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

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #534]

Again, good arguments, but don't they miss the point, which is whether your claim is valid; "I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history." I have contested that statement. His primary mission failed, in that we don't follow his example. We are, as you catalogued, not doers of the word, not followers; we are hearers only.


Can we demonstrate that Siddhartha was less influential? Or Mohamed? Or Gandhi? I'd argue that Paul and Constantine were more influential in the spread of Christian culture. But what is so special about Xianity? The claim of others (not Jesus himself) that he was God incarnate? Others have made such claims. Forgiveness, you suggested, is special? It isn't.

Forgiveness as a way of healing human relationships and solving human conflicts is an age-old practice that appears in numerous religious traditions across the globe. Even animals use forgiveness to reconcile disputes.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/articl ... s_instinct

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng, above= "Claiming that the tectonic plates is being moved by solid rock underneath is not science, rather it is an ad hoc explanation."

That is a misrepresentation of what I said. Tectonic plate movement is because of liquid rock. I said the mantle, which was a mistake. It was the molten rock below the mantle but also I found that the mantle itself slowly acts as liquiescent.

What I'm referring to ad hoc here is the solid mantle is able to move the crustal tectonic plates. Even if the mantle was "ductile" solid rock, what would cause the horizontal forces necessary to move tectonic plates? Note, these plates are not free floating like ships on water. These are continental solid rock that are all locked into place. Compare this to the FM, where the tectonic plates are broken up and are actually floating on water. Horizontal forces to move the plates in the FM are due to water gushing out of the cracks and the incline generated by the formation of the oceanic ridges. In the FM, there is a mechanism for movement. In the SG, it would require much more force to move the tectonic plates. Yet, this force is claimed to come from "convection of heat" within the earth. This is yet another ad hoc explanation.

What makes an explanation ad hoc is if an explanation does not flow out of the model, but is added to hold up a theory. As I mentioned before, once you need to add many ad hoc explanations, one needs to seriously question the model. It comes to the point where if you add enough ad hoc explanations, it becomes unfalsifiable and it can then account for anything and any evidence or argument levied against it will be countered with additional ad hoc explanations.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for people to hold to a theory that is supported by ad hoc explanations to see anything wrong with it. They see it to be the truth since nothing can assail it. As I've mentioned, we see this in the doctrine of inerrancy. And likewise, I argue it is also in SG.

The best example of a model that is held up by ad hoc explanations that was hard dislodge is the geocentric model of the universe, which I talked about In post 399. It took a long time for it to be replaced because it was able to explain any motion. But, it did so by adding epicycles. And if you add enough epicycles, you can explain any motion. Here's a great example of this:

We have to be realistic about this. Tectonic plate theory was at one time doubted by science but has (as with the heliocentric system) gradually made its' case. Research is still going on into just how continental drift by Tectonic plate movement works, but all the evidence indicates that the undoubted existence of molten rock beneath the crust and mantle, at least partially) is the cause. That it still going on today plus the improbability of water being able to make continental plates slide about makes the Flood model fail. You are in effect pointing to unanswered questions about validated geology as though that invalidated it in hopes to make the Flood model (which I think has been shown not to fit the evidence and to be quite unworkable) a credible alternative.

I don't know whether the tectonic plate mechanism does not exist as an explanation or is just unproven. What I am sure of though is that the car -crash catastrophism of the continents being on top of the underground geyser bursting apart with this fountain and sliding on the water, does not fit the Pangaea theory, not only because the tilting of the unconformity strata would have to be on top of the water that supposedly eroded it flat and deposited flood strata on top of it and then pushed it up into mountains (1), bet also that after this, when this Flood settled down after a year, the Ark (assuming it could have survived all this) let the animals out after the continents had already been split up., so the Pangaea explanation for animal distribution wouldn't work.

In the face of this, objection to the Flood model, questioning the exact mechanics of Magma -driven plate tektonics sounds like trivial objections.

(1) not forgetting that you had to propose the mountain strata being soft to account for how they could fold rather than fault. My argument being that this would result in a muddled pile of dirt, not folded strata. And dating and fossil distribution hasn't even been looked at.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have already explained that such speedy catastophism would not result in the strata deformation that we see (neatly rolled strata) nor the formation of mountain chains where they are following the split of Pangaea.

I don't recall you explaining this. Could you refer to your post?

I already explained how a long process of strata layering, tectonic plate movement, erosion and more layering with a post mountain - build leading to a river slowly (meanders) carving a canyon over 6 million years explains what we have better than the Flood scenario which doesn't look feasible to me anyway with an underground ocean, continent -sized fountain and water -sliding continents pushing up soft strata mountains into neat rolls rather than a jumble.

I don't recall you explaining this either. Please also show where you provided evidence to back up your claims.

Never mind how Noah and his animals survived all that.

The ark of course.

And we haven't even looked as radiometric dating and fossil - distribution. The 'ad hoc' is all on your side

If you wish we can discuss radiometric dating also and compare which has more ad hoc explanations.

The waving about of photos and 'doesn't that look like a flood did it?' (while forgetting all the rebuttals I've posted) is evasive.

I've taken considerable time to address the questions posed by everyone. Whereas, many questions are left unanswered by SG. For example, who has answered the questions about the unconformities?

How can one determine if an unconformity is due to lack of deposition or due to erosion?
Why or how can erosion in an unconformity result in a layer parallel to the one below it?
If erosion occurred, was the layer above sea level when it occurred?
If it was above sea level, how did it become above sea level?

Human first impressions are what leads to delusion. Digging into it and deciphering the clues is what corrects the delusions,

Are you saying the first impression when looking at the geologic evidence is a global flood?

I don't need to refer back to posts which you say you forgot. The explanations are quite simple and have been repeated in my post above, along with refutation of the Flood model. Your list of question is not only already answered but shown to debunk the flood model. Pre flood deposits sheared off by the Flood and then covered by new flood deposits are also (supposedly) the continental plates of the hydroplate split up by the flood waters and floated apart by them. Explain how they could be the Flood -sea floor and the floating continents at the same time.

I need hardly underline to our readers the craftiness of the effort to make me say 'oh...well...yes..it does look like a flood caused it'. The thing is that a flood might have caused those buttes and mesas and it was raised up as is the case with mountains that have strata of fossil sea beds. Evidently sea floors were raised up over millions of years. In the case of the photos you posted, I'd suppose they are rather land erosion. Research rather than a first impression will give the better answers. However the meandering river of the Grand Canyon is evidence for millions of years of slow valley cutting, not a year long flood.

It only remains to repeat that in the face of this catastrophe, I doubt the Ark would survive, never mind protect the animals.

We could move onto whatever you like (you're the moderator so you decide what's ok in the thread ) Ark stability, seaworthiness and the probability of ALL species during a global flood, radiometric dating (and I can tell you that Creationist objections have already been refuted) and fossil distribution (and attempts to explain this with lighter faster or better swimming creatures has also been shown to fail). Or you can stick on this geological discussion if you like. I don't see your Genesis - literalist Creationist case standing up whatever you opt for.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

Excellent arguments, but...
The issue is His influence. If few follow his teaching, that argues against his influence.

What great moral leader, from Buddha to Gandhi, advocated a morality substantially different from Jesu of Nazareth? Are Christians any more observant, are they better practitioners of that moral code than ... say... Buddhists or any of the hundreds of other moral systems that share those values?

As for "forgiveness" or 'grace' offering a free pass, a 'get out of jail free card,' I'm not sure that is a good thing. Of what moral force is a belief that says you can act abominably, then say 'sorry' and all is forgiven?

It's almost as if some conman came up with this idea: "We allow you to stay in the club [and continue to pay dues] as long as you say 'Sorry.'" I don't see how this is a selling point for Xianity.

The 'success' argument is a familiar one. Essentially 'The disciples would not die for a lie' argument for the resurrection being true. Aside questions about whether the traditional sequence of events is true, and even supposing the disciples were initially made so Faithful until death because they had seen Jesus walking about and displaying his appendix -scar, that does not explain the success of Christianity, though the Christian apologogists would like it to.

It may be that the resurrection story and the apparent historicity convinced so many to believe. Possibly, but they had no way of knowing that it was true or not, only that it looked convincing. The success of Christianity can be accounted for by being delivered to the Roman world where it caught on (like Mithraism and Isis -worship, but I accept did even better). Even without Constantine, Christianity would have become legal at some time and dominant later on. The Success of Islam (apart from by conquest) and Buddhism, without conquest means that success alone does not make Christianity more true than any other religion, nor does it prove that the resurrection really did happen.

The resurrection story stands or falls on its' own credibility and (having disposed of the effort to use Corinthians as evidence for the solid -body resurrection) the contradictions since we have now gone all round the houses and arrived back at the start, make it clear that this cannot be a true event, but are fabricated stories designed to complete a lack in the Gospels; there was originally no appearance of Jesus, just as we find in Mark, which ends with the empty tomb. There never was anything more until the freer logion(s) was added.

[mgb]

I need hardly underline to our readers the craftiness of the effort to make me say 'oh...well...yes..it does look like a flood caused it'. The thing is that a flood might have caused those buttes and mesas and it was raised up as is the case with mountains that have strata of fossil sea beds. Evidently sea floors were raised up over millions of years. In the case of the photos you posted, I'd suppose they are rather land erosion. Research rather than a first impression will give the better answers. However the meandering river of the Grand Canyon is evidence for millions of years of slow valley cutting, not a year long flood.

I suspect that there is truth in the flood story. Maybe God really did tell Noah to escape with some livestock and family from a local flood. But the story grew legs and before we know it he is saving every known animal. Seems some people got a bit carried away with "artistic license." (If I recall correctly there is evidence of 'the' flood in Chinese history)

[Diogenes]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #554]
The 'success' argument is, of course, based on a logical fallacy which Osteng and, well, most of us frequently complain about; the ad populum fallacy.
Regarding people believing the supernatural nonsense, one must remember that times were very different in terms of what most people found credible. Belief in ghosts, angels of various sorts, demons, devils, gods and magic was common, if not universal throughout history, until science began explaining natural causes for weather and other phenomenon.

Tis the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil.
__ Lady Macbeth
Even today, tho' religion is losing its influence, belief in the supernatural remains common. A recent article suggests evolution may account for this:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/w ... pernatural

“Our brains almost seem prewired for what I would call weird beliefs,”Christopher French.

Tangled up in this tendency are cognitive biases like patternicity: the tendency to see false connections in unrelated or meaningless data. It could explain why so many people claim that random events are proof of the recently deceased trying to contact them.

Pareidolia, the tendency to see recognizable patterns or objects in things, such as a face in a cloud, is another example. People are predisposed to seeing ghosts and ghouls where there aren’t any.

I should add that we, as homo sapiens remain oddly credulous. I just saw a poll that found 71% of Republicans still believe Trump's claim he won the election in 2020.

[Diogenes]

I need hardly underline to our readers the craftiness of the effort to make me say 'oh...well...yes..it does look like a flood caused it'. The thing is that a flood might have caused those buttes and mesas and it was raised up as is the case with mountains that have strata of fossil sea beds. Evidently sea floors were raised up over millions of years. In the case of the photos you posted, I'd suppose they are rather land erosion. Research rather than a first impression will give the better answers. However the meandering river of the Grand Canyon is evidence for millions of years of slow valley cutting, not a year long flood.

I suspect that there is truth in the flood story. Maybe God really did tell Noah to escape with some livestock and family from a local flood. But the story grew legs and before we know it he is saving every known animal. Seems some people got a bit carried away with "artistic license." (If I recall correctly there is evidence of 'the' flood in Chinese history)

Flood stories are found in all cultures around the globe, or at least in all near rivers. Indeed, it would be exceedingly strange if flood stories were NOT widespread since floods are so common, thousands every year. As you say, stories grow legs. Each re-teller wants his version to get attention. These things are like fish stories

[otseng]

What great moral leader, from Buddha to Gandhi, advocated a morality substantially different from Jesu of Nazareth?

Superficially, there are similarities of moral teachings. But, fundamentally, Jesus Christ is very much different in what he claimed and did compared to Gautama Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi.

Are Christians any more observant, are they better practitioners of that moral code than ... say... Buddhists or any of the hundreds of other moral systems that share those values?

Actually, it's more the opposite. Evangelical Christians believe none are righteous and we are all sinners. Yes, people can do good, but fundamentally we are all bad. So, Christians are not morally better than others.

As for "forgiveness" or 'grace' offering a free pass, a 'get out of jail free card,' I'm not sure that is a good thing. Of what moral force is a belief that says you can act abominably, then say 'sorry' and all is forgiven?

Doesn't say that in the Bible. We must "repent" and then we will be forgiven.

Luke 24:46-47
"Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem."

Acts 3:19
Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out,

It's almost as if some conman came up with this idea: "We allow you to stay in the club [and continue to pay dues] as long as you say 'Sorry.'" I don't see how this is a selling point for Xianity.

Unfortunately, we have made modern Christianity to be just cheap grace. This idea of just saying sorry and living a life of cheap grace is not from the teachings of Jesus.

[otseng]

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.

This teaching is very common in modern Christianity - admit Jesus is God and you are saved. But it is at variance with the gospels which clearly tell us that we must live to the highest standards of virtue and morality and that sinners risk hell. Belief alone is not enough. They will say 'Did we not cast out demons in your name?' - so they obviously believed - but Jesus will say 'Away from Me, I do not know you'.

Of course. I'm not saying mental assent to Jesus is all that is necessary. Jesus called us to follow him, not just mentally believe what he taught.

We need to have both faith and works.

Christians are familiar with Eph 2:8-9:
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."

But, it continues with:
"10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them."

And of course James says:
Jas 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

The penalty of our sin is paid for only through Jesus's sacrifice, not by our own works. However, we are still called to do good works. Jesus did not give us free membership into the gym to just sit around and do nothing. We are called to exercise in the gym.

[otseng]

Again, good arguments, but don't they miss the point, which is whether your claim is valid; "I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history." I have contested that statement. His primary mission failed, in that we don't follow his example. We are, as you catalogued, not doers of the word, not followers; we are hearers only.

Jesus never said or expected a majority of people to follow him. Actually, quite the opposite.

Matt 7:14 (KJV)
Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

I don't really think it can be contested at all about Jesus being the most influential person, even from a secular perspective. Do you dispute anything I said below?

From a secular perspective, Jesus Christ also has had the most impact in human history. Our timeline is split relative to his life. In ancient times, time was relative to kings. Now, our time is relative to Jesus Christ, whether you use AD/BC or CE/BCE.

Currently, we are in Christmas season, the biggest holiday season of the year for Americans and for many around the world. This is all based on the birth of Christ. Of course, Easter season is also a major holiday.

There also has been no other single person in human history that has been more influential in books, music, arts, movies, poetry, culture, ethics, etc.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38657&p=1060915#p1060915

Can we demonstrate that Siddhartha was less influential? Or Mohamed? Or Gandhi?

Yes, they were influential, but less so than Jesus.

Is time split based on their lives? What holidays do we celebrate based on their lives? How many books, music, arts, movies, and poetry are based on these people compared to Jesus?