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

[TRANSPONDER]

You may be able to correct me.But Moses would hardly have gone through a Hebrew circumcision -rite. Though despite the tribe being rigorous in this Abrahamic rite, they were sacrificing people and donkeys in the Hyksos burials..unless you concede that they aren't Hebrew at all.

The point is that I don't know how Moses is supposed to know that he was a Hebrew at all.

Apart from that the burden of proof is on you to show that the Israelites even existed before the 11th c BC and my evidence has been presented to show no real evidence that they were there and some reasons to suppose they were not. I already pointed out the anachronism of the Philistines even before the Philistines appeared. I don't recall you addressing that other than some vague excuses about people making mistakes or errors. Pardon me, you do not make mistakes and errors by thinking up people that wouldn't exist until about fifty or more years later. That suggests a history written so long after that they forgot what actually happened.

For the rest you give a lovely Pharonic history lesson but don't do a solitary thing to show that the Israelites were even in Canaan let alone Egypt before the 11th c. B C. Your point about stone blocks is putrid. Since the workforce did haul stone blocks, that is a reasonable analogy of how, even if the Bible story differed, you could make that fit just as well, the point being that it is Not evidence that the Exodus story is true just because you can get it to fit the history.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Said good.

If they got something right, it was by accident.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #932]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims.

Apparently everything in the universe is moving away from us at around the same pace.

How is this possible to observe, if we were not in the approximate center of that observable field?

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #932]

If they got something right, it was by accident.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #932]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims.

Apparently everything in the universe is moving away from us at around the same pace.

How is this possible to observe, if we were not in the approximate center of that observable field?

The red shift (doppler effect) shows whether a star is moving towards us or away. You know, you could type simple queries like these on the Internet rather than try to stump the Atheists with these 'Ha! If they can't explain this they must be wrong about Everything and God is the only answer'. That has never been a valid argument, though that doesn't stop it being the One Shot Win that theist apologetics is always after (and accuses atheist apologetics of doing).

[TRANSPONDER]

P.s On 2nd reading (I was trying to stirfry supper when I typed it) I wasn't fair to you. If everything is expanding (including me) in relative distance, everything (all the galaxies) would appear to be in the center. I think I'm right in saying that all galaxies red shift but some stars in our Galaxy blue -shift because they are moving away from us.

Now a p.s about Hatshepsut and Otseng's Moses -theory.

Time line to note

Senusret 111. 1878 -1839 BCE. (supposedly the Pharaoh that had Joseph (as cupbearer) advising him to control the governors, expand Egypt into Nubia etc.

2nd intermediate period, 13th- 17th dynasties, Hyksos and Theban dynasties. Joseph's statue in a colored coat in Avaris. 1802 -1550 BC. I suppose it would be possible to see this as a mature Moses in his position of Hyksos authority whereas he was relatively young as Cupbearer to Senusret, who knew what he liked, but three hundred years in between?

18th dynasty. Hyksos rule ended Ahmose 1, Amenhotep 1 Thutmore 1 Thutmose II
Hatshepsut. 1479 - 1459. During this time according to Otseng's theory, Moses is becoming a champion of the Israelites, since Hyksos rule was ended, enslaved and making useless bricks just to spite them. Clearly she could only have found Moses as a basket case in the reigns of Ahmose I or Amenhotep I. So either the theory of Moses being that statue in Avaris, never mind adviser to Senosret has to be dropped or we have to abandon Hatshepsut as anything to do with Moses.

We get Thutmose III and Amenhotep II, both candidates for the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Moses being a fairly old man by this time. Unless Otseng wants to dismiss any reasonable Egyptian Chronology, Hatshepsut might have had a Galadriel/Gasndalf relationship with old Moyse but that really puts pressure on the case for some authority position under the Hyksos, forget about Senusret.

So let's say we have Moses and the israelites swanning about Sinai under (say) Amenhotep II and under Akhenaten, Egypt's grip on Canaan slips (1352 - 1292 BC) and the Conquest starts. The squeals of panic from Canaanite Jerusalem would fit, and it's over by the time the 19th dynasty and Ramesses II and his son Mentuhotep campaign in Canaan and we get the first mention of Israel.

So, like I say, there is a reasonable time line, but something has to go. Senusret, the Hyksos or Hatshepsut. The Joseph story can't fit all three. I know that some tried to fit Ramesses II into the story on the flimsy evidence that building his new capital would require bricks. But that would require a redrawn Moses/Exodus chronology.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #932]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims.

Apparently everything in the universe is moving away from us at around the same pace.

How is this possible to observe, if we were not in the approximate center of that observable field?

The red shift (doppler effect) shows whether a star is moving towards us or away. You know, you could type simple queries like these on the Internet rather than try to stump the Atheists with these 'Ha! If they can't explain this they must be wrong about Everything and God is the only answer'. That has never been a valid argument, though that doesn't stop it being the One Shot Win that theist apologetics is always after (and accuses atheist apologetics of doing).

How does your reply actually answer my question?

[Diogenes]

The point is, you can look this stuff up yourself. In fact, I've already posted about this. There is no 'center' of the universe. Yes, it is expanding very quickly, but gravity is a factor. We are not getting farther away from the Sun. Our solar system remains intact with the same distances between the bodies. Same is true for entire galaxies. Yet the universe as a whole is expanding. The scale involved is so great it is difficult to comprehend.

The Hubble telescope has revealed about 100 billion galaxies in the universe, but as telescope technology improves, we will probably be aware of 200 billion galaxies. No one knows how many there actually are.
If you actually want to understand this stuff, you can carefully read thru sites like https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro80 ... 10_p4.html

But there is a reason so few people truly understand Einstein's theories on relativity... and even he initially rejected quantum mechanics. Truth can be notoriously difficult to understand and even harder to explain. Simple stuff like the Earth being 6000 years old and created in 6 days by a 'god' (no evolution required) is MUCH, MUCH simpler, easier to comprehend, and WRONG.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #932]

None of this disputes the fact the Earth is not the center of the universe or that it is immovable as the Bible claims.

Apparently everything in the universe is moving away from us at around the same pace.

How is this possible to observe, if we were not in the approximate center of that observable field?

The red shift (doppler effect) shows whether a star is moving towards us or away. You know, you could type simple queries like these on the Internet rather than try to stump the Atheists with these 'Ha! If they can't explain this they must be wrong about Everything and God is the only answer'. That has never been a valid argument, though that doesn't stop it being the One Shot Win that theist apologetics is always after (and accuses atheist apologetics of doing).

How does your reply actually answer my question?

The point is that from where you stand, you can tell yourself that you are in the centre and everything is measurable from where you are. If everything is expanding relatively, then it would look like you are in the centre of an expanding world, but it will look like that for everything else, too. The appearance of all extra -galactic material moving away does not actually mean that we are the center of the universe.

Erratum, I meant that blue shift shows that some starts in our galaxy are moving towards us. In fact as I recall the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision - course with us.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #939]

The point is that from where you stand, you can tell yourself that you are in the centre and everything is measurable from where you are. If everything is expanding relatively, then it would look like you are in the centre of an expanding world, but it will look like that for everything else, too. The appearance of all extra -galactic material moving away does not actually mean that we are the center of the universe.

Then I can appreciate the Ancient Theists for their understanding - of both the Big Bang event [let there be light as in the case of the Abrahamic religions] and the idea of being at the center of everything. They were at least on the right track, and since they also thought that they got their inspiration from a vaster mind-source than their own minds/selves - they are likely on the right track re their being a Mind behind the creation of the universe.

Scientific method confirmed and then decided that there was no need for even a Cosmic Mind as they could 'do the science' without it - which in itself does not mean that there is no Cosmic Mind - or that they are even 'doing the science' without it...
In going that way, scientists ignored the fact that Theists were the first to make the observation and have since been on a crusade to 'kill "God"' and if they continue down that path eventually they will destroy theism and embrace transhumanism...which is what they are focused on achieving by using their devices to that end...

Erratum, I meant that blue shift shows that some starts in our galaxy are moving towards us. In fact as I recall the Andromeda galaxy is on a collision - course with us.

Well I suppose that the Future Transhuman Scientists will be searching for way to avoid that, as it will put a big spanner in their works...hell breaking loose and all...

But even that the merger is already underway, it won't fully merge until five billion years from now - by then - if transhuman scientists still exist, they are likely to know all things they could possibly know and may have long since built/become a Large Simulation Machines [LSM]in order to give them some relief from their ennui.
[I say 'their' but by then it is likely they would have merged their mind into One Mind.]

I know. It's a "Spoiler" but I doubt todays scientist will be concerned with such news.

Mind you, there may be a rude awakening from their simulations because things are going to be thrown hither and tither...or perhaps they will just die unawares and finally 'meet their maker' or 'fall into merciful oblivion' whatever the case may be...

Meanwhile, the Cosmic Mind [if it truly exists] has something different for Theists to experience over in more convivial timeless circumstances...so Win/Win as everyone got what they wanted...

But "What has this to do with the thread topic?" some might ask.

Simply put, when it comes to human involvement, nothing is so perfectly interpreted as to be considered "inerrant" and the only question which remains on that, is "Should anything errant be trusted?"

To which the answer would have to be "What else is there to trust in?"

Or maybe even "Why trust at all?" theism or non-theism inclusive.