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

[brunumb]

The Israelite saw God directly act when they were delivered from Egypt, saved from Pharoah's army, fed in the wilderness, given the law, etc and yet they still did not believe. Direct personal encounters with God does not necessarily mean it would result in any change in belief or action.

That conclusion is only valid if the story is true. All the evidence, together with lack of confirming evidence, indicates that the enslavement of the Israelites and subsequent exodus from Egypt is nothing more than a myth. People become believers on the basis of far less compelling evidence than personal encounters with God so I think that the latter would actually be far more profound in its effect. On the other hand, my position is that the vast majority of believers are made by having their beliefs inculcated via childhood indoctrination and not through any evaluation of evidence or personal encounters with a deity.

[POI]

Woah there You seem to want to hand-wave away two key terms (inerrancy and omnipotence), to push your own personal narrative. And yet, you have not yet answered my fundamental question....

If God exists, HOW do you know He is not all powerful?

I hand-wave because it's not really relevant to this thread and there's an entire thread where I've already debated this. I'd rather not duplicate that debate here in this already complex topic.

Oh, but it kind of is relevant.... Please remember what the OP title asks... "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?"

You are a theist, right? Regardless of your take on 'theism", the general gist of this term suggests that God intervenes. If the Bible did not exist, WHAT ELSE would current humans address, or look to, to attest to the existence of YHWH? (rhetorical question)

If YHWH is 'Most High", He would certainly know this about the importance of the Bible, right? He would know that many use the Bible as their (guide/instruction manual/other) to direct them in what is "true"/"moral"/etc, right?

So here we are, in the Christian apologetics arena... A place you volunteer to participate.... Let me speed this along a bit, for sake in brevity...

A) If God IS all powerful, then it would appear He is perfectly fine in knowing that some of His directed core assertions are fundamentally in error; leaving it up to humans alone to sort out all the details - (which look to contradict Biblical assertion).... Which is to mean, He is knowingly watching it all happen.

B) If God IS NOT all powerful, YHWH saw that humans constructed the Bible - a document in which many would hold as "true". YHWH is/was unable to provide all necessary corrections. Which means what Paul suggests is false (i.e.) "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." - (2 Tim. 3:16)

You look to side with the notion that God is not all powerful... Okay... This must mean you are more on the side of B). Which means you think Paul is mistaken? Furthermore....

How are YOU able to discern what is and is not correct from the Bible?

[POI]

If YHWH exists, how do you know He is not all powerful? And if He is indeed, not all powerful, does YHWH then submit to higher power?

All I'm saying is he is not "omnipotent", which is a term I think should be throw out, just like inerrancy. It is a meaningless term. But no, YHVH does not submit to a higher power. He is God Almighty, Lord of heaven and earth, God Most High.

Woah there You seem to want to hand-wave away two key terms (inerrancy and omnipotence), to push your own personal narrative. And yet, you have not yet answered my fundamental question....

If God exists, HOW do you know He is not all powerful?

And once you grant a response above, to where we can move forward, we can then explore how what you also state looks to directly contradict itself. (i.e.) If, as you say, God is "Most High", then He either has the power to do whatever He wants and chooses exactly what He chooses (Biblical errancy), or, He is limited and does not have full/complete control of this situation - (which looks to fly in the face of the given term "Most High")?

Side note... To assure you do not try to express how I am issuing a false dichotomy, either He (does or does not) have complete control.

Another side note.... If He does not have complete control, maybe you might want to instead use the term "pretty High" instead of "Most High"?

This is a thing that comes out of the discussion about 'what do you mean by God?'. This popped up in former debates where some Theists thought it cute to demand that atheists define God before discussion. I don't know whether the idea was to put the atheist on the defensive, but the response was that the atheists (on the board) said the theists should define God - it was what they believed in after all - and then we'd know what was being discussed. I recall we has one slippery theophanic eel who said 'that's not what I mean by God' every time we tried an argument and this 'well you atheists should define God' came out of it.

Our pal otseng above has a very different take on God...I think. It would seem that he doesn't believe that God is all knowing or all powerful, which is sure different from the creator of Everything who had it all planned before he stated wadding Cosmic Stuff together into the BB event. This raises the 'is god an alien species' discussion which throws up 'is there more than one God?', 'Why should we worship an alien bully?' and 'does God know what He is doing?' which sure fits the big human blundering around Eden calling for Adam 'Come out wherever you are', having a flood that wiped out animals that hadn't done any harm (1), and then being sorry he'd done it afterwards. It would make a lot more sense if God did Not know how things would turn out and is just as much in the dark as we are.

(1) the apologetic about T -Rex, peacefully browsing the Adunaic grassland until Adam disobeyed and T-Rex resultantly realised that his powerful Jaws would be just the thing to use on the Triceratops that were used for kiddy - rides at the Eden fairgrounds, is the apologetic for explaining that all creation became wicked because of Adam's fall. Which of course makes Noah's job harder as he really should pick the most Righteous breeding pair of critters to take on the Ark.

Good to know I gathered this interlocutor's view looks to be very fringe... I just came off of a 4 year stent of debating on another apologetics forum arena; where I've seen all 'types" of theists... It's funny how no two seem to be alike I know this is hyperbolic, but I trust you know what I mean...

I just responded to this poster again.... We shall see how the slope slips... I predict a perpetual moving target

[Diagoras]

2) The optimal method for you (otseng) and X other people acquiring knowledge of a god would be to have that god impart it directly to all of you simultaneously.

Do you agree with Statement 2?

No, I don't agree with it. The Israelite saw God directly act when they were delivered from Egypt, saved from Pharoah's army, fed in the wilderness, given the law, etc and yet they still did not believe. Direct personal encounters with God does not necessarily mean it would result in any change in belief or action.

As you said, "If God spoke to me, yes, I'd agree.", I took that to mean you'd trust God not to lie to you, and that you'd be able to fully understand God's will as it pertained to you. Further, you'd then be 'closer to God' than you'd ever become from studying the Bible (however diligently).

Emphasising that this is a hypothetical future interaction (not a historical one), I don't understand why you'd then change your mind about Statement 2. Consider the case where you experience a direct interaction (Statement 1), and then the following morning, meet a close friend who proceeds to tell you of his own experience. The shared information that each of you has in this thought experiment can only have come directly from God, and therefore only adds to the level of belief you'd already experienced in Statement 1.

The only counter-argument I can see would be that multiple interactions like this somehow 'dilute' the message, but in granting that there is a god capable of creating a universe, the act of communicating consistently with people - and not diluting the message - would seem to be within its capabilities.

Are you arguing 'dilution', or some other reason why having a close friend verify your own experience would somehow be less believable than if God only spoke to you? It seems to me that one person may suffer a hallucination, but two (or more) people are unlikely to suffer the exact same hallucination independently - thus providing a higher level of proof for God's contacting them.

If that group of people existed thousands of years ago, how would that message be communicated to us now?

One way would be discovering multiple identical copies of Genesis that had been written down independently in several different countries at the same time, despite no obvious cultural interactions between them. God could easily guide his people's hands to ensure such important works were kept from being destroyed, since he can control earthquakes, plagues, floods and fire.

Theism does not necessarily mean God is omnipotent.

I thought I'd clarified that we can take omnipotence off the table - it's not needed. All God has to do is directly communicate with multiple people in such a way that all of them understand the message and can 'verify' the source (through gaining knowledge that could only come from a Creator of the Universe). If God can communicate with one person, then what reason is there to doubt he could communicate with many people?

Humans have figured this out. Consider the example of nuclear launch codes: the message (a code) needs to be perfectly understood and must be trusted to have come from a single source.

[otseng]

Our pal otseng above has a very different take on God...I think. It would seem that he doesn't believe that God is all knowing or all powerful, which is sure different from the creator of Everything who had it all planned before he stated wadding Cosmic Stuff together into the BB event.

If you want to understand my take, please read through the thread I referred to in post 73. Contrary to what others might believe, I actually have a life outside of this forum and I need to make efficient use of my time here. I've already debated my position on omnipotence which took some time just to debate that and I don't want to rehash that.

That conclusion is only valid if the story is true. All the evidence, together with lack of confirming evidence, indicates that the enslavement of the Israelites and subsequent exodus from Egypt is nothing more than a myth. People become believers on the basis of far less compelling evidence than personal encounters with God so I think that the latter would actually be far more profound in its effect. On the other hand, my position is that the vast majority of believers are made by having their beliefs inculcated via childhood indoctrination and not through any evaluation of evidence or personal encounters with a deity.

Whether the story is true or not would be a good debate topic for another thread. For now, we can even take it as an allegorical story whose entire purpose was to illustrate some spiritual truth. Even with that assumption, the illustration stands.

You look to side with the notion that God is not all powerful... Okay... This must mean you are more on the side of B). Which means you think Paul is mistaken?

I'm not sure how to make this more clear. All I'm talking about is the term "omnipotent". That term should be thrown out because the word "omnipotent" is meaningless and we should not attribute that word to YHVH. God is still creator of the universe, the supreme being, the most powerful, etc.

[otseng]

Good to know I gathered this interlocutor's view looks to be very fringe... I just came off of a 4 year stent of debating on another apologetics forum arena; where I've seen all 'types" of theists... It's funny how no two seem to be alike I know this is hyperbolic, but I trust you know what I mean...

Actually, I believe my position is quite reasonable and I feel quite certain I can convince any Christian to my side.

[otseng]

If that group of people existed thousands of years ago, how would that message be communicated to us now?

One way would be discovering multiple identical copies of Genesis that had been written down independently in several different countries at the same time, despite no obvious cultural interactions between them. God could easily guide his people's hands to ensure such important works were kept from being destroyed, since he can control earthquakes, plagues, floods and fire.

And implicit in your answer is some written record would need to be available to communicate it with others.

If multiple independent cultures all around the world mention one common event, would you accept it to be true?

Humans have figured this out. Consider the example of nuclear launch codes: the message (a code) needs to be perfectly understood and must be trusted to have come from a single source.

Nuclear launch codes are also written down in order to be transmitted from one person to another.

Further, you'd then be 'closer to God' than you'd ever become from studying the Bible (however diligently).

I'd disagree with this, unless God is dictating to me the words of the Bible to me constantly.

Are you arguing 'dilution', or some other reason why having a close friend verify your own experience would somehow be less believable than if God only spoke to you? It seems to me that one person may suffer a hallucination, but two (or more) people are unlikely to suffer the exact same hallucination independently - thus providing a higher level of proof for God's contacting them.

Yes, I agree if more than one person's views agree, then there's a more likelihood they both heard from God and not just independently hallucinating.

God could easily guide his people's hands to ensure such important works were kept from being destroyed, since he can control earthquakes, plagues, floods and fire.

Yes and no. Yes, God can preserve and control. No, God doesn't have to preserve perfectly or control every natural disaster.

[POI]

You look to side with the notion that God is not all powerful... Okay... This must mean you are more on the side of B). Which means you think Paul is mistaken?

I'm not sure how to make this more clear. All I'm talking about is the term "omnipotent". That term should be thrown out because the word "omnipotent" is meaningless and we should not attribute that word to YHVH. God is still creator of the universe, the supreme being, the most powerful, etc.

I'm not sure how much more clear I can be I ultimately asked of you a simple question...

When Paul asserted that ALL Scripture is to be uses for teaching/training, was Paul wrong?

[nobspeople]

[Replying to otseng in post #95]

the word "omnipotent" is meaningless and we should not attribute that word to YHVH. God is still creator of the universe, the supreme being, the most powerful, etc.

It's not meaningless as it literally means (of a deity) having unlimited power; able to do anything.
Which seems to be the same as 'the most powerful'. If god's the most powerful, that would mean there's nothing more powerful and, by all intents and purposes, all powerful relatively.
Seeing it differently seems almost pedantic.
Rather or not it should be attributed to anything or one is another topic.

Unless, you mean god's 99.9% all powerful, but there's nothing 100% all powerful (which, again, is debatable).
So, if there's nothing more powerful (aka most powerful) it doesn't really matter: all powerful or most - there's nothing greater in power.

[Diogenes]

Atheism and secularism also provide no guidance at all, and leave the door open to philosophies justifying whatever horrendous things one wants.

I agree atheism and secularism provide no moral guidance at all.people to recall an event with the exact same details. If they did, most likely there was collusion. So, contradictions are to be expected.

I disagree, but we must define terms. I suggest that both atheism and secularism stand for the absence of belief in gods and keeping such belief away from society's various systems of governance and organization. Atheism/secularism is what remains. What remains are many cultures, all of which prize a basic morality, a morality easily explained by evolution. Early man, perhaps slowly and too often only within their respective tribe, learned that cooperation gave them a better chance for survival and comfort. For cooperation, one needs a certain sense of empathy and consideration for others.

Thus, evolution and the need for cooperative society invented morality, and the need for morals invented various religions to enforce those morals. It is not the other way around. Thus this supports Goat's remark that theism does not produce morality. Rather, the need for morality spawned theism, the rather primitive idea of some giant anthropomorphic 'GOD' who will drown everyone if they don't play nice.