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]

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.

It is not all things in the Bible are either metaphorical or all are literal. What we're specifically talking about here is the dome depiction of the heavens. To be more specific, it is the rendering of the term raqia and does it really mean a firmament. I argued it is not. So, at a minimum it is not portraying the heavens as a solid hemisphere structure.

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.

I've produced pages of empirical evidence supporting a literal global flood and the origin of languages and yet it's difficult for you to see it being interpreted as literal. And no evidence has been presented showing the author of Genesis actually believed in a firmament, yet you believe it should be taken literally. This I believe is harder to understand.

[Diogenes]

I've produced pages of empirical evidence supporting a literal global flood and the origin of languages and yet it's difficult for you to see it being interpreted as literal. And no evidence has been presented showing the author of Genesis actually believed in a firmament, yet you believe it should be taken literally. This I believe is harder to understand.

Yes, you have produced many 'pages' about a global flood, none of it 'empirical evidence.' I recognize you believe this, but it simply is not true. It has the same value as the 'evidence' you have produced purporting to refute evolution. Oliver, I respect you and you make the impossible case as well as anyone, but you are 'putting lipstick on a pig,' a pig that will not fly.

You have avoided the key point I thought I made clearly, that you arbitrarily decide the Bible's description of a flat Earth is, you agree 'metaphorical,' yet you insist on a literal interpretation of the flood, Noah's impossible Ark saving all species including penguins from Antarctica, and the Tower of Babel. All of these stories I agree you have vociferously and voluminously defended with what you think is evidence. Yes, you have made a grand effort. But you are backing a losing horse, a nag that can't even find the starting gate no matter how competently you marshall the limited resources available.

[otseng]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1146]

All I'll say is your opinion (as well as my opinions) do not really count for much. What really matters is the evidence to back up our claims. And readers can judge for themselves based on the evidence whether our claims are plausible. And so far, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the author of Genesis was making a claim that the universe is actually a dome shaped structure with the stars fixed in a solid half sphere.

[Diogenes]

[otseng]

[Goat]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1146]

All I'll say is your opinion (as well as my opinions) do not really count for much. What really matters is the evidence to back up our claims. And readers can judge for themselves based on the evidence whether our claims are plausible. And so far, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the author of Genesis was making a claim that the universe is actually a dome shaped structure with the stars fixed in a solid half sphere.

The thing is , there are certain claims that would be needed that are physically impossible. You also have to point to evidence, and then show WHY that data is evidence for your proposition. Just pointing to data, and saying it is evidence of xyz without convergence of evidence and a testable model doesn't make that data evidence of any specific proposition.

[The Nice Centurion]

otseng wrote: ?[Replying to Diogenes in post #1146]

All I'll say is your opinion (as well as my opinions) do not really count for much. What really matters is the evidence to back up our claims. And readers can judge for themselves based on the evidence whether our claims are plausible. And so far, no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the author of Genesis was making a claim that the universe is actually a dome shaped structure with the stars fixed in a solid half sphere.

Some questions from my side here, if thats ok:

I would rather say "authors", than author of genesis.
No matter.
Can you tell me whom you suppose to be the author?

I say that bible verses prove that genesis author(s) believed in flat earth.
No matter.
How would a bible verse have to be written, to be sufficient for you to concede it "claims" a flat earth?

("Claim" might be an irritating term here for something people back the saw as common truth.
Does a round earther today put "claims of a sherical earth" in a book".
References to earths shape is a better term.)

[otseng]

You also have to point to evidence, and then show WHY that data is evidence for your proposition. Just pointing to data, and saying it is evidence of xyz without convergence of evidence and a testable model doesn't make that data evidence of any specific proposition.

Of course. I've argued from the text and the historical background of our translations in post 1134 of why I believe raqia is better translated as "expanse" rather than "firmament". I think how we interpret raqia is fundamental in the debate of the dome cosmology. If raqia is translated "expanse", I highly doubt skeptics would then be so insistent the ancient Hebrews were making unscientific claims. It would be obvious they were just simply giving an account of what they saw than making any "scientific" claim.

Again, all the major modern translations translate raqia as "expanse". People who argue raqia should be "firmament" base their arguments on the early translations. Why would early translations use firmament? Because they would be most familiar with the Latin Vulgate, which had translated it as "firmamentum".

Another reason we should doubt the skeptics' argument that the Biblical authors were claiming the universe is actually a snow dome is the skeptics have made similar claims that the church, in particular during the Middle ages, believed the earth was flat, which in reality is a straw man argument. When digging deeper into the claim, it turns out it was all a myth.

So, we should go back and examine what the text actually says and the historical development of the text to find the truth.

[otseng]

Can you tell me whom you suppose to be the author?

This is a major debate in itself. But I believe Moses wrote the Torah. I've touched on this during the debate on archaeology.

How would a bible verse have to be written, to be sufficient for you to concede it "claims" a flat earth?

In the book of Genesis, please present all the verses that claims the earth is flat and we can debate those verses.

[Diogenes]