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]

[Replying to POI in post #4138]
Dear POI

I didn't forget anything. I have already advised you that I do not consider your position relevant to the discussion being had between otseng and I.
You failed to convince me that it is relevant, so I see no reason presently to "waste time" in any further discussion with you re that.
I still read what you are discussing with otseng and I will reply to any points either of you make if I think it pertinent...

But my position IS relevant. My position is distinctive from all 3 of yours and merits great consideration. Further, mine is already proven and the burden lies upon all 3 of you to present evidence to suggest that anything other than (4) is real. Let's start with yours, re (3). Why should anyone believe an external mind is feeding their internal mind, in any capacity?

[otseng]

But I digress and use these examples merely to make the point that Neil's position, (for or against simulation), is faith-based alone. And faith is not a reliable tool.

Of course. Who is claiming faith is a reliable tool? What I've consistently claimed is justification for a belief should be based on logical arguments and supporting evidence.

You continue to demonstrate my initial point. Everything is faith. Hence, otseng's position about having faith in the Bible is no more or less absurd than POI having faith that the Bible's given assertion about a risen Jesus is likely false. Why? Because we cannot falsify the claim that Jesus rose from the grave, just like we also cannot falsify the claim that we are simulated.

You are twisting the logic and again misrepresenting my position. As evidenced in this thread, I've never appealed to faith in order to justify a belief. To justify a belief, it is based on the strength of the arguments and evidence. As a matter of fact, it's a premise of this entire forum.

Since we can never 100% prove anything to be true, no matter how much evidence we have, there will be an element of faith. It is not "how much faith one has" that makes a claim likely to be true or false, but on the arguments and evidence.

It's all based on the evidence. So, since you claim yours has the least faith, present your evidence for your claim and we'll assess it.

See above/below as to why going do this road is completely futile.

Kinda ironic to me as you as the skeptic keeps referring to faith and me as a Christian keeps referring to arguments/evidence.

No idea what you're referring to. What are the "both positions" that you're referring to?

1) Ken Ham's position, as 'evidence' by The Ark Encounter and The Creationist's Museum
2) The 'evidence' given by the flat-earthers.

It's irrelevant. We're not discussing those and they have nothing to do with the philosophical debate on the nature of reality.

I no longer take their arguments seriously, in spite of all the 'evidence'.

So because you cannot take Ken Ham's arguments seriously you do not take any Christian's arguments seriously?

I simply also add your entire argument about the "Shroud" into the mix as well.

This is evidence of bias and unwillingness to actually engage in a logical debate. You asked me how to disprove the resurrection and I provided you one. Now you simply respond because you don't take Ken Ham or flat-earthers seriously, then you simply dismiss it. Who then is the one that is using more faith?

However, leaving out philosophical thought, I instead say the most sensible conclusion is (2) or (4), for differing reasons. (2) because it's a coin flip. (4) stands above (1) and (3).

There is no option 4. Rather, your claim there is no creator would be a subset of option 1. Here's what I posted as the available options:

For simplification, 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

If one accepts the real universe theory, then it's a separate argument if the universe is created or is it eternal, which we will get to after the discussion on philosophy.

[POI]

What I've consistently claimed is justification for a belief should be based on logical arguments and supporting evidence.

Then your logical argument against Neil is in jeopardy. This will be the 4th time I bring this forth. Please stop skipping it:

If you want to bring philosophy into the equation, specifically about 'simulation', I already refuted your argument. (i.e.) We are now in version (x) of the given simulation. We no longer experience "glitches" for the reason(s) I've already stated, and I could continue giving more. If you want to continue with this exercise, we can. But, we both already agree that we are not likely in a 'simulation'. Is this where 'faith' specifically comes in?

It's irrelevant. We're not discussing those and they have nothing to do with the philosophical debate on the nature of reality.

You provided a quote from Paul. You stated the "Shroud" topic confirms the claim for you. I told you I no longer take that topic seriously, just like you and I do not take the topics from Ken Ham and flat-earthers seriously.

So because you cannot take Ken Ham's arguments seriously you do not take any Christian's arguments seriously?

No. As I stated above, I no longer take the claims about a "shroud' seriously. Just like I no longer take Ken's claims and flat-earthers seriously.

[otseng]

IF
We exist with a created thing
THEN
Which is more likely?
1. The created thing exists within The Creator Mind.
2. The created thing exists without The Creator Mind.

OK, I think we agree God created the universe as a physical entity. The question then is where is the universe located? Is it outside of God or inside of God (and more specifically inside God's mind).

The problem with saying it's inside God's mind is it confuses things. When we say something is in our mind, we are not conveying the idea actual physical objects are in our mind, but it is all thoughts. Since you are using anthropomorphic language, people interpret your terminology in the way we commonly use language. So there is a conflict with how you are using mind with how people use the word mind.

When I say God created the universe, the only thing I'm claiming is the universe is physically/actually real. I'm not making any claim where it is located because I believe it is meaningless (and irrelevant). There is no "location" outside of our universe. Just as it's meaningless to say what existed before the universe was created. There is no time as we know it outside of our universe.

Given this, then the 3 theories goes back to 2:

1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation

What you and POI are bringing up are questions that fall under 1:
- Is the universe created or eternal?
- Where is the universe located?
- Is it inside God or outside God?
- If it's inside God, where is it located inside God?

[otseng]

Then your logical argument against Neil is in jeopardy. This will be the 4th time I bring this forth. Please stop skipping it:

Why do I need to address your irrelevant points? Nobody so far is arguing we are in a simulation, so why do I need to keep addressing it? Or do you believe we are in a simulation?

I told you I no longer take that topic seriously, just like you and I do not take the topics from Ken Ham and flat-earthers seriously.

You asked how to disprove the resurrection and I offered you one. And in response, you have not presented any logical arguments or evidence to disprove the TS, but simply dismiss it by saying you don't take it seriously. Whereas I've provided over 120 pages of arguments and evidence to support it's the burial cloth of Jesus. I'll let readers assess who is using more faith.

[POI]

Nobody so far is arguing we are in a simulation, so why do I need to keep addressing it?

My point here has been, and continues to be, that all of us, who reject the simulation assertion, are forced to do so by faith alone. However, I do not feel I have to reject your belief(s), based upon faith alone.

You asked how to disprove the resurrection and I offered you one. And in response, you have not presented any logical arguments or evidence to disprove the TS, but simply dismiss it by saying you don't take it seriously. Whereas I've provided over 120 pages of arguments and evidence to support it's the burial cloth of Jesus. I'll let readers assess who is using more faith.

I'm just baffled that you hang your entire hat upon this "cloth"? No wonder it cannot be falsified.

As for the others who read here, I reckon the ones who already believe, will continue to believe, regardless of this argument. And the ones that do not believe, will continue not to believe, due to this argument. I just did not realize this specific position was still a serious one? In order for your claim to be correct, just for starters, you need to discredit carbon-14 dating. (http://www.britannica.com/science/carbon-14-dating). And yet, we still use it as a viable method of measurement for items thought to be in a specific era. Does it have its limitations? Yes. And these limitations are already known when we opt to use them still. And if I had entered into the area of debate, where there was 120 pages posted, it would probably instead have been many more pages. And yet, being 160 pages instead of 120 pages does not then further validate your position.

******************************

Cutting to the chase, I still have to ask... What IS the real objective here? What specific point(s) are you attempting to articulate exactly?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4144]

OK, I think we agree God created the universe as a physical entity.

I concur. You call It "God" and I refer to It as The Creator Mind (TCM).

The question then is where is the universe located?

The answer is the same as where is God/TCM "located".

Is it outside of God or inside of God (and more specifically inside God's mind).

This proposes and interesting line of thought. I think TCM is "God". There is no form attached to that.
You appear to think differently considering your words "and more specifically inside God's mind" as if this God had some kind of body and brain.

The problem with saying it's inside God's mind is it confuses things. When we say something is in our mind, we are not conveying the idea actual physical objects are in our mind, but it is all thoughts. Since you are using anthropomorphic language, people interpret your terminology in the way we commonly use language. So there is a conflict with how you are using mind with how people use the word mind.

This directly connects with our being able to interpret Biblical script differently otseng. We can take something from the Bible and - depending upon the "lens" we each are looking through,(our perspectives) we come up with a different interpretation.
To add to that, your saying that
IF we are in TCM,
THEN
why doesn't the God of the Bible come out and say so, rather than leave such open to differing interpretations?

I regard such a question as being based in atheism, as I observe atheists argue the same line of thought when critiquing the obvious schisms observed in the many headed entity called "Christianity".
The answer must have something to do with the observation you made re "anthropomorphic language" and subsequent confusion.
This is part of the nature of the human experience and confusion can (and does) indeed arise from that, which in part answers the question as to "why God doesn't just come out and say these things straightforwardly instead of leaving things open to interpretation?"

Why does the Bible God bother to use anthropomorphic language (re the script which compiles the Bible) if such language causes confusion?

My take on the answer to said question is too deeply complex to detail at this time (and unnecessary for that - unless further discussion is agreed upon between us that we can unpack such.)

My short answer is because TCM uses what is available and allows for each human personality (being grown by TCM through the human experience mindfulness has) without undue "tweaking" - such as giving atheist personalities any more evidence than is already provided and theist personalities accept.

When I say God created the universe, the only thing I'm claiming is the universe is physically/actually real.

And I concur (am saying the same thing).

I'm not making any claim where it is located because I believe it is meaningless (and irrelevant).

We likely have different reason for saying the same thing, differently.
Saying that we (the universe) exists within TCM is not saying the universe has a particular "location". In order for that to be the case, I would have to have also said that TCM is "located" in some particular "space" I make no such claim.

There is no "location" outside of our universe

I (somewhat) agree. However, I think there is also no "location" outside of TCM. (There is no body or brain in which TCM is "located".

Further discussion would have to apply here as to the overall Mansion/TCM/Fathers House in relation to the "rooms".
For example, can we consider the rooms to be "located" "outside" of each other in relation to each other and if so, can we agree that there are other "locations" outside of our universe?

Or are you saying that only our universe exists? Or something else?

Just as it's meaningless to say what existed before the universe was created.

It is meaningful to consider that TCM existed before the universe was created.

There is no time as we know it outside of our universe.

This is where the subject of NDE et al reports come into play.

Some have experienced "rooms" as real as the universe experience is real. Some/most of those rooms have been reported to be "timeless" in the sense that they do not have a sense of time associated with them as does this universe (room).

Re that, I cannot agree with you that "There is no time as we know it outside of our universe" since said reports tell it differently and support something else.

Given this, then the 3 theories goes back to 2:

1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real
2. Simulation theory - our universe is running inside a (computer) simulation

Perhaps this is true,
IF there is no time as we know it outside of our universe is the true
THEN
The premise to hang all this upon is established.

That hasn't yet been established as far as I can tell and critique.

What you and POI are bringing up are questions that fall under 1:
- Is the universe created or eternal?
- Where is the universe located?
- Is it inside God or outside God?
- If it's inside God, where is it located inside God?

As I have said to POI, I do not consider (4) requires being part of the list and thus atheist views are not specific/are irrelevant to what you and I are discussing.

(3) has it that

Q: Is the universe created or eternal?

A:The universe is created within that which is eternal.

Q: Where is the universe located?

A: Within TCM.

Q: Is it inside God or outside God?

A: There is no outside of TCM (God).

Q: If it's inside God, where is it located inside God?

A: Location is possibly irrelevant to the discussion, thus so too would this question be.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #4144]

You seem to think some agency exists outside our 'universe(s)'.

[POI]

Within TCM.

Still challenging "(3)". You are making a claim and do not want it challenged. I have doubts a 'TCM' exists. Hence, I do not accept (3) as an option for consideration. Regardless of our differing views, we all still accept (1) & (4). If you two want to lump together (1) and (4), sobeit (i.e.):

1. Real universe theory - our universe is actually real -- (We all believe this because we do not think 'simulation' is a thing).
4. Internal mind inside our actual universe - (Regardless of our differing views, we all still accept that we have a physical brain and reside within a physical universe).

Anything besides (1) and (4), is where we then diverge. So.... To challenge the veracity of option (3), I have to first ask:

Does this 'TCM' communicate with physical human brains?

********************

I offer differing challenge(s) for otseng, being yours and his views differ.

[otseng]

Nobody so far is arguing we are in a simulation, so why do I need to keep addressing it?

My point here has been, and continues to be, that all of us, who reject the simulation assertion, are forced to do so by faith alone. However, I do not feel I have to reject your belief(s), based upon faith alone.

And it continues to not make any sense to me. If there's no evidence for being in a simulation, why are we rejecting it by faith? Rather, it is those who accept it do so by faith.

I'm just baffled that you hang your entire hat upon this "cloth"? No wonder it cannot be falsified.

In principle, the TS is falsifiable. We have the cloth in Turin. It's not some mythical cloth that cannot be scientifically analyzed.

And no, I'm not "hanging my entire hat" upon the cloth, whatever that means. But I do feel the evidence is so overwhelming I'm willing to take a stand on it.

As for the others who read here, I reckon the ones who already believe, will continue to believe, regardless of this argument.

Actually, I see it more the other way around. Those who disbelieve will continue to disbelieve, no matter what the evidence is produced. It will just all be dismissed by faith.

In order for your claim to be correct, just for starters, you need to discredit carbon-14 dating.

No, I don't discredit C-14 dating as a dating technique. As a matter of fact, ironically I accept it more than most. See discussion on C-14 dating.

Cutting to the chase, I still have to ask... What IS the real objective here? What specific point(s) are you attempting to articulate exactly?

What are you referring to? Why the Bible is reliable? How the Bible answers basic philosophical questions? Why we are living in an actual universe? Why the resurrection is falsifiable?