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]

the point is that what is not known is not evidence for anything supernatural or even the existence of supernaturals.

But there is plenty evidence. A reasonable argument constitutes evidence and many theistic arguments are reasonable.

None of that makes a case for postulated supernatural entities such as ghosts, souls or gods. It just doesn't.

People claim to know by experience that God exists. The materialists cry 'deluded' but these people are normal people who are not suffering mental illness. 'Deluded' is just not good enough. And 'delusion' is the last card in the materialist's deck. Without that, they lose.

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

I don't see it that way. There should be no contradiction between science and theism. But too many science writers are doing a disservice to science by pretending that science has proved things it has not proved and by misrepresenting science. I heard one lecturer saying there's a 50% chance we are living in a virtual reality. Science is becoming more and more blended with fantasy by irresponsible writers. People often say the Theory of Evolution has been all but proved. It hasn't. The fact of evolution is proved. And parts of the theory have been proved. But much of it has not. Much of it is purely theoretical.

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.

When it comes to things that have not been resolved there is no burden of proof. There is only sensible argument.

[brunumb]

the point is that what is not known is not evidence for anything supernatural or even the existence of supernaturals.

But there is plenty evidence. A reasonable argument constitutes evidence and many theistic arguments are reasonable.

No. The arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

the point is that what is not known is not evidence for anything supernatural or even the existence of supernaturals.

But there is plenty evidence. A reasonable argument constitutes evidence and many theistic arguments are reasonable.

None of that makes a case for postulated supernatural entities such as ghosts, souls or gods. It just doesn't.

People claim to know by experience that God exists. The materialists cry 'deluded' but these people are normal people who are not suffering mental illness. 'Deluded' is just not good enough. And 'delusion' is the last card in the materialist's deck. Without that, they lose.

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

I don't see it that way. There should be no contradiction between science and theism. But too many science writers are doing a disservice to science by pretending that science has proved things it has not proved and by misrepresenting science. I heard one lecturer saying there's a 50% chance we are living in a virtual reality. Science is becoming more and more blended with fantasy by irresponsible writers. People often say the Theory of Evolution has been all but proved. It hasn't. The fact of evolution is proved. And parts of the theory have been proved. But much of it has not. Much of it is purely theoretical.

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.

When it comes to things that have not been resolved there is no burden of proof. There is only sensible argument.

Well, there's you problem right there. You have rejected the basic logic, so haw can you talk of reasonable argument? I am taking the best view of your argument. Reasoning is not evidence - raw data is, but reasoning it out and arriving at conclusions - yes, one can call that evidence. But the bottom line is that scientifically validated evidence does NOT support a god -claim and the logic is that non -belief is mandated until it does.

If you want to claim that science and logic supports a god and and you want to argue for it, go ahead, but when that gets to dismissing science and logic 101 is wrong and theist -think is the way to do it (which has often been the result), then you will have lost, chum.

If you reject science and logic, you cannot claim science and logic. Of course I know that theist -think uses evidence fiddled to fit the faith, from sorted fossils can be explained to look like a Flood to Unknown cosmic origin proves God, and the reverse burden of proof that makes that work. But that is not science nor logic.

I'm just saying. You can if you want put your case for 'reasonable argument proves God' or whatever, but I've seen it all before and it all ends if not in tears, in denial.

[otseng]

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.

There is no doubt few act according to his teachings. But, few believe his teachings are wrong. So, the problem is not that people should not follow his teachings, but that we decide not to follow his teachings.

Generally, people mentally accept that Jesus's teachings are noble. But, practically, we don't want to do it. It's like we know we should exercise and eat healthy, but most of us don't do it. We know we should forgive others, but yet we chose to rather hold grudges. We know we should help the less fortunate, but we hoard our own wealth. We know we should love our neighbors, but we discriminate instead.

So, the problem is not with Jesus, but with us. We chose to not follow his teachings.

Fortunately though, it's not how much we follow his teachings that determines our status with God. Unlike all other religions, where our grade is based on our performance, in Christianity, our grade is based on Jesus's performance. We are accepted because of what he has done for us, not for anything we have done.

This is not to absolve us from following his teachings, but the burden of being graded based on our performance is removed. It's like having two types of free gym membership. The first type is you get to be a gym member if you come in every day, work on every machine for 30 minutes, do all the free weights with 100 reps each, run 100 laps, and swim 100 laps. You do this, then you can maintain free gym membership. But if you miss any of this, you no longer can be a gym member. The second type is someone pays for your membership, then you can do whatever you want in the gym.

[otseng]

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.

If inerrancy is dropped, then arguing from contradictions no longer is valid.

But Muslims or Islamic apologists will argue that the most populous Muslim nation - Indonesia - converted without an Islamic war.

Taxation was the other element that I mentioned. People were financially incentivized to convert to Islam.

"Starting in the 13th century Islam arrived and by the 15th century, Muslim Sultans lead a campaign against the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms in Indonesia, taking over most of the country and declared Islam as the state religion. It was at this point that Islam became the dominant religion in Indonesia, over Hinduism and Buddhism, which had been the dominant religions for centuries. Non-Muslims either agreed to pay the Jizya tax, converted to Islam or fled to other islands in Indonesia so that they could escape from Muslim rule."
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/rel ... nesia.html

But that does not make it or any other religion, true.

Never said it was. The only question I'm bringing up is why the rise of Christianity?

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 movemen

Yes, tectonics plates are still moving. In the FM, the flood did not occur too long ago (on the order of thousands of years ago). What I theorize is the plates are still moving due to momentum of the splitting of the plates during the flood, not from any existing underground force. This is testable with the prediction that 100 years from now, the plates will be moving slower than they are today.

[mgb]

But the bottom line is that scientifically validated evidence does NOT support a god -claim and the logic is that non -belief is mandated until it does.

Many people would disagree. They would argue that science reveals a beautiful, complex universe that is likely to be an expression of intelligence. Reasoned argument does constitute evidence. You ask for data. Everything is data; every dust mote, every galaxy, all human experience is the data upon which reasoned argument is built.

The arguments themselves do not constitute evidence. Arguments are claims backed by reasons that are supported by evidence

See above.

[brunumb]

Generally, people mentally accept that Jesus's teachings are noble. But, practically, we don't want to do it. It's like we know we should exercise and eat healthy, but most of us don't do it.

I don't recall Jesus teaching that we should exercise and maintain a healthy diet. A pity. If he had, at least faithful Christians might not be caught up in the current obesity problem.

[brunumb]

But the bottom line is that scientifically validated evidence does NOT support a god -claim and the logic is that non -belief is mandated until it does.

Many people would disagree. They would argue that science reveals a beautiful, complex universe that is likely to be an expression of intelligence. Reasoned argument does constitute evidence. You ask for data. Everything is data; every dust mote, every galaxy, all human experience is the data upon which reasoned argument is built.

Until supporting evidence is presented the argument amounts to nothing more than an expression of opinion.

[JoeyKnothead]

Many people would disagree. They would argue that science reveals a beautiful, complex universe that is likely to be an expression of intelligence.

"Many" people have won the Herman Cain Award - posthumously, of course. An argument from popularity is not an argument from reason, logic, or fact.

Reasoned argument does constitute evidence.

A reasoned argument should represent the available evidence, not itself be that evidence.

You ask for data. Everything is data; every dust mote, every galaxy, all human experience is the data upon which reasoned argument is built.

Only it is, some folks think they've got em a reasonable argument, only they don't.

I once built a convenience store there, and they didn't allow for enough protection against high winds. A tornado came, and blew the house down, not unlike what happens to misfortunate pigs from time to time.

I can reasonably argue there's no need to build stuff, cause it can just get blown down. That'll never fly.

Funnily enough, somewhere in there's how come the pretty thing keeps making the bed every morning.

[otseng]

I don't recall Jesus teaching that we should exercise and maintain a healthy diet. A pity. If he had, at least faithful Christians might not be caught up in the current obesity problem.

True. But he did eat kosher and had a natural diet without artificial ingredients, preservatives, additives, sweeteners, GMO, etc. Foods were freshly prepared unlike all the fast food and junk food that we eat now. Also he did do a lot of walking.