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]

That's all fine, but I see no valid reason to suppose that Joseph or indeed Hebrews were anything to do with it.

The point is it aligns with the Biblical account of Exod 1:9-10.

As for us being near the center of the universe, what is your basis for such a statement? From what I read there IS no 'center' of the universe.

And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.

I suppose he is basing that on the idea that everything in the universe is moving away from us.In fact as the universe is expanding everything is moving away from everything else and I think we DO know where the center of the universe (our visible universe) is, and the hope is that the Webb telescope will be able to penetrate the dust and gas and show us what it looks like.

Yes and it has to do with the topology of the universe. I debated about it in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims. The Earth isn't even the center o,f the solar system.. The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG. This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.' One need look no farther to realize the Bible is the work of men and has no 'godly' authority.

[TRANSPONDER]

Brickmakers, Tomb of Rekhmire, ca. 1479–1425 BC

After Ahmose I reconquered Egypt and the surrounding areas, the conquered foreigners, including the Hyksos, were then forced as slaves.

"New Kingdom, with its relentless military operations, is the epoch of large-scale foreign slavery".
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

"The shift in the status of local work force is an evident sign of an overall evolution of Egyptian social fabric as a result of foreign involvement during the late Dynasty 18. Military and commercial activity brought many Asiatics to Egypt, either as booty or as slaves bought in slave markets."
https://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56 ... -6151.html

"Ahmose’s officers and soldiers were rewarded with spoil and captives, who became personal slaves."
https://www.britannica.com/place/ancien ... 9-1075-bce

Ahmose, son of Ebana, served in the Egyptian military under the pharaohs Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, and Thutmose I.

Ahmose was awarded slaves and other spoils by the pharaoh after Avaris was sacked.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmose,_son_of_Ebana

The foreigners captured during military campaigns are, for example, referred to in the Annals of Thutmose III as "men in captivity" and individuals were referred to as "dependents" (mrj). In reward for his services in the construction of temples across Egypt, Thutmose III rewarded his official Minmose over 150 "dependents". During and after the reign of Amenhotep II, coerced temple labor was only performed by male and female slaves.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Slavery_in_ancient_Egypt

If we look at the imagery of people making bricks in Rekhmire’s tomb, their dress is of simple loincloths like those of Egyptian peasants. Yet, the accompanying text specifically identifies them as captives brought by his majesty to make bricks for the temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes.

The men have various Levantine traits, one has blue eyes, two have light colored body hair and all three have light skin and hair. None of these physical traits would be used to depict Egyptian men. Another wall within the same tomb depicts Levantines at work, wearing plain white kilts, also an Egyptian style.

https://www.thetorah.com/article/levant ... yptian-art

Exod 1:11
Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Rameses.

Semitic ("Asiatic") laborers in Egypt making bricks, etc. (15th Century BCE), doing what Bible describes Hebrews as doing when enslaved in Egypt. The captions include the descriptions: "Captives whom his majesty brought, for the works of the temple of Amon" and "The taskmaster, he says to the builders: "The rod is in my hand; be not idle."

https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/nelc1 ... lide2.html

Exod 1:14
And they embittered their life by hard labours, in the clay and in brick-making, and all the works in the plains, according to all the works, wherein they caused them to serve with violence.

But hang on, it's talking of late 18th dynasty. That's after your time for the Exodus, isn't it? If the Hebrews had already left Egypt how could they still be working there as slaves?

That's all fine, but I see no valid reason to suppose that Joseph or indeed Hebrews were anything to do with it.

The point is it aligns with the Biblical account of Exod 1:9-10.

As for us being near the center of the universe, what is your basis for such a statement? From what I read there IS no 'center' of the universe.

And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.

I suppose he is basing that on the idea that everything in the universe is moving away from us.In fact as the universe is expanding everything is moving away from everything else and I think we DO know where the center of the universe (our visible universe) is, and the hope is that the Webb telescope will be able to penetrate the dust and gas and show us what it looks like.

Yes and it has to do with the topology of the universe. I debated about it in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

You can argue that, but you haven't made any case for the Hyksos including large numbers of Hebrews. The Bible does not depict the Hebrews as the ruling dynasty so all the time you talk about the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics or whatever, we are talking about Canaanites, not Hebrews, so all this is getting you nowhere.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's all fine, but I see no valid reason to suppose that Joseph or indeed Hebrews were anything to do with it.

The point is it aligns with the Biblical account of Exod 1:9-10.

As for us being near the center of the universe, what is your basis for such a statement? From what I read there IS no 'center' of the universe.

And so, without any point of origin, the universe has no center.

I suppose he is basing that on the idea that everything in the universe is moving away from us.In fact as the universe is expanding everything is moving away from everything else and I think we DO know where the center of the universe (our visible universe) is, and the hope is that the Webb telescope will be able to penetrate the dust and gas and show us what it looks like.

Yes and it has to do with the topology of the universe. I debated about it in Is the universe bounded or unbounded?

I recall there are scientific reasons why an unbounded universe does not light up all the sky. For one thing, light does decrease in intensity with distance which is why most stars are in fact invisible to us without a telescope, then there is intervening dust and gas that obscures many of them and third, that some stars are moving away so fast that it exceeds (relatively) the speed of light so the light can't reach us. There may be other reasons, too.

The point about calculating rocketry as though the earth was the center of the universe is because it's the center of the start of the journey. Just as you might plan your journeys as though your house was the center of the US, which probably it isn't.

I recall some Bible apologist on a former board using this 'rocket paths are calculated using the earth as 'center'. Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #913]

I recall some Bible apologist on a former board using this 'rocket paths are calculated using the earth as 'center'. Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

In modern cosmology terms, the unbounded universe is an eternal, infinitely expanding multiverse. In 2020, to say the universe is unbounded brings with it a whole host of assumptions like but not limited to:
1. An infinite number of other universes
2. Some sort of eternal mother universe.
3. The very high probability that we are part of a Boltzmann brain and not actual physical entities.

There is some physical evidence that the earth is at the center of this physical universe in which we live.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #913]

I recall some Bible apologist on a former board using this 'rocket paths are calculated using the earth as 'center'. Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

In modern cosmology terms, the unbounded universe is an eternal, infinitely expanding multiverse. In 2020, to say the universe is unbounded brings with it a whole host of assumptions like but not limited to:
1. An infinite number of other universes
2. Some sort of eternal mother universe.
3. The very high probability that we are part of a Boltzmann brain and not actual physical entities.

There is some physical evidence that the earth is at the center of this physical universe in which we live.

NONE of these statements and assumptions are correct. This may be why you've offered no support for any of them.
You also fail to support your claim of a multiverse which is merely a tautology for 'other universes.'

The notion of a 'multiverse' is just a theory, one of many ideas in modern cosmology.

"The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation. "
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/artic ... .33/246813

[otseng]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims. The Earth isn't even the center o,f the solar system.. The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG. This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.'

Let's table this. We can get back to cosmology after archaeology.

But hang on, it's talking of late 18th dynasty. That's after your time for the Exodus, isn't it? If the Hebrews had already left Egypt how could they still be working there as slaves?

There were still Hyksos in Egypt after the Exodus.

You can argue that, but you haven't made any case for the Hyksos including large numbers of Hebrews. The Bible does not depict the Hebrews as the ruling dynasty so all the time you talk about the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics or whatever, we are talking about Canaanites, not Hebrews, so all this is getting you nowhere.

Are you saying Hebrews are not a subset of the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics, Semitics, Canaanites, etc?

Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

It doesn't matter where I got my ideas. As long as I can support it with evidence is what matters.

[Diogenes]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims. The Earth isn't even the center o,f the solar system.. The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG. This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.'

Let's table this. We can get back to cosmology after archaeology.

But hang on, it's talking of late 18th dynasty. That's after your time for the Exodus, isn't it? If the Hebrews had already left Egypt how could they still be working there as slaves?

There were still Hyksos in Egypt after the Exodus.

You can argue that, but you haven't made any case for the Hyksos including large numbers of Hebrews. The Bible does not depict the Hebrews as the ruling dynasty so all the time you talk about the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics or whatever, we are talking about Canaanites, not Hebrews, so all this is getting you nowhere.

Are you saying Hebrews are not a subset of the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics, Semitics, Canaanites, etc?

Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

It doesn't matter where I got my ideas. As long as I can support it with evidence is what matters.

I have not studied this much, but I found this summary of scholarly belief:

"Archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelites primarily emerged natively from Canaan. A number of scholars do not believe that the exodus has any historical basis at all, while only those on the fundamentalist fringes accept the entire biblical account “unless [it] can be absolutely disproved”. The current consensus among archaeologists is that, if an Israelite exodus from Egypt occurred, it must have happened instead in the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt (in the 13th century BC), given the first appearance of a distinctive Israelite culture in the archaeological record. The potential connection of the Hyksos to the exodus is no longer a central focus of scholarly study of the Hyksos."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

[TRANSPONDER]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims. The Earth isn't even the center o,f the solar system.. The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG. This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.'

Let's table this. We can get back to cosmology after archaeology.

But hang on, it's talking of late 18th dynasty. That's after your time for the Exodus, isn't it? If the Hebrews had already left Egypt how could they still be working there as slaves?

There were still Hyksos in Egypt after the Exodus.

Exactly. That's Not what the Exodus suggests which is that all the Hebrews left and there were (effectively) none left to be slaves in Egypt. Hyksos (or Levantine) slaves in Egypt (as per your posts) after your proposed date of the Exodus means that can't be supporting evidence for your theory.

You can argue that, but you haven't made any case for the Hyksos including large numbers of Hebrews. The Bible does not depict the Hebrews as the ruling dynasty so all the time you talk about the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics or whatever, we are talking about Canaanites, not Hebrews, so all this is getting you nowhere.

Are you saying Hebrews are not a subset of the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics, Semitics, Canaanites, etc?

No. I'm saying that like the Edomites, Ammonites, Moabites, Babylonians and Assyrians (as much Semites as Hebrews), there is no evidence to show that they formed a substantial part of the Hyksos (whom I would suppose were drawn from the many Canaanite city - states) and remained behind after the Hyklsos Rule was ended so as to provide the "Hebrew" slaves that left Egypt in the Exodus. I don't think you've even done a sound job of fiddling Joseph and the account of Hebrew slavery in Egypt into what the history looks like, never mind wangling the evidence to try to make it look like it related to Hebrews.

Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

It doesn't matter where I got my ideas. As long as I can support it with evidence is what matters.

Ok You don't have to answer that. I was just wondering.

[TRANSPONDER]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims. The Earth isn't even the center o,f the solar system.. The Biblical cosmology is just plain WRONG. This constitutes the FACT the Genesis creation story was written by men not an all knowing 'god.'

Let's table this. We can get back to cosmology after archaeology.

But hang on, it's talking of late 18th dynasty. That's after your time for the Exodus, isn't it? If the Hebrews had already left Egypt how could they still be working there as slaves?

There were still Hyksos in Egypt after the Exodus.

You can argue that, but you haven't made any case for the Hyksos including large numbers of Hebrews. The Bible does not depict the Hebrews as the ruling dynasty so all the time you talk about the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics or whatever, we are talking about Canaanites, not Hebrews, so all this is getting you nowhere.

Are you saying Hebrews are not a subset of the Hyksos, Levantines, Asiatics, Semitics, Canaanites, etc?

Did you think this argument up yourself, or did you get it from an apologetics source? I'd be curious to know. Yes, I believe the 'an infinite universe should light up the sky' is a well -worn (and well refuted) apologetic, too. Dis you pick this one up or did it occur to you?

It doesn't matter where I got my ideas. As long as I can support it with evidence is what matters.

I have not studied this much, but I found this summary of scholarly belief:

"Archaeological evidence suggests that the Israelites primarily emerged natively from Canaan. A number of scholars do not believe that the exodus has any historical basis at all, while only those on the fundamentalist fringes accept the entire biblical account “unless [it] can be absolutely disproved”. The current consensus among archaeologists is that, if an Israelite exodus from Egypt occurred, it must have happened instead in the Nineteenth Dynasty of Egypt (in the 13th century BC), given the first appearance of a distinctive Israelite culture in the archaeological record. The potential connection of the Hyksos to the exodus is no longer a central focus of scholarly study of the Hyksos."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyksos

I grew up in a time when Genesis wasn't accepted as anything but a garbled memory of some origin in the fertile crescent (except by Genesis - literalists), but the Exodus was given a lot of credit as the origins of the Hebrew nation, aided of course by 'Biblical Archaeology'. I can recall that is was a bit of a seismic event when Kenyon's excavations at Jericho showed that the walls hadn't suddenly collapsed. And even Woolley's blithe relating of the mud -levels at Ur as the Flood were pointed up to be quite local and not the Global flood of the Bible. Since then it has come out that Jericho wasn't inhabited at the time of the 'Conquest' (11th c BC) and Israel rather emerged from the hills where it had been living for some time. The 10th Hebrew state was rather small and the buildings ascribed to Solomon are thought now to be the work of Omri.

In fact as time has gone on, the claims of Exodus, like Genesis, have been pushed back other than amongst Bible - believers. In the last decade I never saw anything like my own speculative suggestion that the Exodus WAS based on the expulsion of the Hyksos but revamped using Babylonian materials to provide an origin - story for the Hebrews. But during this discussion I found a lot of others have got the same idea.

In the 90's I saw Wyatt's 'Moses site' countered, like the Red sea crossing and chariot wheels in the Red sea and Exodus is on the retreat. I think (if and when it is universally dismissed, other than for Genesis/Exodus literalists) it won't even matter for the generality of Christians who are happy to roll with the Creation as just a myth.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #915]

"The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation. "
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/artic ... .33/246813

My point was not that this statement was correct. The point I was trying to make is that there are major problems with the eternal universe theory. But I will stop here because this discussion will be way off the OP. And it is discussed elsewhere.