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]

With all these creation and flood myths we are expected by the Christian faction to accept absolutely only one of them, the account in Genesis. It seems the height of ethnocentric arrogance to pronounce ONE scripture out of thousands of similar traditions that represents the 'one true belief.'
Why should the Biblical account in Genesis be considered the inerrant word of God, and the one and only true account?

Note that this thread dismisses inerrancy, so it's not quite a relevant question. But, it is true that Christianity makes exclusive claims.

John 3:36 (KJV)
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

John 14:6 (KJV)
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Acts 4:12 (KJV)
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

1Tim 2:5 (KJV)
For [there is] one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

So, I think the better question is how can Jesus be the only way to God? That would be quite a arrogant claim. But, if it's true, then it's not an arrogant claim, but simply the truth.

Like I can claim that I am the master of this forum and have the ability to have full control of what people do on this forum. Is that an arrogant statement? If it's anybody else that made that claim, it would be arrogant because it would be false. But, since I alone have access to the code and the database, it would not be arrogant.

So, just because an exclusive claim is made doesn't necessarily mean it's arrogant or even false.

This is a common misconception among Christians, that THEIR religion is unique, in that it is the only one that preaches salvation by belief in a man becoming a god to save others.
Just from memory one example from other cultures comes to mind, Bodhisattvas, enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment. There are many of them according to various traditions. Claiming exclusivity, that one's religion is unique, does not make it so. It is indeed arrogant to claim yours is the one true god. What is amazing to me is that religious people of different faiths all make this claim and it almost always coincides with the religion or culture they grew up in. That is the perfect example of ethnocentrism.

I did a quick search using these terms "comparative religions gods emerging from death to help mankind."
This was the first to come up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity

A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough (1890). Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus.

[mgb]

It is indeed arrogant to claim yours is the one true god. What is amazing to me is that religious people of different faiths all make this claim and it almost always coincides with the religion or culture they grew up in. That is the perfect example of ethnocentrism.

See post 579

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

This is a common misconception among Christians, that THEIR religion is unique, in that it is the only one that preaches salvation by belief in a man becoming a god to save others.
Just from memory one example from other cultures comes to mind, Bodhisattvas, enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment. There are many of them according to various traditions. Claiming exclusivity, that one's religion is unique, does not make it so. It is indeed arrogant to claim yours is the one true god. What is amazing to me is that religious people of different faiths all make this claim and it almost always coincides with the religion or culture they grew up in. That is the perfect example of ethnocentrism.

Just wondering, if you are under the impression the above is a good argument against the Christian claims?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

This is a common misconception among Christians, that THEIR religion is unique, in that it is the only one that preaches salvation by belief in a man becoming a god to save others.
Just from memory one example from other cultures comes to mind, Bodhisattvas, enlightened beings who have put off entering paradise in order to help others attain enlightenment. There are many of them according to various traditions. Claiming exclusivity, that one's religion is unique, does not make it so. It is indeed arrogant to claim yours is the one true god. What is amazing to me is that religious people of different faiths all make this claim and it almost always coincides with the religion or culture they grew up in. That is the perfect example of ethnocentrism.

Just wondering, if you are under the impression the above is a good argument against the Christian claims?

I'd say it was a useful one. It shows that the various human concerns about life, death suffering and sacrifice are not some amazing revelation that nobody ever thought of until God told us, but are perennial and constant concerns with humans and with similar instinctive solutions. Doing some kind of deal or paying some kind of Bribe to survive into the next life and hopefully get a better one. The fear of death is instinctive and religions are so often about death as well as the problems of life.

Moreover, with Christianity, one can follow the evolution from a Hebrew tribal god through the Top God to the Only god, and then passed onto the Greeks who reinvented the (failed) Messiah (which I think is an actual event) and turned him into a Greek demigod and the God of the Jews into a Zeus.

'When you know how a conjuring trick is done, you won't be fooled into thinking it must be magic'. (Atheist Axiom).

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #584]

I'd say it was a useful one.

I am afraid it is not. In other words, the fact that there may be, or even is, other religions with similar claims to Christianity, along with the fact, most religious folks line up with the geography of the religion they happen to adhere to, would have nothing whatsoever to do with,

A.) Whether the Christian claims would be true, or false.

B.) Whether there would be good reasons to believe the Christian claims.

The point is, the Christian claims stand, or fall on their own, and the above facts add nothing, nor do they take anything away. In other words, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

[otseng]

That said, the influence of Christianity and its' totem figure is undeniable. We have to be very wary of the Christian ploy of trying to argue that the success or influence of Christianity somehow is evidence of its' truth.

I've never claimed that. But, what I have asked is what can account for it? There is nothing in his life that is remarkable... except for his resurrection. Others have claimed to be the messiah, performed miracles, and been good teachers. If one discounts the resurrection, what else is there to explain it?

This is unarguable as Christians generally don't argue that the book is perfect and without error or flaw.

Inerrantists do.

While related to inerrancy' it is not an inerrancy argument but a reliability argument.

Yes, I would agree with this. The question is more about the reliability of the Bible. We've gone in depth with two claims of the Bible - the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem and the global flood. I've argued based on these two claims, the Bible has demonstrated to be reliable. There are non-Biblical evidence to support these claims and rational arguments to believe in it.

Others want to deny or fiddle the science to make it seem that the Genesis story could be true.

If it's denying science by exposing all the ad hoc explanations in it, then I'm guilty.

Unless one denies science including history up to the tower of Babel which is about the Babylonian ziggurat (Bab-el Marduk) and has nothing to do with why humans have different languages

OK, then how did all the languages develop?

And nobody so far as I know, has noticed that John has no transfiguration.

That's because John didn't write it.

Atheist apologetics does argue that the nativities are not historical but invented

I can grant some of it could be, but I would doubt all of it is.

[otseng]

I did a quick search using these terms "comparative religions gods emerging from death to help mankind."
This was the first to come up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity

A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough (1890). Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus.

We can first address this by dismissing deities; that is, a diety that has never been a person. A god dying and then coming back to life is not comparable to Jesus dying and resurrecting. Jesus was an actual person. Gods that did not actually exist as a real person would incude Osiris, Dumuzid, Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Baldr, Quetzalcoatl, and Izanami. So, the article would not challenge the uniqueness of Jesus.

So, this brings up the question - are there other religions that claim a god/man has died, been bodily resurrected and physically appeared to masses of people?

[Diogenes]

I did a quick search using these terms "comparative religions gods emerging from death to help mankind."
This was the first to come up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying-and-rising_deity

A dying-and-rising, death-rebirth, or resurrection deity is a religious motif in which a god or goddess dies and is resurrected.[1][2][3][4] Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough (1890). Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus.

We can first address this by dismissing deities; that is, a diety that has never been a person. A god dying and then coming back to life is not comparable to Jesus dying and resurrecting. Jesus was an actual person. Gods that did not actually exist as a real person would incude Osiris, Dumuzid, Adonis, Attis, Dionysus, Baldr, Quetzalcoatl, and Izanami. So, the article would not challenge the uniqueness of Jesus.

So, this brings up the question - are there other religions that claim a god/man has died, been bodily resurrected and physically appeared to masses of people?

History is replete with examples of apotheosis and deification. I say 'history' rather than 'religion' or 'mythology' because that is the very issue. You carve out an exception for Jesus of Nazareth, that he is exceptional because he was a 'real' person and all the others were not. Let's assume Jesus was 'real' (although he may be a historical composite of real people). Why assume that all the other characters who became gods were not based on 'real' people?
Just as you suggest the flood myths represent a real event that actually occurred, the deification myths from ancient China, Greece, Rome and others, may represent real people upon whom legends were built. In fact one established approach to the interpretation of mythology is just that, mythological accounts presumed to have originated from real historical events or people. Euhemerism supposes that historical accounts become myths as they are exaggerated in the retelling, accumulating elaborations and alterations that reflect cultural mores.

You may agree with this, but you refuse to apply it to a single exception, YOUR favorite belief. Euhemerism is a valid explanation for how, in the exaggerations of the re-tellings, a man, Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, was defied. That Jesus is different is a special pleading.

[Diogenes]

The point is, the Christian claims stand, or fall on their own, and the above facts add nothing, nor do they take anything away. In other words, it has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

The point is, that Christian claims to supernatural events upon which their faith relies makes no more sense than the supernatural claims of any other religion or mythology. The point is that such claims are common to all cultures and religions. They are all equally worthless. The point is that the argument has been advanced by Christian apologists that THEIR claim to the supernatural is somehow unique and because it is one of a kind, it is valid. This is spurious logic, even if it were based on a sound factual basis. It is not.

[otseng]

History is replete with examples of apotheosis and deification. I say 'history' rather than 'religion' or 'mythology' because that is the very issue. You carve out an exception for Jesus of Nazareth, that he is exceptional because he was a 'real' person and all the others were not. Let's assume Jesus was 'real' (although he may be a historical composite of real people). Why assume that all the other characters who became gods were not based on 'real' people?

Might need to then go back a step. I believe that Jesus was an actual person in history, not a historical composite of other people. The person, Jesus Christ, actually existed. Do you dispute this?