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

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4180]

What science has been done to show that the earth is or is not mindful?

[Waterfall]

Namaskaram...

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4180]

What science has been done to show that the earth is or is not mindful?

I find it very interesting = is the earth mindful? Maybe you should write a book about it We need some deep thinking Let us inspire our brothers and sisters...

https://www.youtube.com/@ShamanOaks

What exists? Thought (feminine) and Will (masculine) and Light (good) and Darkness (evil). 4 basic principles. It comes from this book - Toward the Light! - here is a good introduction...

https://www.toward-the-light.net/

Who created us? The earth...







Your friend forever

Waterfall

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4180]

What science has been done to show that the earth is or is not mindful?

If you claim the earth (mammal consciousness apart) is mindful, the burden of proof is on you to show that science, or anything else, has shown it. I shall be fascinated to see your evidence.

On the materialist side, science where it has shown how things work, has shown it works through physics, not through a mind, or a god. So far as I know.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4183]

If you claim the earth (mammal consciousness apart) is mindful, the burden of proof is on you to show that science, or anything else, has shown it.

Please stop wasting time. I do not claim that the earth is mindful. I claim that the evidence points to that as being a possibility. Since you clearly understand there is no science which has been done to show that the earth is or is not mindful, your asking for scientific evidence is not any more relevant than your misinformed belief about what it is I have allegedly claimed, is.

So far as you believe that the processes involved in the formation and sustaining of life in the planet has nothing to do with mindfulness, then present the scientific evidence in support of that belief.

I predict that whatever you show, can be interpreted as mindful processes.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #4183]

If you claim the earth (mammal consciousness apart) is mindful, the burden of proof is on you to show that science, or anything else, has shown it.

Please stop wasting time. I do not claim that the earth is mindful. I claim that the evidence points to that as being a possibility. Since you clearly understand there is no science which has been done to show that the earth is or is not mindful, your asking for scientific evidence is not any more relevant than your misinformed belief about what it is I have allegedly claimed, is.

So far as you believe that the processes involved in the formation and sustaining of life in the planet has nothing to do with mindfulness, then present the scientific evidence in support of that belief.

I predict that whatever you show, can be interpreted as mindful processes.

please do not waste our time with evasions. A possibility of course does not make that the fact you appear to have been claiming for a cosmic Mind of which the mindful earth and indeed consciousness is a part, is it not? Then I can give again the evolutionary case for reaction - instinct - problem-solving and human reasoning, so i await your evidence for your 'possibility'.

[POI]

IF
There has always been mindfulness re this eternal universe
THEN
We have a contender for why it manifests in one form or another

I asked how it would point to "TCM"? I reckon a true (if/then) still leaves the options open to an infinite number of options.

The planet (earth) is the builder. The human mind is the operator. Mindfulness is the common denominator therein.

Asserting is not proof. Again, we know a computer has a builder/operator. It's built/operated by humans and we both know we have proof for this conclusion. What about the brain?

[otseng]

[Replying to POI in post #4187]

[Replying to William in post #4190]

I think it's enough about TCM. It's way off base now and irrelevant to the debate.

Let's get back to what I had posted:

Is the universe created or eternal?

I've already presented evidence the universe is finite in age. What evidence is there the universe is eternal?

[POI]

Is the universe created or eternal?

To a theoretical physicist, your question might be malformed.

What do you mean by "created"? Do you mean created from a) ex materia <or> b) ex nihilo? I'm assuming you mean b)?

Further, wouldn't a more befitting starting question instead be, did this "universe" have a beginning or not? And even if this universe had a true beginning, that still does not imply b). I'm no theoretical physicist, so instead I refer my answer as follows - (to avoid a worse explanation and to also avoid a text wall):

[William]

[Replying to POI in post #4187]

[Replying to William in post #4190]

I think it's enough about TCM. It's way off base now and irrelevant to the debate.

Let's get back to what I had posted:

Is the universe created or eternal?

I've already presented evidence the universe is finite in age. What evidence is there the universe is eternal?

Okay - so you want to focus on (1) (2) and (4)...
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.
4 Real Uncreated Universe Theory: Our 'universe' is real and eternal.

As I understand the positions.

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.

(1) - as with (2) - Has it that the universe is a created thing, the difference being that (1) believes the created thing is real, while (2) thinks the created thing is not real but simulated so can be experienced as real.

The differences in those two positions is that position (1) believes that the builder inserted instructions for the minds experiencing the created thing into the created thing and the minds could either believe those instructions as relevant or reject them as irrelevant and to believe in the relevance of those instructions confirm for those minds, that the created thing was indeed created and they (as minds) have been grown within a created thing, and were grown/created for that purpose.

2. Simulated Universe Theory: Our universe is running inside a simulation, possibly created and maintained by advanced beings or technology.

Those minds which think position (2) may be true, think/believe that a mind/minds outside of the created thing (universe) built the universe simulator and placed "other" minds inside the universe simulator.
They do not necessarily think any claimed instructions are relevant or come from a purely holy source as they think they have no way of knowing for sure.
Of those holding position (2) some either don't know (and think that they cannot know for sure) or think that the instructions are false and the builder(s) are evil beings who have created the universe and tricked or forced them into it, and reject the beings as false gods/creators on account of that.

4 Real Uncreated Universe Theory: The material which makes up the current manifestation we call our universe is real and eternal.
Position (4) Holds that the stuff of the universe is eternal, and goes through cycles and that the current cycle is simply one of an endless chain of "one form or another" manifestations.
Most who hold position (4) think that minds/mindfulness are predominantly emergent through human brains and are the only minds that exist/are known to exist and that these minds are simply simulations that the human brain produces and are not real in any material sense of the word. Those who hold this position believe that the universe is real, but the mind is not.

[otseng]

Is the universe created or eternal?

To a theoretical physicist, your question might be malformed.
https://shorturl.at/FEpnp

Actually, it is your video that presented the malformed question, which I never had asked - what was before the Big Bang? Of course there was no "before" the Big Bang because our time started with the BB, therefore there was no "before" since there was no time in existence.

The main question I'm asking now is - is the universe finite in age or is it eternal?

I've already presented evidence it is finite in age. However, you have stated it is eternal:

4) POI - Real Natural/Materialistic Universe Theory: Our universe is considered to be actually real and has always existed in one form or another, as matter/material can neither be created nor destroyed; and all changes not demonstrated to be done directly by naturalistic and/or material minds have and do happen by way of natural processes alone.

Again, on what evidence can you provide that it is eternal?

What do you mean by "created"? Do you mean created from a) ex materia <or> b) ex nihilo? I'm assuming you mean b)?

Further, wouldn't a more befitting starting question instead be, did this "universe" have a beginning or not? And even if this universe had a true beginning, that still does not imply b).

If the universe is finite in age, then it would have been created somehow. How did it arise? It'd have to have some origin that is not part of our universe. It cannot have been self-caused. So, from our perspective, it would be an ex nihilo creation.