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]

Any and all errors in the Bible can simply be dismissed as "It's supernatural." This is a perfect example of why it is disingenuous for Biblical apologists to discuss science at all. They love to use 'science,' history, archeology as long as they coincide with their interpretation of their favorite book. But any deviation and, "It's supernatural!" ... or "God did it!" ... or "Science is wrong!"

Again, science says nothing about the supernatural (or at least its not supposed to). And science assumes the supernatural cannot be used as an explanation, it does not lead to the conclusion that the supernatural does not exist.

It is not an error in the Bible if there is a supernatural causation. If God exists, it's very logical that there can be a supernatural causation. If you claim a supernatural explanation cannot be used, then you need to first prove the supernatural does not exist.

Actually, science is interested in the supernatural. Science is eager to discover new phenomena. Scientific American as early as 1922 offered money to prove supernatural claims. They never had to pay.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ernatural/

I am surprised that a veteran debater and founder/owner of this site would demand a debater prove a negative. The claim the supernatural exists unless disproved applies equally to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, MHPBP.

As the article cited indicates, Houdini and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were antagonists about the supernatural. Doyle was taken in by faked evidence of the existence of fairies.

Doyle, as a spiritualist, was enthusiastic about the photographs, and interpreted them as clear and visible evidence of psychic phenomena.
....
In the early 1980s Elsie and Frances admitted that the photographs were faked, using cardboard cutouts of fairies....

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

The point remains, the effort to use science to corroborate the Bible is disingenuous because the when science contradicts Biblical accounts, the apologist reverts to using 'the supernatural.' You might as well say,
"Fairies did it."

[William]

Actually, science is interested in the supernatural.

Science is a process. As such, science cannot be "interested" in anything. It can only be used by those interested in finding things out about physical things.

So if the statement is corrected to read;
"Actually, scientists are interested in the supernatural."
even if that were the case, they wouldn't be able to use science to investigate any interest in supernatural concepts.

I think that is what otseng is referring to as 'scientism' but if not, he can explain...

[otseng]

So, going back to the above question, since there has not been any evidence presented to support this, why do you believe it to be true?

This question confuses me. All that I can find suggests that the universe has no center. This may mess with our common sense to some degree, but if it is correct, we couldn't be the center of the universe because there isn't one.

Yes, it is confusing. But, I have a point in asking the question which I will eventually get to.

So, the next question is, what topography of the universe would allow for having no center and what evidence supports this view?

I'm also confused because the Bible reveals no awareness of the universe. It doesn't even present awareness of our solar system beyond the earth, moon, and sun.

And if that's the case, then the charge of a geocentric view of the universe in the Bible is completely baseless.

I am surprised that a veteran debater and founder/owner of this site would demand a debater prove a negative. The claim the supernatural exists unless disproved applies equally to the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster, MHPBP.

I claim the supernatural exists. So, it is my burden to support this. I am not saying the supernatural exists because you have failed to carry the burden of proving me wrong.

What I am saying is this... do you claim the supernatural does not exist? If so, then it is your burden to support this.

The point remains, the effort to use science to corroborate the Bible is disingenuous because the when science contradicts Biblical accounts, the apologist reverts to using 'the supernatural.'

As I've mentioned before, even secular scientists revert to supernatural/extranatural explanations when naturalistic explanations are impossible. So, nothing new with what I'm doing.

[Tcg]

And if that's the case, then the charge of a geocentric view of the universe in the Bible is completely baseless.

Geocentric view of the universe? Is there such a thing? Certainly, a geocentric view of our solar system. None of this addresses the fact that the Bible reveals no awareness of the universe. Given that, what does it matter what is or even if there is a center of the universe?


Tcg

[otseng]

And if that's the case, then the charge of a geocentric view of the universe in the Bible is completely baseless.

Geocentric view of the universe? Is there such a thing? Certainly, a geocentric view of our solar system.

It's not really the things in our solar system that led the ancients to accept geocentrism, but the things outside our solar system - the stars.

None of this addresses the fact that the Bible reveals no awareness of the universe. Given that, what does it matter what is or even if there is a center of the universe?

If so, then the attack on the Bible and cosmology can be dismissed. If that is granted, then we can go to the next topic.

[Diogenes]

As I've mentioned before, even secular scientists revert to supernatural/extranatural explanations when naturalistic explanations are impossible. So, nothing new with what I'm doing.

Ahhh... now I see your error more clearly. Thanks for clarifying. No, scientists do not revert to "supernatural explanations" when they don't fully understand something they study. They assume their knowledge is not complete and keep observing, thinking, experimenting. They do not invent a 'god' to fill in gaps in their knowledge. Scientists do no say, "Hmmmm... I do not yet fully understand the details of a unified field theory, so magic must be involved... or a god maybe." They theorized an elemental particle, called it an 'atom,' but did not stop and say "god did it." They continued to study eventually discovered protons, neutrons, electrons. But they did not stop there. They knew their knowledge was incomplete. They discovered or formulated Quarks and various string theories and more.
Scientific discovery would have stopped thousands of years ago if science just said, "I guess the unknown must be 'supernatural.'

In other words, "unknown" does not equal "supernatural." The supernatural is when one attributes data to something that violates all known physical laws. Science is humble. It admits when it does not know. It does not substitute a supernatural being as an explanation for phenomena it does not fully understand. That is the business of religion.

[Tcg]

If so, then the attack on the Bible and cosmology can be dismissed. If that is granted, then we can go to the next topic.

I haven't attacked the Bible. I've pointed out the fact that it presents absolutely no understanding of the universe. You can move onto whatever topic you want. Moving on though doesn't suggest that the Bible does address any understanding of the universe. It doesn't. It reveals a total ignorance of the universe. We'd expect that if the Bible were the result of human pondering. Not if it were the direct revelation from God which you've admitted the first few verses of Genesis must be.


Tcg

[otseng]

They do not invent a 'god' to fill in gaps in their knowledge.

Of course, because science assumes naturalism.

No, scientists do not revert to "supernatural explanations" when they don't fully understand something they study.

We are wading into supernatural explanations on the discussions on cosmology. Is that why nobody wants to address justifying we are not at the center of the universe? And we have not yet even started to discuss the origin of the universe and the design of the universe.

If so, then the attack on the Bible and cosmology can be dismissed. If that is granted, then we can go to the next topic.

I haven't attacked the Bible. I've pointed out the fact that it presents absolutely no understanding of the universe.

To clarify, I'm not specifically referring to you attacking the Bible, but to this general charge made by skeptics...

The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG.

It cannot be had both ways that the Bible makes no claim on cosmology and that it is also wrong about it. So, the skeptics arguments need to be consistent when arguing against the Bible and not contradict each other.

[Diogenes]

They do not invent a 'god' to fill in gaps in their knowledge.

Of course, because science assumes naturalism.

No, scientists do not revert to "supernatural explanations" when they don't fully understand something they study.

We are wading into supernatural explanations on the discussions on cosmology. Is that why nobody wants to address justifying we are not at the center of the universe? And we have not yet even started to discuss the origin of the universe and the design of the universe.
....
It cannot be had both ways that the Bible makes no claim on cosmology and that it is also wrong about it. So, the skeptics arguments need to be consistent when arguing against the Bible and not contradict each other.

Yes, science, history, archeology, and all the sciences assume 'naturalism.' So do Christian apologists in 99% of their arguments, as they try to use history, archeology, and all the sciences to support their 'unnatural' beliefs. Why use the sciences and history to support beliefs that are based on religious faith? This is, as stated previously, disingenuous.
Christian apologists use the sciences until science proves their claims wrong. Then they make complaints about "assuming naturalism," the very assumption they made, but want make exceptions for re: their own favorite religion.

It cannot be had both ways that the Bible makes no claim on cosmology and that it is also wrong about it.

This sentence makes no sense to me and appears to assume facts not in evidence. Clearly the Bible does make claims re: cosmology. And those claims are demonstrably wrong:
The Earth is not immovable.
The Earth is round, not flat.
There is no dome above the Earth.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth.

[otseng]

Yes, science, history, archeology, and all the sciences assume 'naturalism.' So do Christian apologists in 99% of their arguments, as they try to use history, archeology, and all the sciences to support their 'unnatural' beliefs.

Yes, I agree. And as I've demonstrated in this massive thread, history, geology, archaeology, and now cosmology supports the Biblical view.

Why use the sciences and history to support beliefs that are based on religious faith?

You have a false dichotomy that science and religion are mutually exclusive. Instead, there is an overlap between the two. In effect, both seek to determine the truth. All truth is not just scientific truth. And as well, as truth is not religious truth. There is just the truth. And I strongly believe that argumentation and evidence can lead to truth, which is one of the founding principles of this forum.

One thing unique about Christianity among religions is that it is falsifiable. It makes many claims and we can research it out if it is supportable by empirical evidence. And this is what I have focused on in this thread. And in the vast majority of the time, the evidence I've presented is secular evidence and avoid citing religious sources.

Christian apologists use the sciences until science proves their claims wrong.

Christians were instrumental in inventing the sciences. We might have to explore that in depth at a later time.

And in the realm of cosmology, actually you have that backwards. Science has now come to accept what the Bible has said all along, that there was a beginning to our universe.

Then they make complaints about "assuming naturalism," the very assumption they made, but want make exceptions for re: their own favorite religion.

Who's complaining about it? Please cite anywhere in this thread that a Christian has complained about science assuming naturalism.

And those claims are demonstrably wrong:
The Earth is not immovable.
The Earth is round, not flat.
There is no dome above the Earth.
The Sun does not revolve around the Earth.[/size]

Well, as I've demonstrated also, the claim that the Bible makes wrong claims about cosmology is wrong.

What I find disingenuous is skeptics attack the Bible. but refuse to defend the most basic questions about their beliefs. Skeptics mock the Bible as a fairy tale and makes ridiculous claims like the earth is at the center of the universe. But when challenged to present evidence to support their view, it is not presented. If evidence cannot be supported, who is then the one who accepts things by faith?

So, question for people that believe we are not at the center of the universe, what argument and evidence proves that to be the case?