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

[mgb]

I'd say that, all gospels agreeing it, there is a case that it is no more than a (very early) Christian claim for a solid -body version of an otherwise spirit - resurrection. The body itself walked.

I suspect that the resurrection was a vision of the spirit of Jesus (He appeared in a 'different form'). But this was not strong enough for the story so they had to have a physical resurrection to add more meat to the story. Christianity is a myth that is an echo of the truth. This myth - like a Trojan Horse - was the 'packaging' that delivered Christ's essential teaching to the gentiles. And so we have Christianity in its modern form.

But where was God in all of this? I think he allowed things to happen the way they did because these events were useful. They created a powerful story that helped Christianity spread.

Without this story it might have been much harder for Christianity to spread into the Roman Empire and the land of the gentiles. All grist for the mill and all's well that ends well. God uses everything!

Obviously I'm going to say that it works as well or better if it never happened at all and visions is just another word for imagination. It can hardly be God doing it as why would he arrange for people to have contradictory visions?

I also argue that the 'essential teachings' were Paul's and not Jesus'. The gospels were written to put Paul's teaching further Gentilized by the Greek Christians with Jesus turned from a messiah into a demi -god and Paul's hostility towards his opponents turned (with some ongoing anti -Judaism on the part of the Greeks) into a venom towards the Jews.

The rest is claiming that success proves truth. If that were so, Islam to claim to be true and not Christianity.

I think the contradictions emerge from the messiness of the world not God's Will.

I would not claim that success proves truth - it proves success! I don't see God as always imposing His Will on the world but rather creatively responding to events as they unfold. God uses what comes about. And in this case God used St. Paul and all these events to 'steal' Christ's essential teaching into the land of the gentiles. For me it is a matter of practicalities.

[Difflugia]

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

We've established in many threads that there are at least a few absolute contradictions no matter how disingenuously one treats the scriptures and the intentions of its authors. If we place even minimum constraints on how we're allowed to reinterpret language, Matthew 27:5a contradicts Acts 1:18a:

Matthew 27:5a:

He threw down the pieces of silver in the sanctuary and departed.

Acts 1:18a

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness

In English, the word "obtained" might be ambiguous enough to allow for the priests to have bought the field on Judas' behalf posthumously, but as explored in another thread the Greek word in question doesn't admit that kind of latitude. If Judas threw the money into the temple, he didn't "obtain" a field with it. If he "obtained" a field with the money, he didn't throw it into the temple.

[mgb]

In English, the word "obtained" might be ambiguous enough to allow for the priests to have bought the field on Judas' behalf posthumously, but as explored in another thread the Greek word in question doesn't admit that kind of latitude. If Judas threw the money into the temple, he didn't "obtain" a field with it. If he "obtained" a field with the money, he didn't throw it into the temple.

It has been argued that Judas Iscariot was a member of a rebel group and he betrayed Jesus not for silver but to put Jesus in a dangerous position so he would have to go along with Judas's wish for a physical rebellion and the pieces of silver were invented to cover up this fact.

[JehovahsWitness]

If Judas threw the money into the temple, he didn't "obtain" a field with it. If he "obtained" a field with the money, he didn't throw it into the temple.

If by "absolute contradictions" you mean there is no possible way both statements can be true, that is not accurate.

We know what "obtained" means but can we eliminate the possibility Judas obtained the field posthumously? (If today a man can father a child and publish a book after he dies, I cannot see why it is deemed impossible to buy a field)

[brunumb]

Now you are saying women can't be trusted because they are women. There is no obvious reason to mistrust these women.

You were the one claiming that women were not trusted, not me.

[brunumb]

We know what "obtained" means but can we eliminate the possibility Judas obtained the field posthumously? (If today a man can father a child and publish a book after he dies, I cannot see why it is deemed impossible to buy a field)

So now we have to believe that a dead Judas bought a field? Good grief.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'd say that, all gospels agreeing it, there is a case that it is no more than a (very early) Christian claim for a solid -body version of an otherwise spirit - resurrection. The body itself walked.

I suspect that the resurrection was a vision of the spirit of Jesus (He appeared in a 'different form'). But this was not strong enough for the story so they had to have a physical resurrection to add more meat to the story. Christianity is a myth that is an echo of the truth. This myth - like a Trojan Horse - was the 'packaging' that delivered Christ's essential teaching to the gentiles. And so we have Christianity in its modern form.

But where was God in all of this? I think he allowed things to happen the way they did because these events were useful. They created a powerful story that helped Christianity spread.

Without this story it might have been much harder for Christianity to spread into the Roman Empire and the land of the gentiles. All grist for the mill and all's well that ends well. God uses everything!

Obviously I'm going to say that it works as well or better if it never happened at all and visions is just another word for imagination. It can hardly be God doing it as why would he arrange for people to have contradictory visions?

I also argue that the 'essential teachings' were Paul's and not Jesus'. The gospels were written to put Paul's teaching further Gentilized by the Greek Christians with Jesus turned from a messiah into a demi -god and Paul's hostility towards his opponents turned (with some ongoing anti -Judaism on the part of the Greeks) into a venom towards the Jews.

The rest is claiming that success proves truth. If that were so, Islam to claim to be true and not Christianity.

I think the contradictions emerge from the messiness of the world not God's Will.

I would not claim that success proves truth - it proves success! I don't see God as always imposing His Will on the world but rather creatively responding to events as they unfold. God uses what comes about. And in this case God used St. Paul and all these events to 'steal' Christ's essential teaching into the land of the gentiles. For me it is a matter of practicalities.

That comes out to me awfully like saying that it is all man's doing and no need for a god to be involved at all. Certainly I won't expect you to credit that, but you can imagine whi I would look and say 'I see no god here'. To say, pretty much, that it all looks like human doings but postulating a god behind it, is a Faith - claim. I prefer to follow the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

We've established in many threads that there are at least a few absolute contradictions no matter how disingenuously one treats the scriptures and the intentions of its authors. If we place even minimum constraints on how we're allowed to reinterpret language, Matthew 27:5a contradicts Acts 1:18a:

Matthew 27:5a:

He threw down the pieces of silver in the sanctuary and departed.

Acts 1:18a

Now this man obtained a field with the reward for his wickedness

In English, the word "obtained" might be ambiguous enough to allow for the priests to have bought the field on Judas' behalf posthumously, but as explored in another thread the Greek word in question doesn't admit that kind of latitude. If Judas threw the money into the temple, he didn't "obtain" a field with it. If he "obtained" a field with the money, he didn't throw it into the temple.

That really doesn't work does it? They give the money to Judas and somehow he buys a field with it through their agency. So how can he throw the money back at them? If they then buy a field with the money it isn't for him, is it?

If the idea is to make the priests buying a field with the money he threw back at them somehow buying it for Judas simply and solely because the money was originally paid to him, it doesn't work, not even by appealing to ambiguity in the word 'obtained'.

On top of that we have the contradictory methods of dying. Neither of the accounts really match each other and it is necessary to combine two different deaths into one as well as two versions of who bougt the field into one, saying that using the money Judas had returned was actually buying it for him.

No, no. This is the Nativities all over again, with Matthew and Luke inventing contradictory stories to underpin one idea they thought was needed. Judas got punished for betraying Jesus.

On top of this, you have the prophecies. You track them back to the OT originals and just see how Matthew and Luke wrenched bits of OT text out of context, fiddled them together and even altered them in order to find a prophecy. These two fakers are not to be trusted, JW. Not in the Nativities, not in the resurrections and not here.

[TRANSPONDER]

In English, the word "obtained" might be ambiguous enough to allow for the priests to have bought the field on Judas' behalf posthumously, but as explored in another thread the Greek word in question doesn't admit that kind of latitude. If Judas threw the money into the temple, he didn't "obtain" a field with it. If he "obtained" a field with the money, he didn't throw it into the temple.

It has been argued that Judas Iscariot was a member of a rebel group and he betrayed Jesus not for silver but to put Jesus in a dangerous position so he would have to go along with Judas's wish for a physical rebellion and the pieces of silver were invented to cover up this fact.

I've heard that one. If I were to consider the events of the Gospels substantially true, give or take a contradiction, I'd have to consider this betrayal done in order to provoke a confrontation, I'd have to see it as Jesus' own idea and entrusting Judas with arranging it. Why would he do that? And why wouldn't he let the Disciples fight? And why were they armed so they might be willing to? In such a scenario I'd suggest that it was Jesus putting himself in the hands of the Authorities so as to oblige God to intervene. Pretty close to the Gospel story except in the Bible it was God's plan all along. Which of course requires Judas and the Jews to make it work, so they will be in glory while Pilate is damned for trying to get Jesus released, which would mean that God's redemption -plan wouldn't have worked.

[Difflugia]

If Judas threw the money into the temple, he didn't "obtain" a field with it. If he "obtained" a field with the money, he didn't throw it into the temple.

If by "absolute contradictions" you mean there is no possible way both statements can be true, that is not accurate.

Sure it is.

We know what "obtained" means but can we eliminate the possibility Judas obtained the field posthumously? (If today a man can father a child and publish a book after he dies, I cannot see why it is deemed impossible to buy a field)

We can because in certain tenses (including aorist) and in the active voice, the Greek verb translated "obtained" included the active sense of procuring. The word was sometimes used to mean obtaining something for someone else, but not vice versa. Either passive voice ("the field was obtained for this man") or pluperfect ("this man had obtained a field") could fit the proposed harmonization, but not active aorist and that's why I linked the lexicon entry. The grammar of Acts 1:18 could only have applied to Judas posthumously if he were one of the walking dead.

For your analogies to be apt, "publish" would include the act of composing and "father" would include the personal delivery, whether conventional or not, of sperm.