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

[otseng]

This is to take a religion that has little or nothing (or so I'd argue) with the actual Jesus (if there was such a person), the beliefs of his followers remastered by Paul to suit Roman gentiles and revised again to suit Hellenistic views but without the inclusiveness of the Greco -roman religion.

What do you mean by the "actual" Jesus? I'm referring to the Jesus as described in the gospels. How can you know what Jesus was actually like apart from the gospels?

That it had great appeal can't be denied and became like Islam and Buddhism, very influential.

Comparing Islam to Christianity, the explanation in rise is quite different. In Islam, the rise can be accounted to their military conquests, proselytization and taxation of non-Muslims in the conquered areas. And in some cases, the other option was death.

As for Buddhism, technically it's a nontheistic religion. It involves no acknowledgement or worship of any supernatural god. So, it would be not be comparable to Christianity or any theistic religion.

It's influence on Western civilisation is accepted, but that can't be used as some reason to not question its' teachings and move on if they are are found wanting.

The question is why the dramatic rise of Christianity? Something must account for its persuasive power. There was little in the life of Jesus that was remarkable, except for his resurrection. In Islam, the rise can be attributed to the military conquest and coercion of conversion.

What causes transform plates to move?
As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary. ... This is known as a transform plate boundary.

This is not quite correct either. What it's talking about is the boundaries of the plates at the surface. Here's the full quote:

What features form at plate tectonic boundaries?

Deep ocean trenches, volcanoes, island arcs, submarine mountain ranges, and fault lines are examples of features that can form along plate tectonic boundaries.

The Earth’s outer crust (the lithosphere) is composed of a series of tectonic plates that move on a hot flowing mantle layer called the asthenosphere. Heat within the asthenosphere creates convection currents that cause tectonic plates to move several centimeters per year relative to each other. When two tectonic plates meet, we get a “plate boundary.” There are three major types of plate boundaries, each associated with the formation of a variety of geologic features.

If two tectonic plates collide, they form a convergent plate boundary. Usually, one of the converging plates will move beneath the other, a process known as subduction. Deep trenches are features often formed where tectonic plates are being subducted and earthquakes are common. As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary.

When two plates are moving away from each other, we call this a divergent plate boundary. Along these boundaries, magma rises from deep within the Earth and erupts to form new crust on the lithosphere. Most divergent plate boundaries are underwater and form submarine mountain ranges called oceanic spreading ridges. While the process of forming these mountain ranges is volcanic, volcanoes and earthquakes along oceanic spreading ridges are not as violent as they are at convergent plate boundaries.

The third type of plate boundary occurs where tectonic plates slide horizontally past each other. This is known as a transform plate boundary. As the plates rub against each other, huge stresses can cause portions of the rock to break, resulting in earthquakes. Places where these breaks occur are called faults. A well-known example of a transform plate boundary is the San Andreas Fault in California.

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/te ... tures.html

[mgb]

The question is why the dramatic rise of Christianity? Something must account for its persuasive power.

I think it is a mistake to try to understand Christianity in purely historical or human terms. I believe Jesus entered the world at a critical time and likewise with many of those around him (Mary Magdalene, the apostles, St. John, James,...) They would have been part of a great spiritual revolution of which the human, visible part, is only one aspect.

[brunumb]

We are supposed to believe that mutations + natural selection can produce a person. A person? Think about it...

I have, and yes, despite your disingenuous reduction of the theory of evolution, it is perfectly reasonable to believe that 'persons' came about in that way. Much more reasonable than invoking a magical being that produced us from dust.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Now otseng corrected me on a technicality of what was mobile about tectonic plate movement, but what I said was, essentially, correct. It is lava/Magma and not water that causes it.
What causes transform plates to move?
As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary. ... This is known as a transform plate boundary.

Just a pick -up quote from the 'net but it repeats what geological science says. This not 'ad hoc' in any way, even if I was wrong in the mantle being liquid rather than becoming liquid or being moved about by liquid rock.

I hear ya. I had the one bit wrong about a liquid mantle, but even then, nobody said the outer core was water.

My comment was specific to just the one bit, and not that your argument was actually ad hoc. I felt a duty to include otseng's pointing to ad hocism as a legitimate, if errant first impression.

[Diogenes]

I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history

If Jesus, the Jesus of Matthew and Mark, were 'the most influential person in all of human history,'
more people would act according to his teachings.
Few do.

He battled hypocrisy, yet the church that bears his name is as full of hypocrites as the religious leaders he battled in his day.
They prize rules over love, then and now.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is to take a religion that has little or nothing (or so I'd argue) with the actual Jesus (if there was such a person), the beliefs of his followers remastered by Paul to suit Roman gentiles and revised again to suit Hellenistic views but without the inclusiveness of the Greco -roman religion.

What do you mean by the "actual" Jesus? I'm referring to the Jesus as described in the gospels. How can you know what Jesus was actually like apart from the gospels?

That it had great appeal can't be denied and became like Islam and Buddhism, very influential.

Comparing Islam to Christianity, the explanation in rise is quite different. In Islam, the rise can be accounted to their military conquests, proselytization and taxation of non-Muslims in the conquered areas. And in some cases, the other option was death.

As for Buddhism, technically it's a nontheistic religion. It involves no acknowledgement or worship of any supernatural god. So, it would be not be comparable to Christianity or any theistic religion.

It's influence on Western civilisation is accepted, but that can't be used as some reason to not question its' teachings and move on if they are are found wanting.

The question is why the dramatic rise of Christianity? Something must account for its persuasive power. There was little in the life of Jesus that was remarkable, except for his resurrection. In Islam, the rise can be attributed to the military conquest and coercion of conversion.

What causes transform plates to move?
As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary. ... This is known as a transform plate boundary.

This is not quite correct either. What it's talking about is the boundaries of the plates at the surface. Here's the full quote:

What features form at plate tectonic boundaries?

Deep ocean trenches, volcanoes, island arcs, submarine mountain ranges, and fault lines are examples of features that can form along plate tectonic boundaries.

The Earth’s outer crust (the lithosphere) is composed of a series of tectonic plates that move on a hot flowing mantle layer called the asthenosphere. Heat within the asthenosphere creates convection currents that cause tectonic plates to move several centimeters per year relative to each other. When two tectonic plates meet, we get a “plate boundary.” There are three major types of plate boundaries, each associated with the formation of a variety of geologic features.

If two tectonic plates collide, they form a convergent plate boundary. Usually, one of the converging plates will move beneath the other, a process known as subduction. Deep trenches are features often formed where tectonic plates are being subducted and earthquakes are common. As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary.

When two plates are moving away from each other, we call this a divergent plate boundary. Along these boundaries, magma rises from deep within the Earth and erupts to form new crust on the lithosphere. Most divergent plate boundaries are underwater and form submarine mountain ranges called oceanic spreading ridges. While the process of forming these mountain ranges is volcanic, volcanoes and earthquakes along oceanic spreading ridges are not as violent as they are at convergent plate boundaries.

The third type of plate boundary occurs where tectonic plates slide horizontally past each other. This is known as a transform plate boundary. As the plates rub against each other, huge stresses can cause portions of the rock to break, resulting in earthquakes. Places where these breaks occur are called faults. A well-known example of a transform plate boundary is the San Andreas Fault in California.

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/te ... tures.html

Thank you for the clarifications. Here are mine:

By the 'actual Jesus' I mean the Jesus that actually existed or (as sometimes said) the historical Jesus'. If there was such a person. I think there was. That can be the son of God, miracle worker, reforming teacher, failed messiah, charlatan, shill for the Roman destabilisation of Judaism, or whatever theory one happens to espouse. The point is that one can know from the gospel contradictions that the Jesus that existed (if any) cannot credibly be as described in the Gospels. That is my pet theory and argument.

I thought that you might say that Islam's spread was down to war rather than to it being evidently true that Jesus resurrected (which is the point, otseng, old chum). But Muslims or Islamic apologists will argue that the most populous Muslim nation - Indonesia - converted without an Islamic war. Same with Malaysia, so far as I know. And Buddhism converted without a holy war at all. The point is, otseng, that appeal can account for the spread of a religion and Christianity has a lot of appeal. But that does not make it or any other religion, true.

Thanks for the full description of tectonic plate movement. I might add that this is still measurably going on today and causes earthquakes, Tsunamis and volcanoes I believe and that's after the underground reservoir was gone. under- plate water slides do not today account for tectonic plate movement, even if they are a geologically feasible hypothesis, and (I argue) make the best model for mountain - building and strata rollover. Nor the way the Atlantic sea -floor and ridge look. In short deep time geology accounts for what we see better than the Flood model does.

Incidentally, I haven't forgotten that I promised to pick out Paul's passages about the resurrection. I will try to get around to that.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Now otseng corrected me on a technicality of what was mobile about tectonic plate movement, but what I said was, essentially, correct. It is lava/Magma and not water that causes it.
What causes transform plates to move?
As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary. ... This is known as a transform plate boundary.

Just a pick -up quote from the 'net but it repeats what geological science says. This not 'ad hoc' in any way, even if I was wrong in the mantle being liquid rather than becoming liquid or being moved about by liquid rock.

I hear ya. I had the one bit wrong about a liquid mantle, but even then, nobody said the outer core was water.

My comment was specific to just the one bit, and not that your argument was actually ad hoc. I felt a duty to include otseng's pointing to ad hocism as a legitimate, if errant first impression.

Gocha. All clarifications are welcome. The debate is whether geology (the form or strata) is evidence of a Flood (as theorised by Walt Brown or any other Creationist) or millions of years of strata - deposit, reforming by tectonic plate movement based on a viscoid rock base on (eventually) a liquid core. I'd say that the Flood mechanism isn't credible and doesn't account for how strata are inverted, nor where the mountain ranges are, nor the formation of the Grand canyon which seems to be the poster - child of Flood geology.

Really taking the best view that a surge of water can move huge chunks of rock, the car -crash geology of the Flood isn't going to leas to Pangaea breaking up and ferrying the selected species to their present locations, rolling up mountains (for some reason) on the leading edge as they go a year after the Flood supposedly tilted the strata before the Flood happened. It just doesn't fit nor work, does it?

It's the old problem of trying to fit natural processes (geology and evolutionary) to what science tells us but tweaked to fit in bits of Genesis, at least.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you used the term without 'carrying on' from there, why should I?

I qualified my use of it by saying 'the bible is many things'. I'm talking about the unqualified use of the expression. If you say 'the bible' you need to be more specific about details.

If no conclusions are arrived at, what's the point in even talking about it unless to try to belittle science with claims that something (that you are sure of) exists that science can't see.

I don't see why science should be belittled by claims about the paranormal. Questions concerning consciousness are largely outside science because science cannot understand what the self or the person are, as whole things.

The Theory of evolution is actually irrelevant event if it was disproved (and you're going to have more luck disproving the heliocentric system) as that would not do a thing to validate any other alternative theory. You's still have to produce the evidence.

I'm not trying to disprove it. I believe in evolution and some parts of the theory. But the theory is full of holes and is missing something.

clipped with apologies to just address the points to me....

I don't need qualification. By 'The Bible' I mean the Book and what's in in it. What is says and what it means and what it implies is all another discussion.

There you go belittling science "Questions concerning consciousness are largely outside science because science cannot understand what the self or the person are, as whole things." Ok, you don't mean to, because you think it a fact that consciousness is something that in 'outside science'. That is a faith -claim because you do not know what there may be nor whether science will eventually explain it. Science has explained many things that once it couldn't, has got a handle on morality as a biological matter and is closer to understanding consciousness and the 'hard' question of perception than you may think. And even if it could not, none of that would validate Faith claims about the supernatural, the soul of gods. It is belittling science by saying ' you cannot even know this, you are too small and limited'. That is apart from referring to unknowns and unexplainedes, which are simply used as gaps for god.

As to evolution, it is irrelevant that it is 'full of holes' which (to be fair to evolution -theory) is that there are many unanswered questions. What is relevant is that there is enough validated to show that millions of years of evolved diversity from sea blobs to fish, amphibians, dinosaurs and finally mammals is what the evidence proves was the process and not all in one week ans not in the order as in the Bible. Evolution -theory is evidently right and genesis is wrong. Missing bits have been supplies. Feathered dinosaurs explains birds. Tiktaalik and the Cetan sequence validates speciation. (or macro -evolution' as the Creationists call it (1) what 'something' (as distinct from odd bits) is needed before it becomes a proven mechanism for the diversity of life? Life itself? Irrelevant. If a god (name your own) did it, the process of evolution after that is proven and Genesis is wrong.

(1) I know they dismiss transitionals and misinterpreted (when they are not claiming there aren't any) but there they are not pointing to evidence that proves creation but explaining away evidence that disproves it. The position that Bible -apologists generally eventually find themselves in.

[mgb]

There you go belittling science "Questions concerning consciousness are largely outside science because science cannot understand what the self or the person are, as whole things." Ok, you don't mean to, because you think it a fact that consciousness is something that in 'outside science'. That is a faith -claim because you do not know what there may be nor whether science will eventually explain it.

I'm not belittling science. I am saying that what is not explained by science is not science.

[TRANSPONDER]

There you go belittling science "Questions concerning consciousness are largely outside science because science cannot understand what the self or the person are, as whole things." Ok, you don't mean to, because you think it a fact that consciousness is something that in 'outside science'. That is a faith -claim because you do not know what there may be nor whether science will eventually explain it.

I'm not belittling science. I am saying that what is not explained by science is not science.

Well. I had a look back and no, you didn't. Though I think you did above, without intending to. But miff aside, the point is that what is not known is not evidence for anything supernatural or even the existence of supernaturals. That is not to confuse it with what in 'nature' is not yet known and may not even be understood by science when it is discovered. None of that makes a case for postulated supernatural entities such as ghosts, souls or gods. It just doesn't.

It's the old, basic and fundamental fallacy of assuming a supernatural entity (God, usually) as a given which then science has to disprove totally. That explains everything wrong with theist -think

Evolution has an intended objective. Unexplained unknowns means that a creator has to be the answer. Science has to know everything or God is not disproven.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim for supernatural (entities) which is NOT the same as 'what science does not yet know'. The burden is not on non -believers in this or that supernatural entity (ghosts, souls or gods) to prove they do not exist.