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

[Mae von H]

I asked you, many times, what is <the source>? You opted not to answer.

I did answer, as many times as you asked. You won't accept my answer because you are not arguing me, you're arguing theism. You assume that my source is something other than what I've told you it was. The source, again, and for the last time, is common sense, prior, as I pointed out, to me becoming a believer. So, if you are trying to say that my position on discipline originated with the Bible, you're wrong. And you don't have the authority or data to say otherwise. Without being wrong. Or a liar.

Not my fault.

Yes, it is. You ask a question, I answer it, you say I haven't answered it, your fault.

I'll explain further below.

No, you won't.

6th attempt. What is <the source> for your common sense?

See above.

Great. We agree. The only place where God gave his advice/suggestions/commands/other, is the Bible. God is <the source>, no?

There you are doing it for a fourth time. Conflating what I say on one subject, in this case the Bible is the source for what God says, with my source on discipline which preceded my introduction to the Bible. That's how you do what you do. I won't allow it.

Try it again, this time with honesty.

If someone has to ask the source for common sense, the kindest indication we can draw is that they don’t have any and maybe would like some. Unfortunately common sense is something innate and either expands from use or withers from neglect. That is, either a man has listened to his common sense and benefited from doing so or ignored it repeated and thereby made it dull. It’s similar to the inner sense of logic and reason.

[POI]

If someone has to ask the source for common sense, the kindest indication we can draw is that they don’t have any and maybe would like some. Unfortunately common sense is something innate and either expands from use or withers from neglect. That is, either a man has listened to his common sense and benefited from doing so or ignored it repeated and thereby made it dull. It’s similar to the inner sense of logic and reason.

post 3616

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3596

I don't follow your logic. What does fossils have anything to do with it? Bretz was not studying the sedimentary strata, but the erosion patterns.

Fossils are there and they show an evolutionary pattern stretching over tens of millions of years, so they can't be ignored.

This has nothing to do with Bertz and the Scablands. As for the supposedly evolution in the fossil record, it is out of scope for this thread.

[otseng]

Regarding kidnapping (stealing a person), the Bible expressly forbids it and it is punishable by death.

[Exo 21:16 KJV] 16 And he that stealeth (gānaḇ) a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

[Deu 24:7 KJV] 7 If a man be found stealing (gānaḇ) any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

Steal is gānaḇ:
steal (30x), steal away (7x), carry away (1x), brought (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3623

Fossils are there and they show an evolutionary pattern stretching over tens of millions of years, so they can't be ignored.

This has nothing to do with Bertz and the Scablands. As for the supposedly evolution in the fossil record, it is out of scope for this thread.

Why? Because it undermines the flood narrative?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Data in post #3619]

Moderator Warning



Please refrain from uncivil comments towards other posters.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3623

Fossils are there and they show an evolutionary pattern stretching over tens of millions of years, so they can't be ignored.

This has nothing to do with Bertz and the Scablands. As for the supposedly evolution in the fossil record, it is out of scope for this thread.

Why? Because it undermines the flood narrative?

This is just a diversionary tactic. You've never even answered the question I posed:

I don't even think you read what I wrote about the Scablands. What did Bertz and Pardee propose and why was the former rejected and the latter accepted?

As for fossils in the sedimentary strata, I've already discussed this in other places. See A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #3623

Fossils are there and they show an evolutionary pattern stretching over tens of millions of years, so they can't be ignored.

This has nothing to do with Bertz and the Scablands. As for the supposedly evolution in the fossil record, it is out of scope for this thread.

Why? Because it undermines the flood narrative?

This is just a diversionary tactic. You've never even answered the question I posed:

I don't even think you read what I wrote about the Scablands. What did Bertz and Pardee propose and why was the former rejected and the latter accepted?

As for fossils in the sedimentary strata, I've already discussed this in other places. See A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?.

Out of interest re the flood and fossil evidence, are the any pockets of fossilized evidence which include - specifically - fossilized human beings in great numbers?
I have heard some claim that such pockets found of mass death events which evidences that the critters caught in the same process (all died immediately and together), and along with said evidence, proclamations this proves a world-wide flood occurred.

Central to the Bible story is the mass destruction of humankind, so one should expect to see evidence of pockets of vast amounts of human fossils - humans who shared the same immediate fate.

[Muckman]

[Replying to William in post #3628]

I would disagree on the worldwide flood. I also adamantly disagree with literal 6-day creationism which claims that Noah put the dinosaurs on the Ark.

If Noah were to bring every living creature that existed globally it would take dozens of arks. I'm sure God's Spirit was involved in the gathering process but remember. This includes male and female of every living thing, including birds, animals, creeping things/reptiles. AND - gather the food to sustain these critters.

NOW! ADD Dino into the mix and you have an outrageous theory that makes no sense.

Another thing is their size alone would have instilled so much fear in people that there would be some record of them walking on the earth at the same time as man. The Behemoth is a water ox and the Leviathan is likely symbolic of an evil end-time entity.

Dinosaurs existed in the pre-Adamite world and were destroyed after their useful purpose was done. Then God re-created the earth into what we see today and created Adam and Eve at that time. It just makes no sense these Christian Creation Scientist get away with pushing this stuff. 6-day creationist distort the creation account to cover up multiple contradictions and the end result is even more ridiculous fabrications and contradictions. In fact, the literal 6-day creation issue has driven people OUT of Christianity because it so utterly ridiculous.

19 And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. 21 And you shall take for yourself of all food that is eaten, and you shall gather it to yourself; and it shall be food for you and for them.”

22 Thus Noah did; according to all that God commanded him, so he did.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3627

This is just a diversionary tactic. You've never even answered the question I posed:
otseng wrote: ↑I don't even think you read what I wrote about the Scablands. What did Bertz and Pardee propose and why was the former rejected and the latter accepted?

When Bertz theorized a cataclysmic flood to explain the Scablands, geologists automatically rejected it, even though he had plenty of evidence for it. No geologist was going to accept anything that would confirm the Bible. It was only until Pardee came along and proposed an ice dam as the cause did geologists accept a local flood explanation of the Scablands. However, Bertz had much more evidence for the flood than did Pardee for an ice dam. It was only until a non-Biblical explanation could be offered would it be accepted.

This is what you wrote. According to you, the flood narrative was rejected because of bias.

As for fossils in the sedimentary strata, I've already discussed this in other places. (See A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?)

I followed the link to that lengthy thread and a link therein to another thread.
viewtopic.php?t=346

Along the way I encountered these sources....

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noa ... html#flood

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html

....which put some sizeable holes in the flood narrative. I haven't gone through the whole thing, but in the part I saw you tried to come up with work-arounds and other posters kept pointing out more problems.


Of particular intetest to me was this comment:

There is no way that the population of the earth would have recovered, both human and non-human. You can't rebuild an ecosystem with only two of each kind of animal. In any stable biosystem, the number of prey always outstrips the number of predators. This is because predators have to actually hunt for their food, and there's always a chance (and a high one at that) that their prey will get away, or that other animals will steal the kill (think leopards and cheetahs), or what not. That's why there are so many more zebras and gazelles than lions and tigers.

Even if you started off with 2 of each kind, there would not be enough foliage to support a stable food supply for the herbivores in a post-flood environment.

If the animals didn't eat each other on the boat, they most certainly did afterwards (especially after God established predator/prey relationships).

The interesting point here is that, geology aside, you can't propose the Genesis flood on a purely naturalistic basis due to the natural impossibility of the predator animals on the ark either eating the prey animals or starving----or, more realistically, eating the prey animals in a short period and then starving. So you're left with having to resort to the miraculous with no scientific basis to go on.

Indeed, it's really a no-win scenario for you. If the whole thing could happen naturally, how would atheists be convinced of the presence of any god in it anyway?