How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4151

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Fri May 17, 2024 4:03 pm 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.
Anyone can come up with their own interpretation for any passage. But, what we are analyzing is the justification and support for that interpretation.
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".
No idea what you're claiming. Christians can debate about interpretations of the Bible. One doesn't have to be an atheist (or even think like an atheist) to question another's interpretation.
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?"
The fundamental reason I asked that was because I was never clear you believed the universe was physically real until recently. Since you have recently explicitly stated the universe is actually real, then there's no deception involved. I had believed you were proposing everything was in God's mind and the universe was not actually real.
Or are you saying that only our universe exists? Or something else?
I claim God exists and one universe exists.
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,
Then I'll be wrapping up the debate on philosophy soon and start debating if the universe is created or eternal.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1816 times
Been thanked: 1278 times

Re: Philosophy

Post #4152

Post by POI »

otseng wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 5:31 am 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 already spoke to this. Your pushback is to suggest we would experience 'glitches'. Well, this pushback is easily refuted. As I told William, seems the argument makes a point that it is 50/50 that we are, or are not, in a simulation. All three of us have faith that we are not, but, have no valid reason(s) to justify our positions, as evidence by your given pushback about 'glitches'. I think this is why Neil places this position forward; other than the fact that he also likes messing with us, and also has a platform, and also wants to generate more hits :) But, yea, as you stated, maybe my hunch is based upon faith too.
otseng wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 5:31 am In principle, the TS is falsifiable. We have the cloth in Turin. It's not some mythical cloth that cannot be scientifically analyzed.
My prior point is that any Biblical belief is not truly falsifiable, even the ones who hold to a 'flat earth'. I place the people who hold to the belief in a real located "shroud" in that same category. Sorry. Which is why I did not waste my time exchanging the "Shroud" topic. Just like I would not waste much energy exchanging with the flat earth crowd.
otseng wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 5:31 am 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?
What is the objective for bringing the topic of 'philosophy' into justifying the veracity of the Bible? Seems your only reason to believe is that you believe we found his cloth.
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15138
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1788 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4153

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #4151]
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.
Anyone can come up with their own interpretation for any passage.
True. I was simply explaining the process behind this truth.
But, what we are analyzing is the justification and support for that interpretation.
Well ... I would say we are on the doorstep of doing so - we have only really slightly opened that door and have yet to enter fully into the room re fully analyzing...
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".
No idea what you're claiming. Christians can debate about interpretations of the Bible. One doesn't have to be an atheist (or even think like an atheist) to question another's interpretation.
My overall point is that there are certain atheistic-based questions which I see no justification for anyone who is a genuine abrahamic-theist, to be asking.

You argued along the lines that IF we exist in God's mind, THEN why didn't the God of the Bible make that crystal clear in the scripture, rather than leave such open to differing interpretations?

My short answer is "because the God of the Bible uses what is available and allows for each human personality (being grown by Him through the human experience mindfulness has) without undue "tweaking" - such as giving atheist personalities any more evidence than is already provided which theist personalities accept as evidence enough."
The fundamental reason I asked that was because I was never clear you believed the universe was physically real until recently. Since you have recently explicitly stated the universe is actually real, then there's no deception involved.
You are still in the fog re understanding what is being revealed here otseng. Until you are able to confess that The Mind of God is not only real but also contains only real things you are in the fog.

As long as you (or anyone) continues in the belief that - like it is believed about human minds (everything within a human mind is not real) - that "The Mind of God must work the same".
This belief is will (because it can) be critiqued.
I had believed you were proposing everything was in God's mind and the universe was not actually real.
And now what? You agree with me that the universe is within The Mind of God and can actually be real on account of that?

I don't think you yet agree with that.
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?
I claim God exists and one universe exists.
My general rule of thumb here is that if someone does not answer my observations, it is possibly because;
1. They have skipped over them (for reasons not made known).
2. They have read and understood my observations and having no critique/rebuttal to offer, they agree with my arguments (but have failed to acknowledge/express their agreement).
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,
Please quote me in context. I wrote;
William wrote: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.
Then I'll be wrapping up the debate on philosophy soon and start debating if the universe is created or eternal.
Nice try otseng, but until it has been established that (1) is NOT a simulation (3) is is not something to be dropped of the list.

The question "Is the universe is created or eternal?" is POI's distraction (4) , and has nothing of note in common with (3) but possibly (?) something in common with (1) so that subject is a different issue to the issue between (1) and (3).

As far as your and my positions go (in relation to each other) there is still much to discuss on that front. I have shown that (1) is similar to (2) in relation to both positions holding that thing created, was done so by and entity outside of the created thing.
You have expressed (on account of your current knowledge) that you are justified in trusting the Bible God that this universe is a real construction made/positioned/located "outside" of said God and this knowledge-based trust you have allows for you to somehow "explain" how the similarities between (1) and (2) are merely something cosmetic.

However, my critique remains valid, because I see no where in the Bible that fundamentally has the expectation that we are required to believe the universe was created outside of the God that created it.

I support (3) with the compliment acknowledging that anything created within The Mind of God (being The Real/the overall real) must be regarded as real, thus removing any resemblance to (2) since I also made the observation (with accompanying critique) that your idea of their being a computer inside The Mind of God which was created to simulate this universe meant that (3) was also similar to (2) - was a questionable idea.

Consequently I made observations about your idea, critiqued your idea and questioned you about your idea, and since you failed to reply I treat such lack (of reply) with my general rule of thumb that if someone does not answer my observations, it is possibly because;
1. They have skipped over them (for reasons not made known).
2. They have read and understood my observations and having no critique/rebuttal to offer, they agree with my arguments (but have failed to acknowledge/express their agreement).

Therefore if you prematurely "wrap up this debate", you do so under that suspicious cloud.

On the other hand,
IF
you are agreeing with me that we do indeed exist within The Creator Mind/The Mind of God
THEN
Let the reader know and then sure, we can move forward to some other related subject.

eta post joke;
Image
Last edited by William on Sat May 18, 2024 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15138
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1788 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4154

Post by William »

[Replying to POI in post #4152]

Something I haven't asked you about POI, re you "faith"-take on these positions - I don't recall you identifying the necessity for "faith" re (3)...

Image
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4155

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 1:15 pm Your pushback is to suggest we would experience 'glitches'. Well, this pushback is easily refuted. As I told William, seems the argument makes a point that it is 50/50 that we are, or are not, in a simulation. All three of us have faith that we are not, but, have no valid reason(s) to justify our positions, as evidence by your given pushback about 'glitches'. I think this is why Neil places this position forward; other than the fact that he also likes messing with us, and also has a platform, and also wants to generate more hits :) But, yea, as you stated, maybe my hunch is based upon faith too.
No, my main push back is a lack of evidence we're in a simulation, not that I have faith we're not in one. There are also observations that we're not in a computer simulation.

And speaking of getting more hits and messing with us, I don't even see what is your point of belaboring on the simulation argument if you don't believe in it either and think Tyson is just messing with us and he doesn't really believe in it either.
POI wrote: Fri May 10, 2024 11:35 am 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?
My prior point is that any Biblical belief is not truly falsifiable, even the ones who hold to a 'flat earth'.
The flat earth is also falsifiable.
I place the people who hold to the belief in a real located "shroud" in that same category. Sorry. Which is why I did not waste my time exchanging the "Shroud" topic.
Here's how I see it. The evidence of the TS being authentic is so overwhelming the skeptics are not able to falsify it, so they are not willing to engage in the debate and just dismiss it.
What is the objective for bringing the topic of 'philosophy' into justifying the veracity of the Bible? Seems your only reason to believe is that you believe we found his cloth.
All of the points I've brought up on supporting the veracity of the Bible are independent arguments. The TS stands independently from the Bible answering philosophical questions. Given the cumulative case of all the independent arguments, it is entirely rational to accept the Bible as reliable and authoritative.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4156

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 3:48 pmUntil you are able to confess that The Mind of God is not only real but also contains only real things you are in the fog.
This is circular reasoning and also ad hom.
You agree with me that the universe is within The Mind of God and can actually be real on account of that?
Of course I don't agree with you on that. But that's not the debate and it's not even relevant. The original issue is if the universe is actually real (which you agree to) or we are in a simulation (which you do not agree to). On these points we agree.

As to where the universe exists, I do not make any claim because I believe it's a meaningless question.
Consequently I made observations about your idea, critiqued your idea and questioned you about your idea, and since you failed to reply I treat such lack (of reply) with my general rule of thumb that if someone does not answer my observations, it is possibly because;
I have skipped many things because they are not relevant.

The way I see it is you're using this discussion as an opportunity to talk about your TCM theory. And continuing down the path is not relevant to anything in this thread, but going way off course.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Summary argument on philosophy

Post #4157

Post by otseng »

Philosophy asks the major and deep questions of life. And what we find is the Bible answers many of them. Questions such as:
otseng wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2024 6:09 am 1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Is our universe real?
3. Do we have free will?
4. Does God exist?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can you really experience anything objectively?
7. What is the best moral system?
otseng wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 5:49 am * What is reality? Materialism maintains that there is no reality beyond the physical.
* What is our basis of knowledge? Rationalism seeks to discover the structure of reality guided by human reason alone. Empiricism declares that reason alone is not sufficient, all our knowledge must be based on information provided by our senses.
* How can we know what is right or wrong? Existentialism evaluates everything from subjective personal experience. Agnosticism maintains it’s impossible to settle the primary questions in life because of the limitations of human
* What is man? The evolutionist maintains we are matter in motion, evolved slime, mere meat machines, monkeys who mutated from goo to the zoo to you. From mud to monkeys to man. A cosmic accident. The result of random chance.
* What happens to a person after death? According to Hinduism, we are reincarnated in a kind of cosmic recycling of souls, either moving up the ladder to become holy cows, or sliding down, because of bad karma, to possibly become insects.
* What is the meaning of history? Marxism maintains that history is driven by economic determinism. The post-modernist maintains that there is absolutely no meaning to history.
* Why is there suffering and evil? The polytheist, who believes in many gods, maintains that it’s because of conflict between the various gods.
* What is the purpose for our existence? The hedonist maintains we should live for our own personal pleasure. The materialist proclaims, “He who dies with the most toys wins!” Humanism ultimately destroys all purpose for one’s existence. You came from nothing, you are going nowhere, life is meaningless.
* How should we live? The Muslim claims we should live in obedience to a whimsical, angry god through Sharia law, based on the Quran and the Hadith, the teachings and practices of Mohammed.
Though we only dived into one of these questions (the nature of reality), we see that alternative views are not really viable.

I would also assert without the perspective of the Bible, many of the deep questions of life remain unanswerable. So, philosophy is another confirmation the Bible is trustworthy, reliable, and relevant.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4493
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1816 times
Been thanked: 1278 times

Re: Philosophy

Post #4158

Post by POI »

otseng wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:49 am my main push back is a lack of evidence we're in a simulation, not that I have faith we're not in one. There are also observations that we're not in a computer simulation.
But this has already been refuted. Thus, you do not possess evidence to the contrary. Your 'glitches' argument fails. It's instead 50/50 that we are.
otseng wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:49 am And speaking of getting more hits and messing with us, I don't even see what is your point of belaboring on the simulation argument if you don't believe in it either and think Tyson is just messing with us and he doesn't really believe in it either.
Because Neil's simulation argument is the only one, so far, in which we do have to admit is a 50/50 chance, based upon faith alone. Yours and Williams, no-so-much. We do not need as much faith to reject them.
otseng wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:49 am The flat earth is also falsifiable.
Not according to the flat earther crowd. :D
otseng wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:49 am Here's how I see it. The evidence of the TS being authentic is so overwhelming the skeptics are not able to falsify it, so they are not willing to engage in the debate and just dismiss it.
Sounds exactly like the days when I used to engage the flat earther crowd :)
otseng wrote: Mon May 20, 2024 6:49 am All of the points I've brought up on supporting the veracity of the Bible are independent arguments. The TS stands independently from the Bible answering philosophical questions. Given the cumulative case of all the independent arguments, it is entirely rational to accept the Bible as reliable and authoritative.
What is the end-result philosophical argument supposed to demonstrate, regarding the veracity of the Bible?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15138
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1788 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4159

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #4156]
Until you are able to confess that The Mind of God is not only real but also contains only real things you are in the fog.
This is circular reasoning
One cannot confess to such because "it is circular reasoning"?
and also ad hom.
My apologies. I was using the "royal you" not trying to say it was you alone who are doing so.
So,
Until theists are able to confess that The Mind of God is not only real but also contains only real things, theists are in the dark. (remain ignorant re "dark" representing "ignorance" as per the language of mysticism.)

The original issue is if the universe is actually real (which you agree to) or we are in a simulation (which you do not agree to).

As has been pointed out, those who believe in (1) are simply arguing the same thing as (2)

1. Real Created Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and exists as an entity created by a creator outside of our universe.
2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.
The way I see it is you're using this discussion as an opportunity to talk about your TCM theory. And continuing down the path is not relevant to anything in this thread, but going way off course.
It is relevant because it offers another theory which enables The Creator Mind to be understood in a manner which allows for us to be able to verify through explanation that we do not exist within a simulation.

Not only has your claim "we are not part of a simulation" been shown to be false but it has also been shown that the very idea of Simulation Theory stems from the theist idea that the universe was created and mindfulness was place INTO it.

Your very beliefs about this Oliver, contradict your claim.

Therefore (3) is relevant to showing how a creator can create the universe and NOT have it that this in any real way resembles simulation theory.
What it does do is help us to navigate around that idea entirely. The question "do we exist within a simulation" becomes meaningless, because by understanding we do not exist within a thing created outside of the mindfulness which created it, it provides another (far better) perspective.

Instead of you agreeing with me that your "computer within The Creator Mind" suggestion has been rebutted, you chose to ignore those points I made rather than respectfully respond to them. You couldn't find fault in my reasoning
3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind.
and continued on with your proclaiming (3) as being "not relevant to anything in this thread".

In the real world Oliver, we can turn a blind eye to those things we chose not to acknowledge - but those things will keep on being real anyway.

It matters not how large a number of theists claim they exist inside a thing created "but" believe that said created thing is "not a simulation", the likelihood of that being the case is zero since theists cannot actually really have it both ways, which is why (3) becomes the better thing to claim.
I have skipped many things because they are not relevant.
Until theists cease skimming over things that are "not relevant" to their current beliefs they will niether go into the deep (be content to continue suckling at the teat 1 Corinthians 3:2) and remain "unable to bear such information" nor will they be able to resist turning a blind eye (for they do not correctly understand what it is they are within).

I am satisfied I have shown that (3) is relevant and thus use the opportunity afforded to me by your claim, to show (3) is the case and is significant and necessary to include in the overall (1) (2) and (3) positions on the subject of a created universe, and is precisely on course for that.

Or - to parrot your own wording in your argument with POI...
Here's how I see it. The evidence of (3) being authentic is so overwhelming skeptic theists are not able to falsify it, so they are not willing to engage in the debate and just dismiss it.
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15138
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1788 times
Contact:

Re: Philosophy

Post #4160

Post by William »

William wrote: Sat May 18, 2024 3:50 pm [Replying to POI in post #4152]

Something I haven't asked you about POI, re you "faith"-take on these positions - I don't recall you identifying the necessity for "faith" re (3)...

Image
What's up POI? Cat got your tongue? ^..^

Is your silence agreeing with the observation that there is no identifiable necessity for faith with those who hold (3)?

3. Everything Exists As Real Within The Creator Mind Theory: Everything exists entirely within The Creator Mind.

As I understand it, those holding (1) and believe they do not exist within a simulation, even that the universe they exist in, is believed to have been created by a mindful entity existing outside of said created thing (Simulation Theory), have their wires crossed and the faith they have is in the belief that there is no contradiction regarding their belief.
Image

"Do you know you are having a human experience or do you simply believe that you are having a human experience?"

NOTE: I do not reply to straw man fallacy.

Unjustified Fact Claim(UFC) example - belief (of any sort) based on personal subjective experience. (Belief-based belief)
Justified Fact Claim(JFC) Example, The Earth is spherical in shape. (Knowledge-based belief)
Irrefutable Fact Claim (IFC) Example Humans in general experience some level of self-awareness. (Knowledge-based knowledge)

Post Reply