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

[Difflugia]

I think t's the same here. The whole context of the Judas -death story makes it absurd to argue that the priests buying a field with (effectively) their own money for their own use means Judas buying it for himself through their agency, which is plainly not what is going on, even if the same word could cover both usages. It isn't good enough even before it is argued that grammatically it doesn't wash. And that's even without the observation that contradictions between Mathew and Luke are a regular feature of the gospels. But people don't know them and the Bible scholars (who ought to be Very familiar with them), don't whisper a single solitary doubt.

It should be obvious that no pair of authors would write the accounts the way they did if they were referring to the same story and that's what I continue to find so fascinating about inerrancy apologetics. Even the way the claims are presented reflects what must be an underlying awareness that the criteria reflect such a low standard. The claim that started this particular exchange wasn't presented in terms of what's likely or what's reasonable, but provided extra emphasis on mere possibility to reinforce that the inerrancy discussion is founded on the absolute lowest available standard:

If by "contradict each other" ...

you mean that : the statements cannot possibly BOTH be true, then you are wrong, they are NOT contradictory in that sense.

I've always enjoyed the word game aspect of inerrancy apologetics. I collect apologetic works in general, but I have a particularly soft spot for books devoted to "Bible difficulties" because I find the grammar puzzle aspect to be more clever than most theological navel-gazing. My favorite is Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, but creative searching will find dozens of books in the public domain at Google Books and Internet Archive. One of those, the verbosely titled A Handbook of Scientific and Literary Bible Difficulties; or, Facts and Suggestions Helpful Towards the Solution of Perplexing Things in Sacred Scripture, Being a Second Series of the "Handbook of Biblical Difficulties.", includes the following quote about the death of Judas, with which I wholeheartedly agree:

The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is remarkable how what hits you in the face as 'Hey - they are telling different stories' can be argued by the apologists in a way that will make the reasonable person stop and ask: 'Wait- could they really be talking about the same event?' Take the death of Judas. Matthew - he went out and hung himself. Luke - he fell headlong and burst open. 'Weaving together' (like translation -shopping) is a method of trying to make different things look the same.

He went out and hung himself. The rope broke and he burst open. So the objection is raised that falling from half the height you'd hang yourself would hardly burst Judas open. So they propose that he hung himself over a cliff to get the long drop. But a cliff isn't a 'field' surely.

Another clever ploy is looking at each problem piecemeal. Like that is the only problem there is. If that can be made to look possibly credible..no more problems.
But the fact (or context) is that we have the two accounts - in fact the entirety of the accounts - that look different: the priests and field and the manner of death. The mangling and wangling of the 'prophecies' doesn't help either. And then one has to remember that the nativities of these two writers conflict as well, never mind the contradictions in the resurrection accounts.

"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, you have to decide whether these two lengthy tales (gospels of Matthew and gospels of Luke) can be regarded as reliable testimony or two made up stories which conflict on at least half the points". It isn't a question of getting the Advocate to accept that his witnesses were making their stories up, though it would be nice if he did. The browsers and lurkers; those who have been fed the 'gospel truth' polemic for centuries, have to hear the Other side and decide.

[brunumb]

What is natural for God is not the same as what is natural for science. Maybe there's no need, even for God, to go beyond the laws of nature.

Not really surprising when you invent a being that can do anything.

[Diogenes]

"supernatural" is just another way of saying "It didn't happen." We use the word when we have no evidence or no reasonable explanation. Claiming a supernatural cause is an inherent admission one is without knowledge.

I don't see the need for 'supernatural' if that means 'beyond nature'. For example, it may be entirely natural to make an object vanish and appear somewhere else. Who knows because we don't know what is possible. In the Middle Ages it was not possible to hear a conversation 1000 miles away. Now we can. Back then it would seem like magic. What is natural for God is not the same as what is natural for science. Maybe there's no need, even for God, to go beyond the laws of nature.

Certainly science will continue to discover new phenomena. But that is clearly different from the utter speculation wildly improbable assumptions advocates of religious ideas come up with. In fact, the religious imagination and speculations remain as solidified dogma even when they have been disproved. No, the Earth is not flat. The sun does not circle a stationary Earth, nor does it stop. The Earth is 4 billion years old, not 6000. Prayer for others has no effect on healing them. Many Bible believers recognize these basic facts of science and either interpret their way around it, or recognize the collection is not perfect, but man's effort to understand God. This subset of Christians turns instead to claims that can't be falsified; the 'soul,' 'god' existing, miracles, prophesies (whose dates of fulfillment keep getting moved further into the future.

[mgb]

What is natural for God is not the same as what is natural for science. Maybe there's no need, even for God, to go beyond the laws of nature.

Not really surprising when you invent a being that can do anything.

Anything natural. But nature for God must be much more than we think it is. In the Middle Ages radio waves, electronics and a whole lot of other things were outside the understanding of what is natural. As Arthur C Clarke said, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” See diagram here (way down the page) https://lab.cccb.org/en/arthur-c-clarke ... rom-magic/

[TRANSPONDER]

While the 'supernatural' discussion is going of Bible reliability, it's relevant. Because a lot of apologetics seem to be based on 'isn't it possible...?' I mentioned that in connection with the death of Judas. Differtent stories but invent some stuff to make them look like one story.
The reasonable view would be, you'd think: 'Very inventive, but more probably they look different and so I am not convinced they are the same'.

That's not how Biblical apologetics work. They work on propping up Faith. It's not what is the more probable explanation (e.g if they look like they contradict, they probably do) but ..trust me, this in the thinking..' Assuming it's all true, isn't it possible the accounts got a bit mixed up or misunderstood?' Once you understand that it is - essentially - about the Believer trying initially to present the evidence for their Faith that they find convincing (and we can bet they only got One side) with supreme confidence that it will persuade the unbeliever.

We then get the rush back to the apologetics website for the stock refutations ..'maybe this, maybe that...maybe the historians are wrong, maybe we don't understand they way they wrote, maybe everything we thought is wrong'. The whole body of science -validated data and logical reasoning can be tossed out of the window if it conflicts with the Faith. And that explains so much of what we see - and not just in religious apologetics. It's why we get the same arguments presented after repeated refutation. Who has the burden of proof has to be reversed. God has to be the default theory until 100% disproved.

This is where we came in. 'Supernatural'. It's simple. The 'natural' is what we are used to seeing. natural explanations - since the scientific method - shows how it happens without the need for goblins, fairies or gods. The rational answer to 'no evidence for a god involved' is, that is the default theory - no god is credible unless there is convincing evidence for it. That is what 'materialism' is. But that's not good enough. Excuses such as 'maybe God works through natural processes' pop up. Which is what is argued by Believers who have accepted evolution (1). So you explain (or I do ) that there is no good reason to multiply logical entities (principle of parsimony) and so, why suggest a god behind natural processes when there is no logical need? Because the whole argument is based on a godfaith that needs any pretext for being propped up. It's why 'I demand 100% proof' is considered a reasonable apologetic. It's why 'even if there is a god behind nature, which one?' seems to be ignored, because the Faith just seems to rule out any god other than the one they were taught to believe in.

None of this is reasonable or rational given evidence and reason, but with Faith all that is reversed. Essentially the Believers' dictum: 'If reality conflicts with what I believe, then reality is wrong'.

(1) and the whole truly pointless evolution denial debate is going on. I won't go on about the endlessly fascinating 'apologetics of the 3rd kind' which is when the debate is lost and the various ploys employed to get away from the debate while being able to claim that you won. 'There's no point in talking to the closed -minded', when it's the believer whose mind is closed to the strong evidence that his beliefs are not soundly based. .

[mgb]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #507]

While the 'supernatural' discussion is going of Bible reliability,

I think faith is a lot more than the bible's reliability. So, the book has been distorted along that way, that does not matter much - except for fundamentalists. Faith is much more than the bible.

The whole body of science -validated data and logical reasoning can be tossed out of the window if it conflicts with the Faith.

I never heard a person of faith saying science has to be tossed out. But a lot of them argue that what is often taken to be scientific fact is really only dogma.

Excuses such as 'maybe God works through natural processes' pop up.

Of course He does. But natural for God is much more than natural for us. (see my last post)

So you explain (or I do ) that there is no good reason to multiply logical entities (principle of parsimony) and so, why suggest a god behind natural processes when there is no logical need?

But there is a need. The theory of evolution is woefully incomplete. Many parts of it that are presented as established science are really only articles of materialistic faith; dogma.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #507]

While the 'supernatural' discussion is going of Bible reliability,

I think faith is a lot more than the bible's reliability. So, the book has been distorted along that way, that does not matter much - except for fundamentalists. Faith is much more than the bible.

The whole body of science -validated data and logical reasoning can be tossed out of the window if it conflicts with the Faith.

I never heard a person of faith saying science has to be tossed out. But a lot of them argue that what is often taken to be scientific fact is really only dogma.

Excuses such as 'maybe God works through natural processes' pop up.

Of course He does. But natural for God is much more than natural for us. (see my last post)

So you explain (or I do ) that there is no good reason to multiply logical entities (principle of parsimony) and so, why suggest a god behind natural processes when there is no logical need?

But there is a need. The theory of evolution is woefully incomplete. Many parts of it that are presented as established science are really only articles of materialistic faith; dogma.

You're having me on, surely. Faith is more than the Bible? That's damn' near saying 'even if the Bible isn't true, the Faith based on it, is true'. I have indeed heard the Believer saying (in so many words) that science must be tossed out of the window if it conflicts with Faith. Of course they start by saying that they just love science and science in fact supports the Bible or is at least compatible with it. It is only when it is shown that, when the efforts to make the Bible look scientific have failed and undermines Bible claims that science gets dismissed as 'mere human opinion'. Oh yes it does. Not too many pages ago we saw science dismissed as ad hoc (which I take as just the excuses that materialist science makes up) when it didn't support Flood Geology as much as was expected. In fact you make this clear. by misunderstanding the verified results of experiment as 'Dogma'. Which is self - refuting because the science - skeptics say: 'science is always changing its' mind', which is the very antithesis of Dogma.

In fact it is religious Faith that is Dogma and cannot ever admit that it was wrong, while at the same time it has to adapt to catch up with science or get left so far behind that it loses credibility.

I see no valid evidence -based reason to suppose a god is operating through natural processes, let alone which god it is, even if it was. 'more than natural' is meaningless in the context. Either demonstrate the hand or foot of a god/Creator involved in natural processes or accept that theism is an unverified Faith -claim even before you have to argue which god it is.

The theory of evolution is one of the better - validated scientific theories. The broad outlines of evolution of life -forms has been validated by predictions of (for example) transitional forms and knowing where to look for it. And there it 'tiktaalik' was. The morphology of sea -mammals and birds shows clearly the land based origins.

Further, it's irrelevant. You said yourself that God operates through natural processes - like evolution; and if that conflicts with Genesis - well ...Faith is above the Bible. So evolution, correct or not has nothing to do with your case so far as I can see. Of course, i'm not sure this isn't a spoof apologetic and you were putting us on all the time.

[otseng]

Actually, scientists have already entered into the world of the "extranatural" with string theory, multiverse, and the big bang theory -- extra dimensions are posited, a multitude of undetectable universes are posited, and an unknown causation of our universe that is expanding into another dimension.

"supernatural" is just another way of saying "It didn't happen." We use the word when we have no evidence or no reasonable explanation. Claiming a supernatural cause is an inherent admission one is without knowledge.

I'm using "supernatural" in the sense of an unnatural causation of something that happened in the natural world. Sounds like what you mean is if the word supernatural is used then it is interpreted by skeptics as it could not have happened. But, again, underlying this is the assumption that the supernatural world does not exist.

I bring up string theory and the multiverse as examples where even scientists propose extranatural explanations. Do you reject as well these theories? If yes, do these scientists fall in the category of having no knowledge? If no, then there's no problem of a supernatural causation of Jesus resurrecting from the dead.

[TRANSPONDER]

Actually, scientists have already entered into the world of the "extranatural" with string theory, multiverse, and the big bang theory -- extra dimensions are posited, a multitude of undetectable universes are posited, and an unknown causation of our universe that is expanding into another dimension.

"supernatural" is just another way of saying "It didn't happen." We use the word when we have no evidence or no reasonable explanation. Claiming a supernatural cause is an inherent admission one is without knowledge.

I'm using "supernatural" in the sense of an unnatural causation of something that happened in the natural world. Sounds like what you mean is if the word supernatural is used then it is interpreted by skeptics as it could not have happened. But, again, underlying this is the assumption that the supernatural world does not exist.

I bring up string theory and the multiverse as examples where even scientists propose extranatural explanations. Do you reject as well these theories? If yes, do these scientists fall in the category of having no knowledge? If no, then there's no problem of a supernatural causation of Jesus resurrecting from the dead.

I agree. It is just another example of forcing on the opposition (science in this case, but as a tool of atheism) a dogmatic and denialist position that in fact it does not hold, just as Materialism is the (metaphysical) definition of 'nothing but the material can exist' which science does not maintain, and 'God does not exist (read 'gods do not exist') which is not the non -beleif pending convincing evidence =-position that atheism actually holds. It is of course classic strawman - instead of countering the actual argument, attack a false one that is easy to knock down.

The response to science (and atheism) saying 'that is not our logical position', those doing to attack can only say 'yes it is - I know better than you what you mean'. The most memorable outcome of that on my former board was an anti - evolutionist who ended up (effectively) saying that evolution theory actually claims dogs from cats, but because that doesn't work, they pretend that evolution argues gradual genetic change, which does.