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]

It seems to come down to this old debate about that validity of 'negative evidence'. Not to say (with otsseng's point) putting the burden of proof onto the doubter to prove that a thing did not happen, rather than the believer demonstrating that it did.

The burden of providing evidence is on those who makes the claim.

I've claimed the NT authors testify to the resurrection of Jesus. Here are some written accounts to support the claim:

Matt 28:5-7 (KJV)
5 And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified.
6 He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
7 And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you.

Mark 16:6 (KJV)
6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him.

Luke 24:6-7 (KJV)
6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,
7 saying, the Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

John 20:8-9 (KJV)
8 Then went in also that other disciple, which came first to the sepulcher, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.

Acts 26:22-23 (KJV)
22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:
23 That Christ should suffer, [and] that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

Rom 6:4-9 (KJV)
4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also [in the likeness] of [his] resurrection:
6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him,] that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7 For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.

1Cor 15:3-4 (KJV)
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures:

Phil 3:10 (KJV)
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

Heb 13:20 (KJV)
20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

1Pet 1:3 (KJV)
3 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

The argument I press about the resurrection accounts is that the prima facie case for it being a reliable record as eyewitness testimony is undermined because the accounts contradict pretty much totally.

The details can differ, but the main point - the resurrection of Jesus - is not undermined.

I contrast this with the crucifixion which agrees on the basics, even though there are contradictory element which can be regarded as additions by the writers, or editors, rather.

I think we're going full circle back to inerrancy. If inerrancy is not a prerequisite for the authority of scripture, then it is the basics that is important and authors can either intentionally or unintentionally differ in the minor details.

So, using this approach, what can seriously challenge the resurrection of Jesus are claims he did not rise from the dead. There are actually claims found in the Bible that Jesus did not rise from the dead, but I'll let others present those.

I'm sure we've done this before. Yes. for sure Paul (if you believe he was a real person and author of at least the epistles up to about Ephesians) was claiming that Jesus rose from the dead but with a Pharisee -resurrection mindset. That is, they lay in tombs with the spirit 'fallen asleep' until the Last days when they would be awoken to be judged. Jesus was taken up directly to heaven, either in the body or the spirit. Paul remarks rather deprecatingly about Jesus in the flesh, which suggests that he didn't rise in a new heavenly body, which the resurrection stories don't describe anyway (they describe the old one with the dents and scrapes) , but in the (messianic- not divine) spirit, which would try again later. Which is what we get from the gospels.

I argue that..hang on...yes the One Corinthian, 15....the appearance to Paul was visionary (after all the others) and that is what is described as being seen by the others. It does not match the Gospel account. Thus, we have only the agreement on an empty tomb and the original (on evidence, asini Mark) had NO appearance of Jesus and an explanation as to to why the women said nothing about it.
The angelic message is not in John, so we can put that down to some scriptwriting exegesis . (1) and the interesting remark in Matthew that the Jews said that the disciples stole the body, which at least shows the claim of the missing body and the Jewish explanation (known or ad hoc) was going the rounds in in Matthew's time (2).

So, if we didn't discuss this before, my argument is that the Gospel accounts are not valid evidence. Mark is evidence of a claim of an empty tomb and a resurrection, early belief in which cannot be doubted, but that it was a solid body (dead Jesus come alive) resurrection really can be doubted, and reasonably argued that the contradictions debunk the Gospel accounts and leave the burden of proof on the Bible -believers. These are not and cannot be, credible eyewitness accounts or even credible hearsay. They are concocted stories on their own evidence, even if a demonstrable example of fabrication did not already exist in the nativities, and were moreover burdened with other contradictions, such as the death of Judas, the penitent thief, the announcement in the Temple, no Transfiguration in John, the Sermons, Matthew 5-7 and Luke 6 and 11- 17 inclusive.....
and...and most of the rest of the Book..

Incidentally, I have been looking into the Hydroplate theory a bit further and the most bothersome thing (surprisingly) is how to relate this drawing of a reservoir in the ground spouting through the apparently flat earth's crust
to anything that would fit into today's global geology. Evidently Walt Brown places it in the Atlantic with the Atlantic ridge depicted as something to do with it. But when I try to make it animate in my head, It just doesn't look workable.

Anyway, have a Merry and Omighod - free Christmas and worry not that, even if Joseph went to Not his own town to sign up for a tax that didn't apply to Galilee, there would be no point whatsoever in dragging his pregnant wife along Other than a scripture -fulfilment needed for a Galilean to give birth in Judea.

(1) the worst Sci Fi episode I ever saw was a 'Space Family Robinson' episode where a comedian dressed as a carrot ran Robby the Robot through a discombubulator, and, when he came out unscathed, the Carrot explained with a smile that he had been protected from the discombubulatory rays by love. I put my head in my hands and moaned 'Oh Christ, nooo' and I was only 9 at the time.

(2) Damn' I'm parched....let me try my Experimental Tipple....cheap white wine and cheap ruby port, commingled...God., that's vile..

[mgb]

I think it is a mistake to think the bible is the word of God from start to finish. It is a Jewish history filled with folklore, myth, and storytelling. But God also is part of Jewish history and this reality also comes through in the bible. But because the bible has been added to and subtracted from and distorted by many things it is not a simple matter to know exactly which words are from God. But there are themes in the bible that are consistent across many of its books; God the creator, God the Father, God who chose the Jewish people to reveal His word to the nations, the end times, the conflict between good and evil, the path of righteousness and so on. All these themes emerge we should try to understand if these themes reveal God's presence in the bible and God's Will for the Jews and for us. But ultimately God's Will is revealed in silent prayer. Be still and know the I Am God.

[brunumb]

I think it is a mistake to think the bible is the word of God from start to finish.

It's also a mistake to simply accept that God has anything to do with the Bible at all except as the fictional central character.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm sure that's what it is. Two books written by different religions with different agendas (Just as - I argue - Buiddhism simply took Hinduism with the Gods removed and wrote a book with a central character - based on a Historical Gotthama Siddhartha or not - to explain the reinvented religion). The first being religious history of Judaism explaining that they are God's people and if they sometimes got clobbered, it was because they had backslid away from God somehow ("You can always find someone to punish if you try hard enough" - Watership down). But through the agency of Paul reinventing a Law - free Judaism to peddle to his cultural fellows (Greeks and Romans) a new religion appeared and a whole new book had to be written with an invented protagonist (based perhaps of a real person) explaining the new teachings.

[mgb]

I'm sure that's what it is. Two books written by different religions with different agendas (Just as - I argue - Buiddhism simply took Hinduism with the Gods removed and wrote a book with a central character - based on a Historical Gotthama Siddhartha or not - to explain the reinvented religion). The first being religious history of Judaism explaining that they are God's people and if they sometimes got clobbered, it was because they had backslid away from God somehow ("You can always find someone to punish if you try hard enough" - Watership down). But through the agency of Paul reinventing a Law - free Judaism to peddle to his cultural fellows (Greeks and Romans) a new religion appeared and a whole new book had to be written with an invented protagonist (based perhaps of a real person) explaining the new teachings.

St. Paul 'packaged' his interpretation of the life of Jesus in a mythology that was acceptable to the gentiles and this was a powerful way of spreading the teaching of Jesus. All grist for the mill, because it is not the external myth that matters, it is the essential teaching of Jesus that matters. It is hard to see how much truth is in Paul's particular take on the life of Jesus but it does not matter. He brought the essential teachings to the Romans and that is what matters. Thereafter the saints and teachers of the Church refined the teachings of Christianity, hopefully bringing it in line with what Jesus wanted. Religion evolves through the ages.

[mgb]

Paul remarks rather deprecatingly about Jesus in the flesh, which suggests that he didn't rise in a new heavenly body, which the resurrection stories don't describe anyway (they describe the old one with the dents and scrapes) , but in the (messianic- not divine) spirit, which would try again later. Which is what we get from the gospels.

One gospel account (I forget which) says Jesus appeared in a 'different form'. As spirit? Btw, I read some time ago that the story of the resurrection is unlikely to be invented because the main witnesses were women. The thing is, women at the time were not seen as trustworthy. That is why they were not allowed to witness in court. So, if you were making up a story you would not have women as witnesses. But the witnesses are women and this suggests an honest account of what happened.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is the idea and belief that the Church wants us to have. But is it true? It's a given of reason that no claim is worth a damn' without evidence. The evidence is the gospels, Acts and Paul. But can we trust them? Can we trust the Christian interpretation? I have argued that the gospels themselves aren't reliable. Nor is Acts and Paul is open to question, too.

The preaching has been that Jesus did ewhat the Gospels say, the diciples/apostles passed it on (Acts) and Paul took it to the Gentiles (Acts and Paul's letters).

But there's a problem already. Jesus in the Gospels is God incarnated from the start. So that is what the disciples passed onto Paul. But Paul does not regard Jesus as divine but as messianic; chosen of God for a purpose. Even Acts, while Jesus in the gospels declared all foods clean (Mark) Acts shows Peter refusing food that was not. Paul backs this up by a wrangle with Peter about ritual cleanliness. This shouldn't have been an issue if the Gospel teachings had come first. But it makes sense if they were written afterwards, taking Paul's teachings and putting them into Jesus' mouth and in fact going further than Paul would have tolerated.
by mgb » Fri Dec 24, 2021 11:51 am

TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Thu Dec 23, 2021 1:44 pm
Paul remarks rather deprecatingly about Jesus in the flesh, which suggests that he didn't rise in a new heavenly body, which the resurrection stories don't describe anyway (they describe the old one with the dents and scrapes) , but in the (messianic- not divine) spirit, which would try again later. Which is what we get from the gospels.
One gospel account (I forget which) says Jesus appeared in a 'different form'. As spirit? Btw, I read some time ago that the story of the resurrection is unlikely to be invented because the main witnesses were women. The thing is, women at the time were not seen as trustworthy. That is why they were not allowed to witness in court. So, if you were making up a story you would not have women as witnesses. But the witnesses are women and this suggests an honest account of what happened.

I'm willing to credit the empty tomb, for the reasons you say, as well as a common claim in all four, though not the angelic explanation, because John doesn't have it. But that only means that the body had gone and they didn't know where. And we still don't know for sure as none of the gospel explanations can be trusted because they fatally contradict each other.

[brunumb]

One gospel account (I forget which) says Jesus appeared in a 'different form'. As spirit? Btw, I read some time ago that the story of the resurrection is unlikely to be invented because the main witnesses were women. The thing is, women at the time were not seen as trustworthy. That is why they were not allowed to witness in court. So, if you were making up a story you would not have women as witnesses. But the witnesses are women and this suggests an honest account of what happened.

On the other hand, if women were considered as untrustworthy there might have been a good reason for that. The women may have been completely mistaken, or even lied about what they saw for whatever reason. One can speculate until the cows come home but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

[JehovahsWitness]

... none of the gospel explanations can be trusted because they fatally contradict each other.

What do you mean by "fatally contradict each other"? If you mean they contain details which cannot all be true, your statement is incorrect.




JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

CONTRADICTIONS , SEQUENCING and ...EASTER CHALLENGES*

* harmonizing the resurrection narratives



¤ Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... tradiction

[TRANSPONDER]

One gospel account (I forget which) says Jesus appeared in a 'different form'. As spirit? Btw, I read some time ago that the story of the resurrection is unlikely to be invented because the main witnesses were women. The thing is, women at the time were not seen as trustworthy. That is why they were not allowed to witness in court. So, if you were making up a story you would not have women as witnesses. But the witnesses are women and this suggests an honest account of what happened.

On the other hand, if women were considered as untrustworthy there might have been a good reason for that. The women may have been completely mistaken, or even lied about what they saw for whatever reason. One can speculate until the cows come home but it doesn't get us any closer to the truth.

No, I don't mean that. Incorrect facts is not the same as statements that contradict each other.