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]

With a Bible, Christians in China and Christians in Africa can agree on things. Without it, there would be little basis for agreement. (Yes, I hear the skeptics pointing out Christians don't agree on everything. But, without a book, there certainly would be much more disagreements.) With a Bible, at least there's an agreed upon starting point for discussions.

As you noted yourself, there has been a significant amount of disagreement among Christians, let alone unbelievers, which has resulted in a very large number of different sects each one claiming that they have the truth. To me that is not a good thing compared with the possibility of having a book that is clear and unambiguous in its message. How is it that God was able to create an entire universe in all of its complexity, fine tuning everything to the umpteenth decimal place to function properly, but was apparently unable to apply the same degree of precision to the most important document he provided for the benefit of all humanity? The starting point for discussion that you suggested seems to have been more of a starting point for schism which could easily have been avoided.

[otseng]

A book is also a good method to reliably transmit information. Oral communication is prone to errors, esp. when it has to span a large space and time.

I agree it's a better method. But not inerrant.

No method is inerrant, whether it would be oral or written (or even digital for that matter).

It's my understanding that tam does hear from Christ directly - given the 'theism is true' assumption above. Direct god to person interaction would be the most objective interaction, surely?

I'm not discounting the possibility of God speaking directly to people. And it certainly does happen. But on what basis can we judge what they say is true?

We have people coming all the time on this forum claiming to hear directly from God. Yet, on this forum, it has no place as evidence. It is subjective evidence in that it is based on one person's experience. It is not something we can judge if it's true or false. He or she could have heard from God, or just made it all up, or heard from whatever. People like to say here, "Show me the peer reviewed article." They ask for objective evidence that they can look at themselves to verify claims. In the same way, a book is an objective source and certainly more objective than personal experience.

And given a god's assumed omnipresence and omnipotence, direct interaction with everyone is possible.

I question this assumption of omnipotence. How do you know God is omnipotent?

Starting from your initial assumptions, the optimal method for acquiring knowledge of a god would be to have that god impart it directly to whosoever required it.

If God spoke to me, yes, I'd agree. But for those that God does not speak directly to, that option would not be available.

[otseng]

How is it that God was able to create an entire universe in all of its complexity, fine tuning everything to the umpteenth decimal place to function properly, but was apparently unable to apply the same degree of precision to the most important document he provided for the benefit of all humanity?

Even with the fine-tuning of the universe, not everyone accepts it or believes in it. So, there is no conformity there either.

All these hypotheticals about what a perfect God should have done could go on forever. We can make up endless hypothetical questions. But ultimately, it boils down to the assumption of an omnipotent God. I do not make the claim that God is omnipotent. And actually, I believe God is NOT omnipotent.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to otseng in post #73]

Even with the fine-tuning of the universe, not everyone accepts it or believes in it.

Perhaps, but that's simply an excuse. It's a lot easier to 'believe' and 'accept' a book that's contradiction and error free than understanding the entire universe.

We can make up endless hypothetical questions. But ultimately, it boils down to the assumption of an omnipotent God.

Yes. Much like everything that's debated here.

[POI]

God is NOT omnipotent.

Then why call Him God?

[brunumb]

How is it that God was able to create an entire universe in all of its complexity, fine tuning everything to the umpteenth decimal place to function properly, but was apparently unable to apply the same degree of precision to the most important document he provided for the benefit of all humanity?

Even with the fine-tuning of the universe, not everyone accepts it or believes in it. So, there is no conformity there either.

It's not about conformity in that belief. That's not the point I was making. If God had the intelligence and ability to do something as significant as creating and fine-tuning the universe, then surely he could have applied the same precision to the production of the Bible. A Bible completely free of ambiguities and errors is surely a preferable alternative. Having people being able to read the same book and come to the same understanding and the same conclusions seems to me a lot better than what we have now.

[otseng]

God is NOT omnipotent.

Then why call Him God?

God is just a generic term. We can use more a more specific name, like YHVH, if need be.

It's not about conformity in that belief. That's not the point I was making. If God had the intelligence and ability to do something as significant as creating and fine-tuning the universe, then surely he could have applied the same precision to the production of the Bible. A Bible completely free of ambiguities and errors is surely a preferable alternative. Having people being able to read the same book and come to the same understanding and the same conclusions seems to me a lot better than what we have now.

And my point is even if the Bible had high precision, what guarantee would there be that people would come to the same understanding and conclusion when we have a universe that has extremely high precision and there's no uniformity of acceptance of God. As an aside, I do think the Bible has mathematical fine-tuning/design in it, but I'll leave that for later.

One major difference of the universe and the Bible though is God directly created the universe whereas the Bible was directly created by people. The Bible did not get created out of nothing or out of the dust of the ground or fall down from the sky. It was written by people. So, it will be subject to human frailties and limitations.

Now if people require to worship a God that is omnipotent and supernaturally created a perfect book from nothing, more power to you. Feel free to worship that religion (if such a religion exists). But, this religion would not be Christianity.

[POI]

God is NOT omnipotent.

Then why call Him God?

God is just a generic term. We can use more a more specific name, like YHVH, if need be.

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?

[brunumb]

One major difference of the universe and the Bible though is God directly created the universe whereas the Bible was directly created by people. The Bible did not get created out of nothing or out of the dust of the ground or fall down from the sky. It was written by people. So, it will be subject to human frailties and limitations.

That's the problem. It was written by people and there is nothing about it that necessitates the involvement of any deity.

[otseng]

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.

It was written by people and there is nothing about it that necessitates the involvement of any deity.

For purposes of this thread, can assume that. Definitely God is not the primary causation of the Bible. However, I do believe God can be involved through secondary causation. Can I explain how? Not really. But here's something that happened to a friend of mine this past week that illustrates secondary causation. Bill is quite old and was experiencing cramps and vomiting. His wife called an ambulance to bring him to the hospital. When the medics came, they explained to her she could not go to the hospital because of covid policy. She had no idea then what to do. Then at that moment, Eric drives into their driveway because there was a massive traffic jam and he stopped by to use their bathroom. Finding out what happened, he stayed with Bill's wife to be with her, got things settled with the hospital, relayed to his wife how he was doing, and then contacted friends and family about the situation. From what Eric could tell, he was not controlled by God when he was looking for a place to pee, but turns out he was at the right time and right place during all this.