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]

I'd highly recommend studying it. It's actually quite interesting and obviously related to the story of Joseph going to Britain.

I'm going to spend more time upon this, but a drinking cup won't bring outright credence to my heart.

I don't believe the Holy Grail was a cup. But I do believe it was related to the TS.

The gospel accounts offer secondary, tertiary and indirect evidence, and although some of Paul's letters are clearly genuine it's a sad fact that Paul didn't write a line about anything that Jesus ever said or did in life (apart from last meal and last hours).

Yeah, Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus before he was resurrected. But Paul's strength was he was a Torah scholar and was trained under Gamaliel.

In the Christian tradition, Gamaliel is recognized as a Pharisee doctor of Jewish Law. Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Gamaliel as a man held in great esteem by all Jews and as the Jewish law teacher of Paul the Apostle in Acts 22:3.

Gamaliel holds a reputation in the Mishnah for being one of the greatest teachers in all the annals of Judaism: "Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time".

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

[boatsnguitars]

But Paul's strength was he was a Torah scholar and was trained under Gamaliel.

And yet, you don't trust the scholars that say the SoT is a fake. Odd how you are selective, no?

[Athetotheist]

[oldbadger]

I don't believe the Holy Grail was a cup. But I do believe it was related to the TS.

The Holy Grail?..... it was a drinking vessel, which I call 'cup'. What do you think it is?

There is no connection between that and the Turin Shroud, but if you can explain how there is then please do so.

Yeah, Paul was not an eyewitness of Jesus before he was resurrected. But Paul's strength was he was a Torah scholar and was trained under Gamaliel.

It seems to me that Paul had been contracted by the Temple Priesthood to bring law to the groups and sects in the North that were not paying their Temple tax nor attending any great feasts, mostly followers of Jesus. He bust his contract with the Priesthood.
But 70% (if not more) of the new rules, guides and laws within Christianity were initiated by Paul, in fact I perceive Christianity in most of its churches and denominations to be Pauline.

In the Christian tradition, Gamaliel is recognized as a Pharisee doctor of Jewish Law. Acts of the Apostles, speaks of Gamaliel as a man held in great esteem by all Jews and as the Jewish law teacher of Paul the Apostle in Acts 22:3.

That's interesting, but because I have only ever been interested in the life of Jesus I don't know anything about him myself.

Gamaliel holds a reputation in the Mishnah for being one of the greatest teachers in all the annals of Judaism: "Since Rabban Gamaliel the Elder died, there has been no more reverence for the law, and purity and piety died out at the same time".

I have the greatest respect for the laws of the old testament, which were written for the production of a cohesive, safe, secure, successful nation at that time. The Abrahamic God offered exactly that formula to all the other peoples and tribes all around but they did not take to them....he said so.

Sadly most Christians have grasped to a few of those laws and repeat them endlessly to support their self righteous and puritanical prejudices, but they ignore and dismiss so many others such as God's laws which support the poor, so essential to the success of a whole nation.

[otseng]

And yet, you don't trust the scholars that say the SoT is a fake. Odd how you are selective, no?

Which scholars are you talking about? What evidence have they produced?

[boatsnguitars]

And yet, you don't trust the scholars that say the SoT is a fake. Odd how you are selective, no?

Which scholars are you talking about? What evidence have they produced?

Again, are you not aware of the scholars that have studied it and declared it a Medieval work?

I really feel like you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you are not aware of them, I'd suggest you add it to your "research."

[otseng]

[otseng]

The Holy Grail?..... it was a drinking vessel, which I call 'cup'. What do you think it is?

There is no connection between that and the Turin Shroud, but if you can explain how there is then please do so.

I discussed this in detail here:
viewtopic.php?p=1122800#p1122800

Sadly most Christians have grasped to a few of those laws and repeat them endlessly to support their self righteous and puritanical prejudices, but they ignore and dismiss so many others such as God's laws which support the poor, so essential to the success of a whole nation.

I agree.

[otseng]

And yet, you don't trust the scholars that say the SoT is a fake. Odd how you are selective, no?

Which scholars are you talking about? What evidence have they produced?

Again, are you not aware of the scholars that have studied it and declared it a Medieval work?

Of course I'm aware of them. That's why I've already addressed all the major things brought up the skeptics - 1988 C-14 dating, d'Arcis memo, McCrone, BFA, and replication attempts.

I really feel like you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you are not aware of them, I'd suggest you add it to your "research."

No, I have no idea what you're talking about. If there's any argument I've missed from the skeptics, which could be possible, please provide that.

[boatsnguitars]

And yet, you don't trust the scholars that say the SoT is a fake. Odd how you are selective, no?

Which scholars are you talking about? What evidence have they produced?

Again, are you not aware of the scholars that have studied it and declared it a Medieval work?

Of course I'm aware of them. That's why I've already addressed all the major things brought up the skeptics - 1988 C-14 dating, d'Arcis memo, McCrone, BFA, and replication attempts.

I really feel like you know exactly what I'm talking about. If you are not aware of them, I'd suggest you add it to your "research."

No, I have no idea what you're talking about. If there's any argument I've missed from the skeptics, which could be possible, please provide that.

Otseng, why are you doing this? Which scholars? What have they produced? Again, do you not know or are you playing a game?

You know they tested it, produced the results and that ended the matter - except for religious extremists with an agenda.

You can claim you don't accept their results, but enough with pretending you don't know "what scholars?" "what studies?"

I'm not debating this with you, as it has been debated - over and over. This is the longest thread on this site! I know you feel noone is refuting your arguments, but - again, we don't have an obligation to re-hash an argument because you can't arrive at the same conclusion.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, but please stop pretending there isn't a robust and serious argument contrary to your "research". More importantly, agree that the majority of experts in the field do not agree the SoT "is evidence of Jesus" and don't pretend that Paul's scholarship is a reason to take him seriously, but not the scientists who tested the Shroud. It's exhausting.