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

[kjw47]

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.

Few know the facts of the bible. God inspired his name in his written word in about 7000 places. By satans will to mislead wicked men removed it and replaced it in OT with-GOD or LORD all capitols. Nearly 6800 places in OT. In the NT the OT is quoted in about 200 more spots where the name belongs as well. Jerome told the Pope Gods name belongs in the NT. I do not know if Jeromes Latin vulgate included Gods name or not( i cant read latin) I am sure he had the originals to go by though.
Gods written word does not contradict itself. Not his real way it should be. Yes some translations are filled with errors beside the removal of Gods name. The religion that came out of Rome translated errors in to fit false council teachings. Those translations contradict Jesus teachings to the core and have caused much confusion over the centuries. Enough confusion that there are a great deal of different religions claiming to be christian, all claim to have holy spirit, yet all teach different truths on certain matters. Its not the holy spirit that causes confusion, its the lack of it that does. I would say the problem is, its using altered versions of Gods written word that is causing the confusion in a major way. Altered versions cannot be trusted, they were altered by satans will to mislead.

[otseng]

[Diagoras]

[brunumb]

I would say the problem is, its using altered versions of Gods written word that is causing the confusion in a major way. Altered versions cannot be trusted, they were altered by satans will to mislead.

Which is/are the unaltered version(s) that we should be putting our trust in?

[otseng]

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #1375]

Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

We can infer from this there was a beginning to the universe and God designed the universe. These two arguments are very old - the Cosmological argument and the Teleological argument. And we will be going deeper into those later as we continue to discuss cosmology.

Is there a "scientific" description in Genesis? No. But, the Bible does make claims about reality which align with what we observe, including the area of cosmology.

This is what I attempted to point out in the thread "The Effect of Sound and The Universe", because the bible not only say's that GOD created but that it was the voice of GOD which made it so.

GOD said it - and it was so. Genesis 1: 3

Biblically there appears to be no science involved and it would be more believable if there was, but the bible is not a scientific manual. It is a collection of manuscripts dealing with human behavior in relation to the GOD-mind.

However, if human science discovers that it is sound which formulates things which altogether make up what we call The Universe/Creation, then we would be able to understand the connection where the science was biblically mentioned in a poetical manner and without further ado to describing particulars.

On its own, Genesis 1: 3 could be argued as a simple lucky guess.

Even so, from my position [being neither theist or nontheist, re the question of GOD] there is ample to work with in those 10 words making up that succinct sentence.

"And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." [480] [Evidence]

[Four Zero Eight = 173]
And [Idea]
God [Data]
said, [Seed]
Let [Feedback]
there [Light]
be
light: [El Shaddai]
and
there
was
light. [Loving-kindness]

Conflating the bible with science to the point where the demand to prove the bible through science manifests...is psychologically interesting - but in and of itself - appears to be an unhelpful demand re the question of GOD.

[kjw47]

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

[brunumb]

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

Which is/are the unaltered version(s) that we should be putting our trust in?

[William]

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

[kjw47]

[Replying to brunumb in post #1374]


God inspired his personal name in the OT nearly 6800 places. Because it is his will for that name to be there is why. It was called the tetragramoton= YHWH--Men replaced it with GOD or LORD all capitols. They had no right. It was done by satans will to mislead. As well in the NT where the OT is quoted and the name belongs about 200 spots. So close to 7000 spots-YHWH name was removed. It has caused much confusion as to who God is.

I hesitate to go so far as you have gone here.

"I Am That I Am" [YHWH] allows everyone the right of passage to decide for themselves as to who this entity is, to them.

So if some say "LORD" or "GOD" or "Murdering Psychopath" or "Invisible Sky Daddy" et al - there is no requirement to accuse Satan of misleading them in their deciding for themselves.

God is to everyone, whatever they choose God to being, through their world view.

The true God= Father only accepts being worshipped in spirit and truth-John 4:22-24)
The Hebrew scholars, who know the Hebrew language better than any say, there is no i am that i am in their Hebrew written OT. I will be what i will be is the correct translating of that passage.