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

[boatsnguitars]

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 cet 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 people not 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 equivication 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 whan it isn't,not doubling down and making excuses. and Faith (with a cap.) is trust or belief invented 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 hat 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.

I can't recognize a Poe anymore... :-/

[TRANSPONDER]

By definition, isn't a POE indistinguishable from a genuine example? No names, but here and on my other board, there were those who did 'Wind up an atheist for Jesus' types and the 'Hey,lighten up dude'meme which claimed they were just having a bit of fun. We have heard that before, and we may suspect that is an excuse and evasion when their nonsense gets called out and we get to double -down denial, and when that gets to looking very silly, they pretend it was just funnin' about.

I like a laugh myself, but I suspect this is just another piece of theist (or at least anti -atheist) trickery and craftiness, of which there is a lot about.

[Data]

At least that is a window into the science -denial mindset.

Oh, yeah, totally. I became a science denier when I discovered quasi-skeptic ideologues using psudo-science for atheist propaganda in the guise of Biblical criticism.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3566

I've already presented the evidence of bias regarding the Scablands explanation.

Scientists weren't interested in evidence which wasn't scientific.

Did you ever address the evidence of fossils in geological layers?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3566

[Exo 20:3 KJV] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

It doesn't say anything about demanding worship.

It doesn't use the words "demand worship", but that's what it means.

[Data]

[Replying to otseng in post #3566

[Exo 20:3 KJV] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

It doesn't say anything about demanding worship.

It doesn't use the words "demand worship", but that's what it means.

Actually, it limits worship.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #3566

[Exo 20:3 KJV] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

It doesn't say anything about demanding worship.

It doesn't use the words "demand worship", but that's what it means.

It seems apparent that throughout the Bible there is plenty of reference to worship re the Biblical God although there appears to also be variation on exactly what said nature of God is, among those who claim to be believers.


The What is "Worship"? thread shows that there is debate on that and I suspect the reason has something to do with how the individuals group in relation to their particular takes on the nature of the biblical God as to how this effects their (oft externalized) acts of worshiping said idea.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3566

[Exo 20:3 KJV] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

It doesn't say anything about demanding worship.

It doesn't use the words "demand worship", but that's what it means.

Actually, it limits worship.

To a deity who demands it?

[Data]

To a deity who demands it?

To an agreed upon deity of a select people who were surrounded by other people with other deities. The deity wasn't demanding it from those others. (Exodus 24:7)

[alexxcJRO]

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

Again, how do you define omniperfect?

God is perfectly good:"who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.
God is perfect in his works: "his works are perfect".
God is perfect in his speech and his words: "his way is perfect:The Lord’s word is flawless;"
God is perfect in his justice: "all his ways are just"
God’s knowledge is perfect->omniscient. Which you agreed.
God is perfect in his benevolence->omnibenevolence. Which you agreed.

God is perfect in every sense. Ergo omniperfect.
God is claimed to be perfect->omniperfect yet his actions betray many kinds of imperfections.
Not omnibenevolent. Not perfectly just. Not perfectly good. Not omniscient. And so on.
Therefore we have a contradiction. QED.