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

[otseng]

We don't know what God is or how God does things.

If it's simply based on observations of nature, that would be correct. However, through the Bible we do know about the qualities of God. It's one of the major reasons God gave us the Bible in the first place, so that we can know Him.

[otseng]

I contend your own argument can be applied to the question of whether this god exists, to have taken part in the creation of the universe.

We have multiple claims in the Bible that created everything. So, the evidence of the origin and design of the universe affirm this.

My point being that we have many Christians who claim their god was the universe tuner.

Of course, because the evidence points to it. Why should something be suspect if a particular group accepts what the evidence and logical reasoning leads to?

These are incontrovertible facts that are recognized by cosmologists, which I've posted several examples. And as illustrated by your response, there are no viable naturalistic explanations.

Nor are there viable explanations that propose a god did it, when no god can be shown to be involved.

On the broad scope, there are only two explanations for fine-tuning - random chance or some entity that purposely created it this way. For the origin of the universe, the only one proposed is a creator. If you can propose any other alternatives to these, please do so.

I make no claims as to the origins of something that can't be shown to've had an origin.

That there is a beginning to the universe is an incontrovertible fact.

NO!

What we see is an expanding universe, and draw from that it once was once smaller. There's nothing in the BB theory that refutes my contention here.

When did the BB begin?

If all the scientists though the moon was made of cheese, should mankind's efforts be put into building a giant bowl of nachos?

Strange you'd be saying that. Wouldn't you dismiss Christians if they said the same thing?

All the sources I've used are from secular sources. Why should you reject these?

Is life "tuned" because carbon combines so readily with so much stuff, or is it simply that life builds off of something that combines so readily with so much stuff?

The properties of carbon are so unique that it in itself points to underlying design. As a matter of fact, many things in chemistry point to a cosmic creator. This was discussed in the book debate on Nature's Destiny.

That's why I make no claims as to the earliest moments of the universe, as well as no claims regarding the multiverse.

If you reject the universe being a finite age, then the only alternative is an infinite age. So, you are in effect making the claim the universe is infinite in age.

I could equally charge you with an apriori belief God exists, therefore must be the answer.

Actually, all I'm doing is comparing all the possible explanations and seeing what is the most plausible. I have a neutral position on whether the extranatural exists or not in terms of analyzing the options.

Do we now have an -ahem- a priori belief the universe didn't always exist in a prior form?

There are other theories of a cyclical universe. But, if you want to present them as alternative explanations, feel free to.

Is there any fretful difference, other'n spelling, between "extranatural", and "supernatural"?

I use extranatural because people automatically assume things when the term supernatural is used. I use the term to simply mean anything that is not in our universe or impossible to empirically measure.

[JoeyKnothead]

I contend your own argument can be applied to the question of whether this god exists, to have taken part in the creation of the universe.

We have multiple claims in the Bible that created everything. So, the evidence of the origin and design of the universe affirm this.

So God created everything because a book said God said he created everything? This data is also in a book that declares God hooked up with a married woman, and they had a human/god hybrid child that could walk on water.

Do you accept all hearsay accounts, or just those that paint your preferred god in its best light?

My point being that we have many Christians who claim their god was the universe tuner.

Of course, because the evidence points to it. Why should something be suspect if a particular group accepts what the evidence and logical reasoning leads to?

Because that particular group can't show they speak truth regarding fanciful, often contradictory claims.

Nor are there viable explanations that propose a god did it, when no god can be shown to be involved.

On the broad scope, there are only two explanations for fine-tuning - random chance or some entity that purposely created it this way.

False dichotomy.

As well, you've not shown, nor will you ever show the universe couldn't have always existed in some form prior to the BB.

For the origin of the universe, the only one proposed is a creator. If you can propose any other alternatives to these, please do so.

I don't propose to know the prior conditions of a universe that many authorities consider to be some 14 billion years old.

Remember, it's the claimant's responsibility to support their claims, and there's no responsibility on my part to offer counter claims, as helpful as such may be.

I make no claims as to the origins of something that can't be shown to've had an origin.

That there is a beginning to the universe is an incontrovertible fact.

NO!

What we see is an expanding universe, and draw from that it once was once smaller. There's nothing in the BB theory that refutes my contention here.

When did the BB begin?

Beats me.

When did gods begin having the ability to produce viable offspring through breeding with married middle eastern women?

If all the scientists thought the moon was made of cheese, should mankind's efforts be put into building a giant bowl of nachos?

Strange you'd be saying that. Wouldn't you dismiss Christians if they said the same thing?

No, because...

All the sources I've used are from secular sources. Why should you reject these?

Arguments should stand or fall on their merits, not on who's the one telling em. If a world renowned expert in mammals told me a duck was one of em, I wouldn't set to making fur outta feathers.

Is life "tuned" because carbon combines so readily with so much stuff, or is it simply that life builds off of something that combines so readily with so much stuff?

The properties of carbon are so unique that it in itself points to underlying design.

All the various chemicals have properties unique to their structure.

Where you see design, I see stuff acting according to its properties. I contend mine is the more rational position.

As a matter of fact, many things in chemistry point to a cosmic creator. This was discussed in the book debate on Nature's Destiny.

I have no doubt the theist sees the divine hand of their favored god in everything.

I just doubt their ability to show they speak truth about it.

That's why I make no claims as to the earliest moments of the universe, as well as no claims regarding the multiverse.

If you reject the universe being a finite age, then the only alternative is an infinite age. So, you are in effect making the claim the universe is infinite in age.

I'm saying that since I don't know, I can't say either way.

Remember, it's on the claimant to support their claims.

The mere act of challenging a claim need not be considered a rejection of that claim.

I could equally charge you with an apriori belief God exists, therefore must be the answer.

Actually, all I'm doing is comparing all the possible explanations and seeing what is the most plausible. I have a neutral position on whether the extranatural exists or not in terms of analyzing the options.

So then we can quit fussing about folks having a priori beliefs as their reason to reject claims.

Do we now have an -ahem- a priori belief the universe didn't always exist in a prior form?

There are other theories of a cyclical universe. But, if you want to present them as alternative explanations, feel free to.

I'm not claiming there is, or ain't cycles of universes, so I'm under no obligation to support such claims

Is there any fretful difference, other'n spelling, between "extranatural", and "supernatural"?

I use extranatural because people automatically assume things when the term supernatural is used. I use the term to simply mean anything that is not in our universe or impossible to empirically measure.

Plenty fair.

[brunumb]

We don't know what God is or how God does things.

If it's simply based on observations of nature, that would be correct. However, through the Bible we do know about the qualities of God. It's one of the major reasons God gave us the Bible in the first place, so that we can know Him.

Humans gave us the Bible. There is nothing compelling there to convince us that a god had anything to do with it. Now, had God actually produced his autobiography, making it materialise in the middle of a huge gathering and made of something like platinum plates (they already had gold), you might have a point. The Bible we have really doesn't tell us anything about what God is or how God does things.

In a time when people had little understanding of the world they occupied and believed that nature was beyond their control, it was natural for them to invent gods to cover all those phenomena. From thunder to crop failure, gods were responsible. We've got thousands of them. In the Bible, it is reasonable to assume that natural events such as plagues and floods ended up being attributed to their one specific god, Yahweh. All that makes more sense to me than that a super intelligent being got caught up in petty machinations with primitive human beings.

[otseng]

So God created everything because a book said God said he created everything? This data is also in a book that declares God hooked up with a married woman, and they had a human/god hybrid child that could walk on water.

This is what this entire thread is about - is the Bible trustworthy? So far, it's 147 pages long and we've touched on many areas on the truthfulness of the Bible, esp when compared to what is espoused as the mainstream views outside the Bible.

Do you accept all hearsay accounts, or just those that paint your preferred god in its best light?

As I've studied the Bible more and more, I find the accounts remarkably reliable and paints God in a light that gets brighter. We've touched on some of this already in this thread and we'll cover more areas later on in this thread.

Because that particular group can't show they speak truth regarding fanciful, often contradictory claims.

This is the genetic fallacy.

The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

You cannot dismiss an argument because it comes from Christians, just like I cannot dismiss an argument because it comes from a skeptic. What should be the grounds of debate is evidence and logical argumentation.

Nor are there viable explanations that propose a god did it, when no god can be shown to be involved.

On the broad scope, there are only two explanations for fine-tuning - random chance or some entity that purposely created it this way.

False dichotomy.

You need to bring up alternative explanations to show it's a false dichotomy.

As well, you've not shown, nor will you ever show the universe couldn't have always existed in some form prior to the BB.

It's not up to me to support that since I've never made that claim. Now, if you want to make that claim, please provide your arguments for it and I'll then present my refutation.

I don't propose to know the prior conditions of a universe that many authorities consider to be some 14 billion years old.

Right, according to the BBT, the universe started around 14 billion years ago. This means our universe had a beginning.

Remember, it's the claimant's responsibility to support their claims, and there's no responsibility on my part to offer counter claims, as helpful as such may be.

Yes, I made the claim the universe had a beginning and that this is an inconvertable fact, which you disagreed with. We can go over sources which attest to this, but as you've already mentioned, the universe started around 14 billion years aso, so I see no point posting additional sources to support this.

When did the BB begin?

Beats me.

Well then the argument stands that the universe had a beginning.

When did gods begin having the ability to produce viable offspring through breeding with married middle eastern women?

If God created the universe, there is nothing outside of his power to do within the universe.

Arguments should stand or fall on their merits, not on who's the one telling em. If a world renowned expert in mammals told me a duck was one of em, I wouldn't set to making fur outta feathers.

Exactly. So, why be dimissive if a Christian says something?

Where you see design, I see stuff acting according to its properties. I contend mine is the more rational position.

It's the properties themselves that need the explaining. Let's put it this way, suppose I play a chess game against a computer and it always beats me. The design is not in the game itself, but in the computer program that is playing the game. There was a mind that created the computer program to be able to play so well. Likewise, God designed the properties of chemistry to lead to complexity we see in life and everything required to support life. Maybe we can have a deep dive into this later.

I just doubt their ability to show they speak truth about it.

I think we just might have to get into the book then.

That's why I make no claims as to the earliest moments of the universe, as well as no claims regarding the multiverse.

If you reject the universe being a finite age, then the only alternative is an infinite age. So, you are in effect making the claim the universe is infinite in age.

I'm saying that since I don't know, I can't say either way.

Remember, you said...

That there is a beginning to the universe is an incontrovertible fact.

NO!

What we see is an expanding universe, and draw from that it once was once smaller. There's nothing in the BB theory that refutes my contention here.

You cannot say "NO!" to my claim and also say you don't know.

Remember, it's on the claimant to support their claims.

Of course.

The mere act of challenging a claim need not be considered a rejection of that claim.

I'm confused with your position on the claim there is a beginning to the universe. From what I can distill, it's "Even though scientists claim there's a beginning to the universe, there's no way that can be. I have no idea what the alternative is, but it sure ain't some creator god that did it."

So then we can quit fussing about folks having a priori beliefs as their reason to reject claims.

This is actually quite important. Our fundamental assumptions on interpreting evidence can lead us down the wrong path. Our a priori beliefs are often hard to see unless confronted and challenged.

As we've seen, there are many problems with modern cosmology, even to the point that it becomes unscientific.

"inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 527e5cb45e

What is fundamentally wrong with modern cosmology that it even has to resort to ideas that have no evidence to support them? I believe it lies with wrong a priori beliefs.

[otseng]

In a time when people had little understanding of the world they occupied and believed that nature was beyond their control, it was natural for them to invent gods to cover all those phenomena.

It is then remarkable of all the things the authors of the Bible did get right. Just discussing the issue of cosmology reveals they were on the right track. And only recently have cosmologists come around to accepting there is a beginning to the universe and recognizing there is design and fine-tuning with it.

[brunumb]

In a time when people had little understanding of the world they occupied and believed that nature was beyond their control, it was natural for them to invent gods to cover all those phenomena.

It is then remarkable of all the things the authors of the Bible did get right. Just discussing the issue of cosmology reveals they were on the right track. And only recently have cosmologists come around to accepting there is a beginning to the universe and recognizing there is design and fine-tuning with it.

There is nothing extraordinary in the idea that the universe had a beginning. Religious culture is littered with creation stories. The same goes with fine-tuning. How marvelous that everything seems just right. On the one hand the universe may exist as it is because of some sort of fine-tuning, on the other hand most of it, including most of Earth, is in fact hostile to human life. It depends on whether you view it all through Bible-glasses or without.

[otseng]

There is nothing extraordinary in the idea that the universe had a beginning. Religious culture is littered with creation stories.

Note, only recently scientists have accepted the universe had a beginning. So, from a Christian perspective, it is not extraordinary that scientists is now affirming what the Bible has claimed all along.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow

As for religions with creation claims, they are not all the same.

Hinduism believes in an infinite universe through infinite cycles of universes.

"Time is infinite with a cyclic universe, where the current universe was preceded and will be followed by an infinite number of universes. The different states of matter are guided by eternal kala (time), which repeats general events ranging from a moment to the lifespan of the universe, which is cyclically created and destroyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

Buddhism as well believes in infinite cycles of the universe.

"Buddhist temporal cosmology describes how the universe comes into being and is dissolved. Like other Indian cosmologies, it assumes an infinite span of time and is cyclical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1468]

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of *theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow

Christian: As for religions with creation claims, they are not all the same.

Hinduism believes in an infinite universe through infinite cycles of universes.

There is mathematical evidence of this being a possible thing.


What do you - as a Christian - believe, re the fate of this universe?

People often think that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. They ask me, “Why do you have so many gods?”

Hindus worship one Supreme Being called Brahman though by different names. This is because the peoples of India with many different languages and cultures have understood the one God in their own distinct way.

Supreme God has uncountable divine powers. When God is formless, He is referred to by the term Brahman. When God has form, He is referred to by the term Paramatma. This is almighty God, whose three main forms are Brahma; the creator, Vishnu, the sustainer and Shiva, the destroyer.

Hindus believe in many Gods who perform various functions; like executives in a large corporation. These should not be confused with the Supreme God.{SOURCE}

Hinduism appears to be theologically similar to Christianity.

Christian: Buddhism as well believes in infinite cycles of the universe.

"Buddhist temporal cosmology describes how the universe comes into being and is dissolved. Like other Indian cosmologies, it assumes an infinite span of time and is cyclical."

Buddhism is a religion that does not include the belief in a creator deity, or any eternal divine personal being.[1][2][3]

Buddhist teachings state that there are divine beings called devas (sometimes translated as 'gods') and other Buddhist deities, heavens, and rebirths in its doctrine of saṃsāra, or cyclical rebirth. Buddhism teaches that none of these gods is a creator or an eternal being, though they can live very long lives.[1][4] In Buddhism, the devas are also trapped in the cycle of rebirth and are not necessarily virtuous. Thus, while Buddhism includes multiple gods, its main focus is not on them. {SOURCE}

I would say that Buddhism, while classified as a religion cannot really be classified as Theism. [There should exist, no Buddhist *theologians]
It might be classified as a nontheistic religion.

[brunumb]

There is nothing extraordinary in the idea that the universe had a beginning. Religious culture is littered with creation stories.

Note, only recently scientists have accepted the universe had a beginning. So, from a Christian perspective, it is not extraordinary that scientists is now affirming what the Bible has claimed all along.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
― Robert Jastrow

As for religions with creation claims, they are not all the same.

Hinduism believes in an infinite universe through infinite cycles of universes.

"Time is infinite with a cyclic universe, where the current universe was preceded and will be followed by an infinite number of universes. The different states of matter are guided by eternal kala (time), which repeats general events ranging from a moment to the lifespan of the universe, which is cyclically created and destroyed."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

Buddhism as well believes in infinite cycles of the universe.

"Buddhist temporal cosmology describes how the universe comes into being and is dissolved. Like other Indian cosmologies, it assumes an infinite span of time and is cyclical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

The point is that people throughout time have pondered on the 'universe' and it is hardly surprising than one of the things they considered was that it had a beginning. All we have now is that scientists seem to have confirmed that particular idea. I say seem, because the Big bang event may only have been the beginning of this iteration of the universe. Perhaps the Buddhists are closer to the truth.