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]

The "success" of Islam and Buddhism can hardly compare to the historical impact of Jesus in world history in terms of scope.

But, back to the main point, which is an explanation for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation.any things the Bible does not mention. There's no need for it to be an encyclopedic account of the Assyrian conquest of the Israelites.

I am genuinely surprised to hear this argument. As previously mentioned it employs the ad populum fallacy, that something is valid because it is popular. Is Islam true because it has 1.8 Billion followers? Do we know Mohamed flew to heaven on a winged horse because Islam is the fastest growing religion? How is this different from claiming the resurrection is true because of the impact of Jesus?

Religions spread, not because they are true, but because they are believed. Wars and favorable treatment (see Constantine and Christianity) spread myths, hoaxes, and lies. These religions emerged at a time when people believed in ghosts and demons, and fairies for that matter.
70% of Republicans believe Biden was not fairly elected President. Is he not really the President because a lie is believed?

Furthermore, you have not supported your claim that 'The "success" of Islam and Buddhism can hardly compare to the historical impact of Jesus in world history in terms of scope.' Why not? There are about 2.3 billion Christians in the world, which is about the same number of Muslims and Buddhists combined. There are 1 Billion Hindus. By ad populum logic Hinduism is twice as valid as Buddhism. Sorry Osteng, but your argument is fallacious.

[Diogenes]

... and now that think about it, with almost 8 Billion people on the planet and only 2.3 Billion Christians, that means at least 5.7 Billion don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus. According to ad populum logic, Jesus was not raised from the dead. He just died, a failed apocalyptic preacher who also failed to return a 2d time as he predicted.
He was a great moral teacher who tried to guide Jews back to the true spirit of their faith, rejecting the legalisms of the Pharisees, but he was not a god and never said he was.

Thus spake Zarapopula

[otseng]

The success of Christianity is to be ascribed to becoming the state religion of Rome and afterwards the expansion of the West.

That was a contributing factor, but this did not happen until 380 AD. So, it's several hundred years that are unexplained. Further, there were many other gods that were worshiped by Rome prior, yet these didn't survive.

The article on the Tower of Babel is based on the Biblical myth (as if it was historically true).

Of course, it is the Biblical account that we're talking about.

The actual tower (if indeed the Babel myth is referencing the zuiggurat of Babylon) has a different date.
Babylonia - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Babylonia

The Tower of Babel is not the same as the Babylonian empire.

The point about whether it was a person calkled John is irrelevant. The actual point is that if the Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) and the synoptics (whoever wrote those) disagree about the Transfiguration, then either John's gospel or the synoptics are unreliable in that particular respect.

Just because the gospel of John does not mention the transfiguration does not mean there's disagreement.

The Assyrian account does have spin, I am sure. Or rather damage limitation. That Sennacherib had to make a big propaganda about it suggests to me that he had to present this as a great victory when it was actually a climb -down. He should have flattened Jerusalem as he did Lachish.

OK, good. We are in agreement there.

It is a question of whether the Bible is reliable in implying that the submission was before the siege of Lachish or afterwards, concluding that part of the campaign. I argue that it makes far more sense to be afterwards.

I don't think the Bible explicitly states whether the tribute was given before or after the siege on Lachish. To me, it actually implies after the siege on Lachish.

2Kgs 18:14-17 (KJV)
Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.
15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.
16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
17 And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which [is] in the highway of the fuller's field.

The doctrinal points of the Nativities are irrelevant to whether the stories are true or not. Historical and logical and textual consideration of the stories is relevant.

It is already granted there can exist errors. The question is at what point would errors impact the reliability of the Bible. I maintain only major doctrinal errors would impact Christianity.

[otseng]

The "success" of Islam and Buddhism can hardly compare to the historical impact of Jesus in world history in terms of scope.

But, back to the main point, which is an explanation for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation.

I am genuinely surprised to hear this argument. As previously mentioned it employs the ad populum fallacy, that something is valid because it is popular.

Where did I make this argument?

What I have asked is this:

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.

What can account for such a mundane life to result in him being the single most influential person in human history?

[TRANSPONDER]

The success of Christianity is to be ascribed to becoming the state religion of Rome and afterwards the expansion of the West.

That was a contributing factor, but this did not happen until 380 AD. So, it's several hundred years that are unexplained. Further, there were many other gods that were worshiped by Rome prior, yet these didn't survive.

Yes. That it became state religion and then the religion of the technological and expansionist West is Half the success, but the initial half has to be something else in the face of Roman disapproval, not to say persecution. I have noted a popular appeal that certainly the elitist Mithraism didn't have. And i have already pointed out that Islam and Buddhism spread by popular appeal (at least in Java, where armed hordes weren't the instrument of conversion) so apart from popular appeal of the story, the same appeal as Islam or Buddhism would do. And even if you were to argue that the resurrection looked convincing and that contributed to the success of Christianity, that does not make it true. Even up to today, some have strongly doubted it while others have pointed to reliable witness testimony. So far as I know, nobody has pointed up serious discrepancy as a reason to think it entirely concocted, but it is already known that looking (superficially) factual may account to for the appeal, sure, but does not make it true. If the idea is to either imply a continuous chain of verification from the disciples of some aura of God's influence, neither is going to work. Success is No case for the resurrection having happened. And I shall continue to argue, evangelise and preach the ungospel of contradiction proves fabrication.

The article on the Tower of Babel is based on the Biblical myth (as if it was historically true).

Of course, it is the Biblical account that we're talking about.

It is, but if there was no such tower at that time, then the dating is otiose.

The actual tower (if indeed the Babel myth is referencing the zuiggurat of Babylon) has a different date.
Babylonia - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Babylonia

The Tower of Babel is not the same as the Babylonian empire.

Yes, that's the only argument. The tower of Babel is often equated with the Ziggural of Babylon which cannot be earlier than Babylon, So you would have to argue some other 'tower'. Have you a candidate with more substantial fouindations that a myth within a book of Myth?

The point about whether it was a person calkled John is irrelevant. The actual point is that if the Gospel of John (whoever wrote it) and the synoptics (whoever wrote those) disagree about the Transfiguration, then either John's gospel or the synoptics are unreliable in that particular respect.

Just because the gospel of John does not mention the transfiguration does not mean there's disagreement.

It certainly does. The synoptics and the 'John' gospel both describe the event of Jesus going up the mountain after the loaves and fishes and the messianic recognition follows and before the return by walking on the water. John's escaping into the hills because the people wanted to make Jesus a king by force has to be his version of the Transfiguration. They are undeniable the same event. They are undeniably different. Why?

The Assyrian account does have spin, I am sure. Or rather damage limitation. That Sennacherib had to make a big propaganda about it suggests to me that he had to present this as a great victory when it was actually a climb -down. He should have flattened Jerusalem as he did Lachish.

OK, good. We are in agreement there.

We are. Sennacherib should have sacked Jerusalem to make an example of the punishment for rebellion. That he did not implies that he knew he had no time. The siege would take a long time and he had the rest of the coalition (with Babylon) to reduce. He besieged Limnah which no doubt was easier but he must have offered a deal to Hezekiah and Hezekiah had to take it because he did not expect God to save him. That is why the tribute has to be the reason the Assyrians marched away, not through being 'smitten'. It was a deal that Sennacherib had to explain to save face. I am sure.,

It is a question of whether the Bible is reliable in implying that the submission was before the siege of Lachish or afterwards, concluding that part of the campaign. I argue that it makes far more sense for it to be afterwards.

2Kgs 18:14-17 (KJV)
Now in the fourteenth year of king Hezekiah did Sennacherib king of Assyria come up against all the fenced cities of Judah, and took them.
14 And Hezekiah king of Judah sent to the king of Assyria to Lachish, saying, I have offended; return from me: that which thou puttest on me will I bear. And the king of Assyria appointed unto Hezekiah king of Judah three hundred talents of silver and thirty talents of gold.
15 And Hezekiah gave [him] all the silver that was found in the house of the LORD, and in the treasures of the king's house.
16 At that time did Hezekiah cut off [the gold from] the doors of the temple of the LORD, and [from] the pillars which Hezekiah king of Judah had overlaid, and gave it to the king of Assyria.
17 And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rab-shakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem. And when they were come up, they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which [is] in the highway of the fuller's field.

I don't think the Bible explicitly states whether the tribute was given before or after the siege on Lachish. To me, it actually implies after the siege on Lachish.

It actually comes before but the dating relative to the siege isn't clear. What is clear is that the Bible says that Assyrians left Jerusalem intact because God smote them. But I argue that wasn't the reason and is polemic Biblical Spin.

The doctrinal points of the Nativities are irrelevant to whether the stories are true or not. Historical and logical and textual consideration of the stories is relevant.

It is already granted there can exist errors. The question is at what point would errors impact the reliability of the Bible. I maintain only major doctrinal errors would impact Christianity.

I maintain that showing the Bible to be essentially fictitious, particularly as regards the most doctrinally central point - the resurrection - would impact Christianity massively.

[Diogenes]

I maintain that showing the Bible to be essentially fictitious, particularly as regards the most doctrinally central point - the resurrection - would impact Christianity massively.

Would that it were so. The Bible already has been shown to be fictitious, particularly the resurrection fable, and it has not affected true believers. Facts rarely change religious or political beliefs. Those beliefs are tribal and almost immune to change. People rarely leave their tribes. They are like sports fans. How many fervent Chicago Cubs fans became NY Yankees fans because of a 108 year World Series drought?
Most people who grow up in Muslim countries become Muslims. People raised in Christianity become Christians.

Certainly there are exceptions. There are several here on this forum who were once Christians and honestly examined their faith and realized that faith was misplaced. But that's not the way to bet. Most who leave, simply drift away when they become adults.

If facts mattered, everyone would get vaccinated.

[Diogenes]

The "success" of Islam and Buddhism can hardly compare to the historical impact of Jesus in world history in terms of scope.

But, back to the main point, which is an explanation for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation.

I am genuinely surprised to hear this argument. As previously mentioned it employs the ad populum fallacy, that something is valid because it is popular.

Where did I make this argument?
....

Did you not write "... for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation?" What did you mean by this if not to claim that the great impact of Jesus in human history can only be explained by the resurrection? If not, perhaps you can explain what really meant when you wrote
"But, back to the main point, which is an explanation for the impact of Jesus in human history, since nobody has offered any other explanation, then the resurrection remains the only explanation."

Are you saying the claim of the resurrection is what made him have such an impact? There are other claims in other religions about supposed resurrections.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/ ... r_fac_pubs
https://www.britannica.com/topic/resurrection-religion

The idea is as old as reincarnation.

[TRANSPONDER]

I maintain that showing the Bible to be essentially fictitious, particularly as regards the most doctrinally central point - the resurrection - would impact Christianity massively.

Would that it were so. The Bible already has been shown to be fictitious, particularly the resurrection fable, and it has not affected true believers. Facts rarely change religious or political beliefs. Those beliefs are tribal and almost immune to change. People rarely leave their tribes. They are like sports fans. How many fervent Chicago Cubs fans became NY Yankees fans because of a 108 year World Series drought?
Most people who grow up in Muslim countries become Muslims. People raised in Christianity become Christians.

Certainly there are exceptions. There are several here on this forum who were once Christians and honestly examined their faith and realized that faith was misplaced. But that's not the way to bet. Most who leave, simply drift away when they become adults.

If facts mattered, everyone would get vaccinated.

You may be right. I may be out of the loop on current Bible criticism, but in my time, it was 'one or two angels' that the believers could just wave away and nobody was really systematically comparing the accounts. Indeed it was quite late that I was shown that Mark hadn't lost his ending; he never had one. And certainly the 'second census' apologetic was still being argued and maybe still is. It is now dead and buried, but I wonder how many people know it? It's not the apologetics that's the problem but getting it heard. Until then Believers can still claim '4 reliable witnesses to the resurrection' and get away with it.

[Diogenes]

I maintain that showing the Bible to be essentially fictitious, particularly as regards the most doctrinally central point - the resurrection - would impact Christianity massively.

Would that it were so. The Bible already has been shown to be fictitious, particularly the resurrection fable, and it has not affected true believers. Facts rarely change religious or political beliefs. Those beliefs are tribal and almost immune to change. People rarely leave their tribes. They are like sports fans. How many fervent Chicago Cubs fans became NY Yankees fans because of a 108 year World Series drought?
Most people who grow up in Muslim countries become Muslims. People raised in Christianity become Christians.

Certainly there are exceptions. There are several here on this forum who were once Christians and honestly examined their faith and realized that faith was misplaced. But that's not the way to bet. Most who leave, simply drift away when they become adults.

If facts mattered, everyone would get vaccinated.

You may be right. I may be out of the loop on current Bible criticism, but in my time, it was 'one or two angels' that the believers could just wave away and nobody was really systematically comparing the accounts. Indeed it was quite late that I was shown that Mark hadn't lost his ending; he never had one. And certainly the 'second census' apologetic was still being argued and maybe still is. It is now dead and buried, but I wonder how many people know it? It's not the apologetics that's the problem but getting it heard. Until then Believers can still claim '4 reliable witnesses to the resurrection' and get away with it.

Yes, there are many examples, from the fantastic stuff in Genesis and Revelation to the clear claims attributed to Jesus that he would come back in the lifetimes of some who heard his sermons. Paul and others certainly believed he'd be back soon. That's why the Church had to forge letters from him like 2 Thessalonians, claiming the wait would be longer. The verbal gymnastics apologists have to go thru to explain the 2000 year delay are hilarious. Also the Bible is pretty clear in several passages, that 'god' believes the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

[otseng]

And even if you were to argue that the resurrection looked convincing and that contributed to the success of Christianity, that does not make it true.

I assume you mean it doesn't prove the resurrection is true. If so, yes, I could agree with that.

So far as I know, nobody has pointed up serious discrepancy as a reason to think it entirely concocted, but it is already known that looking (superficially) factual may account to for the appeal, sure, but does not make it true.

I would agree there's no serious discrepancies in the major points of Jesus's resurrection.

It is, but if there was no such tower at that time, then the dating is otiose.

You can claim there's no such tower that exists now, but how can you claim there was no tower back then?

Have you a candidate with more substantial fouindations that a myth within a book of Myth?

I already presented the dates of the first recorded languages fit with the dating of the Tower of Babel. If all the languages did not come from a single source, then how did they independently arise? If homo sapiens came about 300,000 years ago, why would languages independently arise only 5000 years ago? And also after the dating of the Tower of Babel?

Also, there is commonality in worldwide cultures. One evidence we already discussed is commonalities in a global flood myth. This is better explained as coming from a single source than independently arising. I'll present another interesting commonality in another post.

John's escaping into the hills because the people wanted to make Jesus a king by force has to be his version of the Transfiguration. They are undeniable the same event. They are undeniably different. Why?

That's a new one for me. Also, what do you mean by they are undeniably the same and different event?

That he did not implies that he knew he had no time.

What basis do you believe that he had no time? I don't see this recorded in either the Biblical or Assyrian accounts.

What is clear is that the Bible says that Assyrians left Jerusalem intact because God smote them. But I argue that wasn't the reason and is polemic Biblical Spin.

Well, as I've argued, it is just saying they don't know what happened, like lawyers using the phrase act of God.