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

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #1130]
Thank you, but there is an easier way to address this question, particularly if we speak to the problem you bring up, about modern translations of ancient Hebrew. Plus I am lazy. I greatly admire your effort to study original languages.
I suggest looking at what Jews say about their scriptures, particularly Talmudic scholars of an era closer to the date of the original manuscripts.

The Talmudic View of the Universe
Jeremy Brown

This chapter describes the talmudic model of the universe. The rabbis of the Talmud believed that the world was flat, and that the sun revolved around the Earth every day. There is a debate about the length of the solar year in the Talmud, and its consequences and the rare Jewish ceremony of the Blessing of the Sun (Birkat Hahammah) are discussed. The view of the talmudic rabbis is contrasted with that of the contemporary Greek astronomers. While the rabbis of the Talmud argued about the size of the flat Earth, the Greeks had determined the Earth to be a sphere, had calculated its circumference and had moved on to consider other questions. Next the chapter describes how Maimonides (1138-1204) adopted the Ptolemaic system, and examples of Ptolemaic biblical commentary are given.
[emphasis mine]
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199754793.003.0002

https://oxford.universitypressscholarsh ... -chapter-2

I agree with TRANSPONDER https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/gre13.htm is a 'good read.'
It appears so clear that both Talmudic scholars and 'The Church' believed the Bible described the Earth as a flat disk for Centuries, that I don't think the issue is worth debating, in terms of the language and literal impression of the text.
By far the better argument is that, even if inspired by God, the authors of the texts reflected their own understanding of the cosmos at the time and it is great error to take the scriptures as literal, science minded descriptions. There's also an inferior approach, the frequent dodge that 'God spoke in ways that the ancients would understand.' I don't recommend it, but note it has been suggested.

[otseng]

[Diogenes]

Yes, we can look at secondary sources, but the primary source would be the Hebrew Bible. It would be on this text that following interpretations, including Talmudic scholars, would ultimately be based on.

'The Church' believed the Bible described the Earth as a flat disk for Centuries,

I'm not so sure. At the time of the Aristotelian system, people believed in a spherical Earth, which was hundreds of years before the church came about.
How is this a dodge? Any author would attempt to communicate in a way that the contemporary audience would understand.

1. Secondary Sources
It takes a certain Chutzpah for Christians to insist on their interpretation of Jewish scripture over the interpretation of Jews. The insistence that a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible is the "first source" one example. The Jews rely on Hebrew or Aramaic manuscripts of the Torah including the Peshitta, not the Greek Septuagint, or the Latin Vulgate.

2. Hebrew vs Greek Cosmology
Yes, the Greeks not only figured out the Earth was spherical, they got it size pretty close. How? By observation and mathematical calculation, not by relying on Sumerian and Hebrew scripture. The Torah has both the shape of the Earth wrong, as well as it not being the center of the universe or even our solar system. The fact that the Greeks got it right is hardly an argument for the Hebrew God's infallibility. The Greek Septuagint also describes a flat Earth with the stars and planet circling the Earth every 24 hours, but to the extent the Greek translation may differ, the first source is the Hebrew. If the Septuagint were to yield a 'rounder' translation, we can put that off to a Greek influence rather than the original Hebrew text.

3. The Dodge
It is a 'dodge,' or worse, a slander on the God of Abraham that He would lie or mislead about something as basic as the shape of the cosmos, just because he thought his chosen tribe consisted of a bunch of lunkheads inferior to the Greeks. The God of the Torah does not impress as one to bow to the frailties of his creation. It is plain to see His Holly arrogance throughout the Tanakh, but the spirit He shows when dealing with Moses and Job in particular, when he speaks to his servant out of the whirlwind, does not strike the reader as a timid soul who would 'dumb it down' for his quaking audience.
No, the reason the Torah describes a flat Earth and geocentric universe is because it was written by men, Hebrews, not Greeks and certainly not by a God who created the universe and spherical planets.

[otseng]

[Diogenes]

[otseng]

It is easy, easy as pie; a flat pie with a dome over it.

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

The Bible describes a flat Earth because to the men who wrote it, it looked flat with a dome of sky. If it were written by God, the 'creator of the universe,' it would have been described accurately as well as poetically.

Yes, they wrote from the perspective of what they observed. However, there are aspects of the creation account that they could not have observed. In particular, writing that God created the entire universe. This has been a long standing debate with those who hold an eternal universe and dates back to Aristotle.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that the world must have existed from eternity in his Physics as follows. In Book I, he argues that everything that comes into existence does so from a substratum. Therefore, if the underlying matter of the universe came into existence, it would come into existence from a substratum. But the nature of matter is precisely to be the substratum from which other things arise. Consequently, the underlying matter of the universe could have come into existence only from an already existing matter exactly like itself; to assume that the underlying matter of the universe came into existence would require assuming that an underlying matter already existed. As this assumption is self-contradictory, Aristotle argued, matter must be eternal.

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

In was only in the past century or so that scientists started to believe in a finite age of the universe. Prior, they had all held to some model of an eternal universe.

However, most scientists throughout the 19th century and into the first decades of the 20th century presumed that the universe itself was Steady State and eternal, possibly with stars coming and going but no changes occurring at the largest scale known at the time.

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

This poses a problem now for modern scientists of what caused the initial state of the universe. And the Bible gives the answer for this, which has been consistent with what it has been saying all along.

[Diogenes]

It is easy, easy as pie; a flat pie with a dome over it.

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

Before reading the rest of your response, I have to address this fragment.
You've made an enormous error here... one that, coming from you, surprises me.
Metaphors are based upon a reference to reality. The original authors, like everyone else of their era except the Greeks around 500 BCE, believed the Earth was a disk. The Genesis story reflects this belief. They actually believed the Earth was flat.

When we speak of metaphors or myths we have in mind not just the creation story, but stories like Noah and the Ark, a metaphor for the origin of the species and man's corruption. We think of the Tower of Babel, a metaphor that tries to explain the diversity of languages. But, except for the Greeks in 500 BC, and Eratosthenes who actually measured the circumference of the Earth in 240 BCE, the Hebrew tradition, like the Sumerians, and likely every other culture on Earth actually believed in the flat, geocentric Earth.

So, the original author(s) actually believed the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.
This is important, because it shows the Bible reflects the word, the authorship, the invention of MEN, not gods. This is true whether they were using metaphors or speaking literally. The problem today is that some Christian apologists mistake metaphors and symbols for history.

[The Nice Centurion]

3. The Dodge
It is a 'dodge,' or worse, a slander on the God of Abraham that He would lie or mislead about something as basic as the shape of the cosmos, just because he thought his chosen tribe consisted of a bunch of lunkheads inferior to the Greeks. The God of the Torah does not impress as one to bow to the frailties of his creation. It is plain to see His Holly arrogance throughout the Tanakh, but the spirit He shows when dealing with Moses and Job in particular, when he speaks to his servant out of the whirlwind, does not strike the reader as a timid soul who would 'dumb it down' for his quaking audience.
No, the reason the Torah describes a flat Earth and geocentric universe is because it was written by men, Hebrews, not Greeks and certainly not by a God who created the universe and spherical planets.

Five possibilitys here:

1) The earth really is flat

2) The earth was flat back then at least until the time when Jesus spent his 40 days in the desert.
(Remember Satan showing him all earthly kingdoms from above a high mountain.)
And than earths form underwent a change.

Here Occams Razor would suggest that Satan was as infuriated about Jesus declining his offer that he in anger changed earths form.

3) Christian god lied about earths form while inspiring the bible.

4) Christian mythology is untrue.

5) Christian mythology is basically true, but bible is at least partly untrue/not inspired.

There are christian sects who use this dodge. Not to avoid flat earth though, but to deny that christian god ever would have commanded the biblical genocides.

[otseng]

[Diogenes]

Jewish scholars understand the metaphorical or literary nature of these stories. They are not, therefore, motivated to stretch the meanings of the original to fit some apologist's need.

Yes, I agree it is metaphorical. If you agree as well, then the original author(s) did not actually believe the world was a literal flat earth with a solid dome for the heavens.

Metaphors are based upon a reference to reality. The original authors, like everyone else of their era except the Greeks around 500 BCE, believed the Earth was a disk. The Genesis story reflects this belief. They actually believed the Earth was flat.

A metaphor is not literally true.

You are stating the obvious and repeating what I wrote. The problem is that you and evangelical fundamentalists insist that the Biblical metaphors of Noah and the Ark (diversity of species), Tower of Babel (diversity of languages), Serpent in the Garden of Eden (introduction of evil), and the metaphor of creation as depicted in Genesis are actual, literal, historical events.
They are metaphors and "Not literally true."

So what is the point you are trying to make? Are you now agreeing that these Bible stories are not literally true? That they are metaphors for actual events? If so we are in agreement.

Here is the point:
It is curious that when it comes to the shape of the Earth and the Cosmos as described in Genesis and other books of the Bible, you insist the description is metaphorical. But when dealing with Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel you have published dozens of posts trying to defend a literal interpretation rather than metaphorical. Why the exception for the cosmos?

I suggest it may be because it is obvious the Earth is not the center of the universe and is a slightly oblate sphere. My curiosity relates to why you do not also understand the metaphorical nature of other Bible stories.
Why do you make an exception for the flat Earth description? This is especially difficult for me to understand because the other stories are obviously metaphorical, whereas the description of a flat Earth covered with a dome of 'firmament' appears to have the form of a straight forward, factual description, a description consistent with the story of Joshua making the Sun stand still.