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

[POI]

yes, I agree in a sense we are all using faith.

Then I believe I have just peeled back the entire onion of this topic.

But you left one part of my question unanswered.

Do you believe we all carry the same amount of 'faith'? Meaning, does it merit the same amount of faith to entertain these (3) random beliefs:

a) We all share the same reality in a real materialistic world, and when we die, that's it.
b) Over 2K years ago, a homeless preacher was executed on a cross, rose from the dead a short time later, and expects everyone to believe he really did it by means of 'faith'.
c) We are in a simulation, etc etc etc

This entire topic reminds me of my first day of my philosophy 101 class. The professor had everyone go around the room and state one thing they could prove. The take-away, some philosophy buffs like to F with others Whether Mr. Tyson really believes we may be in a simulation, is of no interest. I bet though, that deep down, he likely doesn't? I think it is, for him, a fun exercise, to get people to really think, and to stay relevant in the public eye. But, like I stated prior, no, you cannot PROVE that we aren't. Just like none of us here can PROVE a dude did NOT rise 2K years ago.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4100]

I have already claimed that because these houses exist within the mansion of The Creator Mind, (The Real) they are automatically regarded by me as being real, as I am the one regarding things through that view.

Yes, you've already claimed that. But you're the only one interpreting the passage that way, so it's not a very convincing argument.

(in my opinion) One has no choice BUT to interpret the passage that way.

Let's look at the passage;

John 14:2 “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

I switched the words "In my Father's house" to "In my Father's Mansion" and I switched "I go to prepare a place for you" to "I go to prepare a (room in a) house for you".

You claim that my interpretation is not very convincing. but do not offer any support for that being the case.

The Fathers Mansion = The Creator Mind
The House = The reality one is experiencing at any given moment. (In our case, primarily this universe.)
The Room = Primarily (and presently) our human bodies and alongside that, the general environments and overall The Earth.

The Room is designed by our expressions into The House.

Jesus "going" to "prepare a place" for each of us is directly related to our expectations but not those alone. It is symbolic of the phenomena of The Creator Mind and all minds share the same phenomenal power, even that these are a way lesser degree re human personalities attached to those minds, when a human personality departs from the dead human body, it retains said mindful powers and will create its next experience for itself - either consciously/knowingly, or unconsciously/not realising that is what is occurring.

(Support for the above claim can be found in the great number of NDE reports - and not only in those.)

This is primarily because Simulation Theory speaks of that being experienced as, "not real" and is thus "false".

We've covered this already too. The difference is perceptually real vs actually real. Do things actually exist in God's mind? Do things actually exist in anyone's mind?

Given the above claim, the answer is "yes".

Aligned with that is the idea that each individual has to decide what is real and what is not, and with that in mind, whatever the individual experiences is real, even that others are not privy to the same experience.

Evidence (report) supporting this can be viewed in the following video.

Can we liken The Creator Mind to a computer?

I think we can. Fundamentally, they both posit a mind constructing our perception of reality. Our reality exist within the mind of an external entity (whether it is God's mind or a computer's CPU).

I do not think so if we are also to believe machines cannot become what The Creator Mind obviously is.

If a computer can dictate our perceptions of reality, how can it be distinguished from any creator?

Is the maker of the computer, the machinery itself or the mind which created the machinery?
There is no evidence (currently) which allows us to conclude that a machine can become self aware.

Our perceptions are indeed our own UNTIL we come to the realization that we share these with The Creator Mind in a most personable manner.

Why can't it be programmed so that you perceive it to be God's mind, but in actuality a computer is controlling your mind to think that?

It can be. Why is your religion/religious beliefs exempt from the same deception? What makes your "God" any less suspect?

And the first question to ask re that question is "What does one mean by "True"?"

That which conforms to actual reality.

Is that "actual reality" or simply what one believes is "actual reality"? How is one to tell?

I have yet to see any logical argumentation and evidence to support your belief other than interpretation of mansions. Rather than evidence, isn't that just lifting a passage out of context to fit your own preconceived belief?

I have already supported the passage with the bible overall and in particular, the Biblical God, and shown that what the bible claims (overall) is consistent with the concept that we exist within The Creator Mind.

Whereas, being within The Creator Mind Theory has it that there is no outside of The Creator Mind thus being within The Creator Mind is NOT a simulation, thus every house which can be experienced is also NOT a simulation, thus 100% certainty is achieved by the melding of all theories into a coherent theory - The Creator Mind Theory.

I wouldn't classify it as a coherent theory either. As I mentioned, it would mean God is deceiving us since our perceptual reality is against actual reality.

You would therefore have to take that up with God, since clearly we have been placed into form which - while giving us an experience - is also preventing us from seeing the whole picture...unless of course, one were to come to accept the realization we exist with The Creator Mind and unless said Creator Mind was deceiving Itself, no deception is real or going on re our minds and The Creator Mind.

If we are in a simulation, the odds of us being in a program that has bugs in it is vastly higher than us being in a perfectly written program. As a matter of fact, writing a perfect program would be practically zilch, unless it was an omnipotent and omniperfect programmer.

So we examine the real experience we are having looking for evidence of such things.

Any claim that such a program could have been written by an omnipotent and omniperfect programmer to appear imperfect to minds experiencing this reality may point to possible deception but is the deception real (re damaging) or harmless and necessary (for the reality being experienced to be experienced)?

Answering that question would require knowing the intentions of The Creator Mind. Just claiming "all deception is evil" et al, does not provide one with anything other than a platform to point fingers but are the accusations accurate/real or simply products of misuse of human perception?

In order for a perfect program to happen, there must've been a perfect programmer. So, it would be more likely a Creator mind can generate that rather than any finite programmer.

I agree. There is no question about it. The only difference between our positions in this instance, is that I think this is all successfully achieved WITHIN said Creator Mind BY said Creator Mind.

So, I would rate the odds of being in a Creator mind higher than being in a simulation.

In which case would you also agree that existing within The Creator Mind, is NOT the same as the belief we are existing within a simulation and niether is it the same as the belief we are existing outside of The Creator Mind?

[otseng]

yes, I agree in a sense we are all using faith.

Then I believe I have just peeled back the entire onion of this topic.

Don't understand your point. If everything we believe has an element of faith, then what's so special about this topic?

Do you believe we all carry the same amount of 'faith'? Meaning, does it merit the same amount of faith to entertain these (3) random beliefs:

Of course not, nobody is claiming that. What is being claimed is beliefs should be supported by rational arguments and evidence. However, nobody can prove a particular belief, so an element of faith would exist. The amount of faith required depends on the how much justification for the belief is viable.

Whether Mr. Tyson really believes we may be in a simulation, is of no interest. I bet though, that deep down, he likely doesn't?

Do you have evidence for that or you stating that by faith?

But, like I stated prior, no, you cannot PROVE that we aren't. Just like none of us here can PROVE a dude did NOT rise 2K years ago.

Nobody is expected here to prove anything.

[otseng]

We've covered this already too. The difference is perceptually real vs actually real. Do things actually exist in God's mind? Do things actually exist in anyone's mind?

Given the above claim, the answer is "yes".

Aligned with that is the idea that each individual has to decide what is real and what is not, and with that in mind, whatever the individual experiences is real, even that others are not privy to the same experience.

What I mean by real is correspondence with actual reality and it exists outside our mind and not only within our mind.

Evidence (report) supporting this can be viewed in the following video.

Voices inside one's mind is real in the sense that one perceives someone talking, but it doesn't necessarily mean an actual person is talking to her. Yes, her hearing voices speaking in her mind is perceptually real. But it doesn't mean those voices represent such people actually exist outside her mind.

There is no evidence (currently) which allows us to conclude that a machine can become self aware.

Another reason why simulation theory would be the least likely.

Why is your religion/religious beliefs exempt from the same deception? What makes your "God" any less suspect?

Because my belief is entirely consistent with God not being deceptive.

You would therefore have to take that up with God, since clearly we have been placed into form which - while giving us an experience - is also preventing us from seeing the whole picture...unless of course, one were to come to accept the realization we exist with The Creator Mind and unless said Creator Mind was deceiving Itself, no deception is real or going on re our minds and The Creator Mind.

If the universe is real, then it's consistent with a God that does not deceive or mislead. However, if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us. Which better portrays God?

Is that "actual reality" or simply what one believes is "actual reality"? How is one to tell?

It could be I'm just a brain in a vat and the actual reality is someone is experimenting on my mind and all of you don't actually exist. So, in that case the actual reality is my brain exists and you do not exist. Or it could be you're the one in a vat, and I do not exist. Or it could be the one reading this has the brain in a vat and neither of us exist.

In which case would you also agree that existing within The Creator Mind, is NOT the same as the belief we are existing within a simulation and niether is it the same as the belief we are existing outside of The Creator Mind?

Of course. That's what I had stated:

here's the three theories on the table on the nature of our reality:
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator mind theory - our universe is entirely in God's mind

No, none of them are essentially the same.

[otseng]

(in my opinion) One has no choice BUT to interpret the passage that way.

Let's look at the passage;

John 14:2 “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

Here's verses 2 and 3:

[Jhn 14:2-3 ESV] 2 In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/esv/jhn/14/2/s_1011002

First off, mansion in the KJV is a misleading translation since what we view as a mansion was different than in 1611. The Greek word is μονή (mone).

"a staying, abiding, dwelling, abode"
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... /mgnt/0-1/

By the way, monastery is derived from mone.

Here are other modern translations of the passage:

[Jhn 14:2 NIV] 2 My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?

[Jhn 14:2 CSB] 2 "In my Father's house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going to prepare a place for you?

[Jhn 14:2 NET] 2 There are many dwelling places in my Father's house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you.

[Jhn 14:2 RSV] 2 In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?

To properly interpret a passage, we have to think about what Jesus would be trying to convey and how the audience at that time would interpret it. Is there a Jewish custom where someone goes to prepare a room/dwelling place and then comes back to bring that person to that dwelling place? Yes, it would be for Jewish marriage.

A Jewish marriage has many steps, one of which would be the groom prepares a room in the father's house to receive the bride.

Those who live in the modern western world do not catch the full significance of Jesus' promise. This is due to the fact that in His promise Jesus was drawing an analogy from Jewish marriage customs in biblical times. Since this is so, those marriage customs must be examined if one is to grasp the significance of the promise.

After the marriage covenant had been established, the groom would leave the home of the bride and return to his father's house. There he would remain separate from his bride for a period of twelve months.7 This period of separation afforded the bride time to gather her trousseau and to prepare for married life.8 The groom occupied himself with the preparation of living accommodations in his father's house to which he could bring his bride.

https://www.biblestudymanuals.net/jewis ... ustoms.htm

During the erusin period, the groom was to prepare a place for his bride, while the bride focused on her personal preparations: wedding garments, lamps, etc.

https://free.messianicbible.com/feature ... nd-coming/

During the last days, the church (the bride of Christ) will be married to Jesus and abide in the dwelling place that Jesus has prepared.

[Rev 21:2-3 ESV] 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.

To interpret John 14 in any other way would be foreign to the audience at that time, esp claiming the dwelling place would be places inside God's mind.

[POI]

yes, I agree in a sense we are all using faith.

Then I believe I have just peeled back the entire onion of this topic.

Don't understand your point. If everything we believe has an element of faith, then what's so special about this topic?

Do you believe we all carry the same amount of 'faith'? Meaning, does it merit the same amount of faith to entertain these (3) random beliefs:

Of course not, nobody is claiming that. What is being claimed is beliefs should be supported by rational arguments and evidence. However, nobody can prove a particular belief, so an element of faith would exist. The amount of faith required depends on the how much justification for the belief is viable.

Whether Mr. Tyson really believes we may be in a simulation, is of no interest. I bet though, that deep down, he likely doesn't?

Do you have evidence for that or you stating that by faith?

But, like I stated prior, no, you cannot PROVE that we aren't. Just like none of us here can PROVE a dude did NOT rise 2K years ago.

Nobody is expected here to prove anything.

Maybe I was not clear enough in my prior response(s)? Any/all (beliefs/convictions) require an element of 'faith'. Whether one believes we are in a simulation, or maybe one carries belief in nihilism, or deism, or theism, etc, they all require 'faith'. The entire point of this topic, and not just the subtopic about "philosophy", is to suggest that (faith/belief/trust) in a postmortem Jesus coming back to "redeem" humanity is just as rational, or more, than any other belief system. Am I close?

The title of this thread states, 'How can we trust the Bible..." At the end of the day, seems the suggestion is that humans require a certain level of 'trust' in any conclusion, rather than by pure evidence-based inference alone. The entire point of this thread looks to suggest that belief in a supernatural Jesus is just as, or more, reasonable than belief in any other conclusion about reality? And if one does not think so, they can read through this thread entirely and see that none of the presented topics were proven false. I guess then the flat-earthers still have a shot too, albeit maybe a longer one

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4104]

What I mean by real is correspondence with actual reality and it exists outside our mind and not only within our mind.

You asked the questions "Do things actually exist in God's mind? Do things actually exist in anyone's mind?" and I presumed that by "actually exist" you were meaning "are they real" and I answered "yes"

Voices inside one's mind is real in the sense that one perceives someone talking, but it doesn't necessarily mean an actual person is talking to her. Yes, her hearing voices speaking in her mind is perceptually real. But it doesn't mean those voices represent such people actually exist outside her mind.

Nor is such necessarily claimed to be the case.
What can be ascertained by the phenomena submitted for examination in relation to the idea we exist within The Creator Mind, is that all experiences can be considered real.

The claim of hearing voices are not a claim that the voices represent "people who actually exist "outside" Eleanors' mind". The claim is that these voices are real.

You appear to be arguing that anything which cannot be seen (such as a voice without a body being heard) cannot be considered "Real".

Why is your religion/religious beliefs exempt from the same deception? What makes your "God" any less suspect?

Because my belief is entirely consistent with God not being deceptive.

Given that is your belief, you should be able to * dovetail that with the concept we exist within The Creator Mind (God).

If the universe is real, then it's consistent with a God that does not deceive or mislead. However, if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us.

Please support your claim.

Is that "actual reality" or simply what one believes is "actual reality"? How is one to tell?

It could be I'm just a brain in a vat and the actual reality is someone is experimenting on my mind and all of you don't actually exist. So, in that case the actual reality is my brain exists and you do not exist. Or it could be you're the one in a vat, and I do not exist. Or it could be the one reading this has the brain in a vat and neither of us exist.

How is one to tell? How does the brain in vat proverb provide an answer to my question?

In which case would you also agree that existing within The Creator Mind, is NOT the same as the belief we are existing within a simulation and niether is it the same as the belief we are existing outside of The Creator Mind?
Of course. That's what I had stated:
here's the three theories on the table on the nature of our reality:
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator mind theory - our universe is entirely in God's mind

We have been over this. It has been shown that both 1 and 2 are essentially the same and that 3 cannot be considered either a simulation(2) or a possible simulation (1).

Indeed, both (1) and (3) share the same in that the claim for both is that they are Real. However, it is also the case that (3) can positively assume that anything within The Creator Mind can be considered Real by virtue, whereas (1) cannot show the same because it is possible that it is (could be) the case that what is believed to be "actually real" is actually simulated - which is why both 1 and 2 are essentially the same.

[Replying to otseng in post #4105]

To interpret John 14 in any other way would be foreign to the audience at that time, esp claiming the dwelling place would be places inside God's mind.

The general populace at that time were unable to understand such things. What would it mean to them that "we exist within The Creator Mind"?

*One who understands and accepts that one exists within The Creator Mind is essentially married (in that unique intimate relationship with) said Mind.

Others - who do not believe such is the case, are not married to (are not aligned with) The Creator Mind and regard The Creator as a separate individual outside of themselves (outside of the minds that they are).

Given the fact that even moderns have trouble with the idea of existing within The Creator Mind, there are no particular differing factors therein that the passage(s) were only for the audience at that time alone and somehow don't apply to modern audience.
Either audience still require a particular understanding/view in order for the symbolism to be decoded correctly.

The Marriage is symbolic of the realization we exist with The Creator Mind and how that affects/effects the individual human personality who has that understanding and accepts the proposal as warranted.

[otseng]

The entire point of this topic, and not just the subtopic about "philosophy", is to suggest that (faith/belief/trust) in a postmortem Jesus coming back to "redeem" humanity is just as rational, or more, than any other belief system. Am I close?

I'm not comparing the strength of the justification of the belief in Christianity to any other belief system in this thread. I'm only considering the Bible itself and presenting the case why it is rational to believe in it.

And if one does not think so, they can read through this thread entirely and see that none of the presented topics were proven false.

Though it's not possible to prove something is true, it is possible to prove something false. In Christianity, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then it has all been falsified.

[1Co 15:13-14 KJV] 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

[otseng]

You appear to be arguing that anything which cannot be seen (such as a voice without a body being heard) cannot be considered "Real".

Again, I would consider it to be perceptually real, but not actually real. The voices do not represent actual entities that exist apart from her mind.

Because my belief is entirely consistent with God not being deceptive.

Given that is your belief, you should be able to * dovetail that with the concept we exist within The Creator Mind (God).

You already stated the 3 theories are not the same, so they cannot be harmonized.

In which case would you also agree that existing within The Creator Mind, is NOT the same as the belief we are existing within a simulation and niether is it the same as the belief we are existing outside of The Creator Mind?

If the universe is real, then it's consistent with a God that does not deceive or mislead. However, if we are in God's mind, then God would be deceiving and misleading us.

Please support your claim.

I already presented the passages at the beginning:

So how is it that the Bible shows us that we do not exist within a simulated reality experience?

The Bible says God created the universe.

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

[Col 1:16 KJV] 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[Heb 11:3 ESV] 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

[Jhn 1:3 ESV] 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

It doesn't say God created a simulator and we are beings inside a simulator.

I'll add it also doesn't say we are in God's mind.

Is that "actual reality" or simply what one believes is "actual reality"? How is one to tell?

It could be I'm just a brain in a vat and the actual reality is someone is experimenting on my mind and all of you don't actually exist. So, in that case the actual reality is my brain exists and you do not exist. Or it could be you're the one in a vat, and I do not exist. Or it could be the one reading this has the brain in a vat and neither of us exist.

How is one to tell? How does the brain in vat proverb provide an answer to my question?

I think fundamentally, intuitively we believe the universe we live in is actually real. We are not dreaming it or even thinking we're actually in a simulation. But we live our lives as if everything is actually real.

In which case would you also agree that existing within The Creator Mind, is NOT the same as the belief we are existing within a simulation and niether is it the same as the belief we are existing outside of The Creator Mind?
Of course. That's what I had stated:
here's the three theories on the table on the nature of our reality:
1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation
3. Creator mind theory - our universe is entirely in God's mind

We have been over this. It has been shown that both 1 and 2 are essentially the same and that 3 cannot be considered either a simulation(2) or a possible simulation (1).

Yes, we've been over this. They share similarities and differences. Only if 1 and 2 have no differences would they be the same. The way 2 is different from 1 is our perceptual reality is different from actual reality. If we are in a simulation, everything we perceive is not actually real. There is no actual physical keyboard in front of me right now, but it's just a code running inside a computer giving me the illusion the world I live in is real.

Given the fact that even moderns have trouble with the idea of existing within The Creator Mind, there are no particular differing factors therein that the passage(s) were only for the audience at that time alone and somehow don't apply to modern audience.
Either audience still require a particular understanding/view in order for the symbolism to be decoded correctly.

If even modern people have trouble understanding your Creator mind theory, then it's even more unlikely to be true. How can you justify your position to be true if you have no supporting evidence for it and nobody understands it?

[POI]

The entire point of this topic, and not just the subtopic about "philosophy", is to suggest that (faith/belief/trust) in a postmortem Jesus coming back to "redeem" humanity is just as rational, or more, than any other belief system. Am I close?

I'm not comparing the strength of the justification of the belief in Christianity to any other belief system in this thread. I'm only considering the Bible itself and presenting the case why it is rational to believe in it.

Then why bring in the topic of philosophy in this thread, via "simulation"? Why not just remain focused on the Bible?

Though it's not possible to prove something is true, it is possible to prove something false. In Christianity, if Jesus did not rise from the dead, then it has all been falsified.

[1Co 15:13-14 KJV] 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

How exactly might someone prove that a dude did not actually rise over 2K years ago?