that there infinitus est numerus stultorum. If I may be so bold, sir. I think if you want to be as accurate as you can you have to be aware of the fact that unending is the number of fools and in all likelihood each of us fall into that category. You are much more likely not to overlook your own error if you do that. Works for me anyway. Not completely trustworthy position to take, but that's sort of the point.

They pull the Faith Card and say, " God allowed that interpolation, so it's either historically accurate, or theologically accurate- you can still trust the Bible to be true, even when lying."

So? They would believe anything. The immortal soul, hell, trinity, cross, rapture, Christmas, Easter, etc. I don't care what any of those people think. I certainly don't trust them. They have nothing to do with it.

[boatsnguitars]

I believe the Bible. I don't trust it.
...
Nothing can be truly trusted.

There's your Faith card.
You don't trust it, but you believe it. Why do you believe it if you can't trust it?

As for science, you'll open a can of worns that isn't good for you. Science doesn't trust - it is - literally - a process of trying to prove things untrustworthy until there is no reason to continue, then, it becomes a Theory: held tentatively in case new information comes to light.

[alexxcJRO]

Who's claiming God is "omni-perfect"? This is just another of the "omni" arguments that skeptics use to paint an imaginary straw man God.

You did sir.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

Then I'll dispute it now. How do you define what it means that God is omniperfect?

I did not sir. I used the Bible.

I posted the verses from below and then you agreed God is omni-perfect, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”
“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Q: You do not agree with the Bible?

[otseng]

Who's claiming God is "omni-perfect"? This is just another of the "omni" arguments that skeptics use to paint an imaginary straw man God.

You did sir.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

Then I'll dispute it now. How do you define what it means that God is omniperfect?

I did not sir. I used the Bible.

I posted the verses from below and then you agreed God is omni-perfect, omnibenevolent and omniscient.

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”
“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Q: You do not agree with the Bible?

The Bible says God is perfect. It does not say God is omniperfect.

Again, how do you define omniperfect?

[otseng]

At the heart of the problem with accusations of the immorality of slavery in the Bible is the differing definitions of slavery.

I've provided the modern definitions of slavery and I've provided the definitions of ebed and doulos. Neither ebed nor doulos match what is the modern definition of slavery. So, to make any equivalence is to commit the equivocation fallacy.

In logic, equivocation ("calling two different things by the same name") is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

Even more, the word "slave" is never mentioned in the KJV. In modern Bibles, translators have a hard time translating ebed and doulos and cannot find the right English word, sometimes they use servant and sometimes they use slave.

In the modern definition of slavery, the general view is it involves involuntary servitude which is exploitative and abusive. In the Biblical context, ebed and doulos simply involve servitude, without stating whether it is voluntary or not or exploitative or not. In the vast majority of cases, ebed and doulos do not match the modern definition of slavery.

To avoid the fallacy of equivocation, we need to qualify the definition to be more specific to equally compare what is being referenced in the Old Testament. Simply using the words "slave" or "slavery" (without any qualifications) to make any statement about the Bible is equivocating.

[Data]

There's your Faith card.

It's the best card. That's why you don't like it?

You don't trust it, but you believe it. Why do you believe it if you can't trust it?

You argue that you can't trust anything that isn't trustworthy but you can't name anything that is, by your own definition, trustworthy? That's just confirmation bias.

As for science, you'll open a can of worns that isn't good for you. Science doesn't trust - it is - literally.

So? I've just told you that I don't trust, literally, and you object to that? Again. Confirmation bias.

- a process of trying to prove things untrustworthy until there is no reason to continue, then, it becomes a Theory: held tentatively in case new information comes to light.

Exactly. So, you understand my position. The quote - from the Bible, is not to trust the inspired scripture, but to test the inspired scripture.

[boatsnguitars]

There's your Faith card.

It's the best card. That's why you don't like it?

It's the worst card. It's the card you throw away when you buy the deck.
Otherwise, you are simply playing a game in which every religion has their own trump card - it gets no one anywhere.

You don't trust it, but you believe it. Why do you believe it if you can't trust it?

You argue that you can't trust anything that isn't trustworthy but you can't name anything that is, by your own definition, trustworthy? That's just confirmation bias.

You can trust a process that has, to the greatest extent possible, removed as much distrust as possible. Hence the reason we trust things.
Trust is a thing. It's real, and it's a valid thing to have - with caveats. However, untrustworthy things are, by definition, untrustworthy.

Let's test your Faith against my Trust:

We will each jump out of a plane with a parachute.
I will trust that I will need to use it.
You can have Faith that God will stop you from hitting the ground at terminal velocity.

As for science, you'll open a can of worns that isn't good for you. Science doesn't trust - it is - literally.

So? I've just told you that I don't trust, literally, and you object to that? Again. Confirmation bias.

But you have said you have Faith - which, if I'm not mistaken - is used as an expression of trust, but in a non-scientific way.

- a process of trying to prove things untrustworthy until there is no reason to continue, then, it becomes a Theory: held tentatively in case new information comes to light.

Exactly. So, you understand my position. The quote - from the Bible, is not to trust the inspired scripture, but to test the inspired scripture.

How do you test scripture? Pray tell!

[Data]

It's the worst card. It's the card you throw away when you buy the deck.
Otherwise, you are simply playing a game in which every religion has their own trump card - it gets no one anywhere.

Exactly! Makes the argument itself seem silly, doesn't it? Peer review. Scientific debate. All that stuff just gets in the way of our confirmation bias. Cherry-pick your basket full and run to the nearest soapbox.

You can trust a process that has, to the greatest extent possible, removed as much distrust as possible. Hence the reason we trust things.

When you select data and remove the part you don't like before fairly evaluating it? Because isn't that what we do? All you need to know is do you want Jehovah as your God. I tell skeptics this all the time. If you don't then don't waste another second on the matter. To question anyone else's decision is the problem of an ideologue. To debate the conclusions best to know what they are. With an ideologue it's about motivation. With a true believer or skeptic, it's about data. There aren't many true believers or skeptics.

Trust is a thing. It's real, and it's a valid thing to have - with caveats. However, untrustworthy things are, by definition, untrustworthy.

Trust is faith. By definition, etymologically. You defined the Bible as untrustworthy based upon errors?

Let's test your Faith against my Trust:

We will each jump out of a plane with a parachute.
I will trust that I will need to use it.
You can have Faith that God will stop you from hitting the ground at terminal velocity.

Oooo! A real Texas Sharpshootin' Strawman you got there! Jesus didn't have a parachute when Satan tempted him to jump from the temple.

How do you test scripture? Pray tell!

Same as anything else. How do you test the science you have faith in?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's the worst card. It's the card you throw away when you buy the deck.
Otherwise, you are simply playing a game in which every religion has their own trump card - it gets no one anywhere.

Exactly! Makes the argument itself seem silly, doesn't it? Peer review. Scientific debate. All that stuff just gets in the way of our confirmation bias. Cherry-pick your basket full and run to the nearest soapbox.

You can trust a process that has, to the greatest extent possible, removed as much distrust as possible. Hence the reason we trust things.

When you select data and remove the part you don't like before fairly evaluating it? Because isn't that what we do? All you need to know is do you want Jehovah as your God. I tell skeptics this all the time. If you don't then don't waste another second on the matter. To question anyone else's decision is the problem of an ideologue. To debate the conclusions best to know what they are. With an ideologue it's about motivation. With a true believer or skeptic, it's about data. There aren't many true believers or skeptics.

Trust is a thing. It's real, and it's a valid thing to have - with caveats. However, untrustworthy things are, by definition, untrustworthy.

Trust is faith. By definition, etymologically. You defined the Bible as trustworthy based upon errors?

Let's test your Faith against my Trust:

We will each jump out of a plane with a parachute.
I will trust that I will need to use it.
You can have Faith that God will stop you from hitting the ground at terminal velocity.

Oooo! A real Texas Sharpshootin' Strawman you got there! Jesus didn't have a parachute when Satan tempted him to jump from the temple.

How do you test scripture? Pray tell!

Same as anything else. How do you test the science you have faith in?

At least that is a window into the science -denial mindset. Peer review does indeed get into the way of confirmation -bias. It tends to unseat claims that are not adequately supported by test. And even then, these things can get tested and discussed. 'Science is always changing its'mind' - if it turns out it needs a rethink. Faith never changes its' mind no matter the evidence.

You fail to see that your cute little atheist -trap doesn't work. If there was a decent and fair God that was as visible as any celebrity or politician and sorted problems and answered prayers and lived by the moral code he gave us, which would be better than ours never mind the Biblical one, an afterlife that we could know about and opt out of if we didn't fancy enduring eternity - then why would any of the atheists or irreligious not go for that? It is because the present god and religion on offer is not like that either in evidence or desirability, that atheists do not want that god or religion, apart from it not being true on the evidence. Nice try, but no cigar.

Your semantic trick also fails. It is of course equivocation fallacy. Faith, trust, belief and some other terms are synonyms. But - this should be a meme - 'Meanings before words'. What we mean is what we mean, not what dictionary synonym can be attached to it. The bottom line is that I at least use the term belief to stand for that with some good reason. That might be compelling evidence or just the most logical hypothesis. Trust is taking a punt, making he best guess and hoping it doesn't turn out wrong. Of course being willing to admit it when it isn't, not doubling down, denying science and making excuses. And Faith (with a cap.) is trust or belief invested in a claim without good evidence or even in despite of the evidence. That should be a meme too, so as to stop people like you trying to pull that semantic trick.

You are of course doing a wind -up with your 'strawman' accusation. But it shows the double -standard of theist thinking. how do you know Jesus didn't have a parachute? Where does the Bible say 'Jesus hathed no parachute'? Of course the go -to theory is that Jesus didn't have one because all the evidence is against it and 'undisprovable' is an invalid excuse. See how it works - except in Bible apologetics, it seems? Double standards of thinking Data, mate and Faithbased a priori assumption the Bible stuff being the default is the illogicality that causes the bias. And of course it wouldn't save a jump from a Temple., even if Jesus had one.

It only needs to be said that you may be thinking you are doing a great job of winding up an atheist, but in fact you are doing a great job in showing how atheist apologetics is better, more rational and more based on the evidence. Bad apologist like you are worth two divisions to us.