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]

Naturalism may not be automatically or irrevocably present itself as the only system of finding truth, but what is in second place? What other system comes close.

The clue to the answer lies in the reference you provided earlier...

In fact, science is not even equipped to answer the question of metaphysical naturalism. Since methodological naturalism focuses on naturalistic causes and effects to the exclusion of anything else, science cannot hope to find out whether or not anything non-natural exists without defying its methodology. A priori, the methodological naturalism of science precludes its operating in terms of ultimate metaphysics. When science then engages in this behavior on the basis of science itself, it is merely begging the question.

How then can metaphysical naturalism be held as true? Only metaphysicians, or philosophers (or even philosophers of science) are equipped to answer this question. But only in the case that one has good reasons to think God does not exist does one also have good reason to think metaphysical naturalism is true! Even then, the problems referenced in the footnote before must be adequately addressed. So, the methodological naturalist has no basis for embracing metaphysical naturalism. What is required for this basis is both good reasons to think God does not exist and a coherent answer to the critics. In any case, scientists do not have good reasons, a priori, to accept metaphysical naturalism. They are not even using the right tools for the question!

https://www.randyeverist.com/2011/03/me ... sm-vs.html

It is through philosophy that we can answer these ultimate questions. I would also add philosophy is not "second place", but arguable the "first place". The foundation of modern science is built on the branches of philosophy (logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics) and more specifically the philosophy of science.

[otseng]

No, no. For me yjis is about Bible reliability as to actual events and minor errors like one or two angels (easily excused) against errors that really call Bible credibility into question (The nativities, no Transfiguration in John and - yes - the resurrections make the mid -biggies (two donkeys, the announcement in the Nazareth synagogue, the death of Judas) look like fabrications even though excuses can be made. This cumulative debunk of the Bible bringing debatable stuff like the missing parables, arrangement of sermon material and the one -offs, omissions and misplaced events into consideration. Doctrine is irrelevant. Really. If the Bible loses credibility, doctrine goes with it.

The way I see it, what you are attacking is the absolute maximalist (5) position (Everything in the Bible actually occurred. Every fact and detail claimed in the Bible is true. All narratives should be taken literally). Of course, there are people who hold to this view and I would classify them as inerrantists. And I would agree that your points would refute the absolute maximalist (5) position. For inerrantists, everything in the Bible must be true because this is their doctrinal position. And if anything is shown to be false, it would attack their doctrine.

However, I hold to the maximalist (4) position (Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect). And finding non-doctrinal "errors" would not refute this position. So any of these "problems" would not have any impact on my position - How did Sennacherib's army die? How many angels were at Jesus's tomb? Why is there no transfiguration story in gospel of John? Long ending of mark. Story of woman caught in adultery.

My doctrinal position would be similar to the inerrantists, except for holding to the doctrine of inerrancy. And the fundamental doctrinal points would be the crucifixion, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

how would you common on it being non -credible that they were brought about by Biblegod for the purpose the Bible says?

I don't understand your question.

Yes, I gather there was a time that the earth was largely water with islands rather than continents.

The article does not say that. It says it was completely covered with water. Would you be willing to believe that?

This is why the resurrection for me is the focal debate of Bible credibility.

I would agree with this.

[Diogenes]

Naturalism may not be automatically or irrevocably present itself as the only system of finding truth, but what is in second place? What other system comes close.

The clue to the answer lies in the reference you provided earlier...

In fact, science is not even equipped to answer the question of metaphysical naturalism. Since methodological naturalism focuses on naturalistic causes and effects to the exclusion of anything else, science cannot hope to find out whether or not anything non-natural exists without defying its methodology. A priori, the methodological naturalism of science precludes its operating in terms of ultimate metaphysics. When science then engages in this behavior on the basis of science itself, it is merely begging the question.

How then can metaphysical naturalism be held as true? Only metaphysicians, or philosophers (or even philosophers of science) are equipped to answer this question. But only in the case that one has good reasons to think God does not exist does one also have good reason to think metaphysical naturalism is true! Even then, the problems referenced in the footnote before must be adequately addressed. So, the methodological naturalist has no basis for embracing metaphysical naturalism. What is required for this basis is both good reasons to think God does not exist and a coherent answer to the critics. In any case, scientists do not have good reasons, a priori, to accept metaphysical naturalism. They are not even using the right tools for the question!

https://www.randyeverist.com/2011/03/me ... sm-vs.html

It is through philosophy that we can answer these ultimate questions. I would also add philosophy is not "second place", but arguable the "first place". The foundation of modern science is built on the branches of philosophy (logic, epistemology, metaphysics, ethics) and more specifically the philosophy of science.

Because philosophy provides a tool to discuss something does not mean the 'something' exists. Because Joe Smith had a stone with a hole to look thru, does not make the golden plates real.

[otseng]

Because philosophy provides a tool to discuss something does not mean the 'something' exists.

Discussing what actually exists would be through ontology:

"Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

Sure, ontology cannot "prove" something exists, but it does provide a rational basis to believe something exists. Granted, ontological arguments are quite abstract, but they are respected tools nonetheless among scholars.

But, all of this is not directly related to this thread. Since I'm not invoking any supernatural causation in this thread, the only thing we're looking at is empirical evidence and how they fit with the claims of the Bible. So, continuing on with archaeological evidence...

[otseng]

One of the most significant Biblical archaeological discoveries is the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls in a remote Judean Desert cave in 1947 is widely considered the greatest archaeological event of the twentieth century."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls

"Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is among the more important finds in the history of modern archaeology."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dead-Sea-Scrolls

This discovery affirms the reliability of the transmission of the Old Testament. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one could argue the Old Testament could've been corrupted with transmission errors since the oldest copy in existence was the Leningrad Codex, which dated to around 1008 AD.

"At one time, scholars imagined the Masoretic Text (our earliest Hebrew manuscript of the Bible before the Scrolls’ discovery) to be riddled with scribal errors and editorial changes."
https://www.logos.com/how-to/study-the-dead-sea-scrolls

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pushes the oldest text of the Hebrew Bible back over a thousand years.

"Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hi ... ea-scrolls

Comparison of the text between the Masoretic and the Dead Sea Scrolls show strong stability, even after a period of a thousand years of copying. It refutes the claim the Hebrew scripture has been riddled with transmission errors that would make the text unreliable.

"the differences between the biblical texts found at Qumran and the MT only rarely affect the meaning of a passage—such as differences in spelling or the addition or subtraction of a conjunction. This suggests that the greatest care was taken by the scribes who copied the Scriptures."
https://www.logos.com/how-to/study-the-dead-sea-scrolls

"the scrolls did not utterly transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... a-scrolls/

"The discovery demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period, rendering it reasonable to believe that current Old Testament texts are reliable copies of the original works."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

"Comparative studies reveal word-for-word identity in 95 percent of the text. Minor variants consist mostly of slips of the pen or spelling. Only 13 small changes were discovered in the entire Dead Sea Scrolls copy of Isaiah, eight of which were known from other-ancient sources. After 1,000 years of copying, there were no changes in meaning and almost no changes in wording"
https://ses.edu/has-the-bible-been-accu ... centuries/

"It’s true that there are differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text—the Hebrew manuscript on which our modern Old Testament is based. Some of these are relatively insignificant, such as differences in spelling or the height of Goliath (the Dead Sea Scrolls say he was 6’6”, the Masoretic text says he was over nine feet tall). Some are more significant, such as one scroll that provides an explanation as to why God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which makes that story look more like the book of Job. There are also additional psalms attributed to David and Daniel, and more prophecies from Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel. Despite these textual variants and significant differences, the similarities in both ancient and more modern texts actually prove that the transmission of Scripture over the ages has been remarkably accurate."
https://www.thenivbible.com/blog/myths- ... a-scrolls/

"Fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except the Book of Esther) were found in the Qumran caves, the most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls sites. Remarkably, some of these ancient copies are identical to the traditional text of the Hebrew Bible that is used today. Other copies preserve differences in the text, which was in the process of standardisation."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls

"Many biblical manuscripts closely resemble the Masoretic Text, the accepted text of the Hebrew Bible from the second half of the first millennium ce until today. This similarity is quite remarkable, considering that the Qumran Scrolls are over a thousand years older than previously identified biblical manuscripts."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn ... troduction

You can view the Dead Sea Scrolls at:
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive

[TRANSPONDER]

No, no. For me yjis is about Bible reliability as to actual events and minor errors like one or two angels (easily excused) against errors that really call Bible credibility into question (The nativities, no Transfiguration in John and - yes - the resurrections make the mid -biggies (two donkeys, the announcement in the Nazareth synagogue, the death of Judas) look like fabrications even though excuses can be made. This cumulative debunk of the Bible bringing debatable stuff like the missing parables, arrangement of sermon material and the one -offs, omissions and misplaced events into consideration. Doctrine is irrelevant. Really. If the Bible loses credibility, doctrine goes with it.

The way I see it, what you are attacking is the absolute maximalist (5) position (Everything in the Bible actually occurred. Every fact and detail claimed in the Bible is true. All narratives should be taken literally). Of course, there are people who hold to this view and I would classify them as inerrantists. And I would agree that your points would refute the absolute maximalist (5) position. For inerrantists, everything in the Bible must be true because this is their doctrinal position. And if anything is shown to be false, it would attack their doctrine.

However, I hold to the maximalist (4) position (Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect). And finding non-doctrinal "errors" would not refute this position. So any of these "problems" would not have any impact on my position - How did Sennacherib's army die? How many angels were at Jesus's tomb? Why is there no transfiguration story in gospel of John? Long ending of mark. Story of woman caught in adultery.

My doctrinal position would be similar to the inerrantists, except for holding to the doctrine of inerrancy. And the fundamental doctrinal points would be the crucifixion, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The way I see it,the Bible fails on so many levels, that it is irrelevant to talk about doctrinal or non doctrinal errors or whether something is totally untrue or partially untrue. The god and miracle claims are false, even if the places are real and events happened (God saving Jerusalem from the Assyrians, Tyre never being rebuilt), events not being true even if the people and places were real (collapse of the walls of Jericho, the Nativities), and some things were pretty much total myth with little relation to anything real: Genesis, Exodus, pretty much entire, the shekel- eating fish, the proto -eucharist in the Capernaum synagogue (John 6.53) and that ludicrous 'sanhedrin trial'. Validating those views is another thing of course, but my view on how much the Bible fails makes it irrelevant to to talk about inerrancy meaning every single place, person and event has to be wrong before one can talk of 'inerrancy'. It is also pointless to talk of Doctrinal fails or non doctrinal fails. It has been said, if the Bible is not believable in earthly claims, how can we believe the heavenly claims?

how would you common on it being non -credible that they were brought about by Biblegod for the purpose the Bible says?

I don't understand your question.

Don't blame you; it should have read: "how would you comment on it being non -credible that they were brought about by Biblegod for the purpose the Bible says?" And to clarify that, if the Flood was real but not total (so the reason for the Flood couldn't be what the Bible says), or if..say, clay tablets were found saying that a Mesopotamian king sent ambassadors who spoke different languages to all other nations to teach them how to build Ziggurats (and it was nothing to do with confounding people so the tower wouldn't reach heaven) would you say the Bible was true because the 'Babel' event happened or false because religious Spin had been put on it? Not, (since you tried to get me to say so with all the adroit subtlety of a WWI tank trying to car -park) that the world ever having been totally covered in water or a ziggurat actually having been built in Babylon means I agree with the Biblical Flood or Babel.

Yes, I gather there was a time that the earth was largely water with islands rather than continents.

The article does not say that. It says it was completely covered with water. Would you be willing to believe that?

If the evidence was compelling, yes. I had a quick look, but there always seemed to be large islands even during the most Waterworld period. But obviously to get from that to the Biblical flood much less a Flood for the reason the Bible says is just more that you have to validate.

This is why the resurrection for me is the focal debate of Bible credibility.

I would agree with this.

It is a stand or fall for Christianity. Paul hit the nail (not the one he was trying to hit ) when he said if the resurrection wasn't true, then the (Christian) faith is in vain. The Nativities are important in establishing the precedent of Gospel fabrication and also taking down the Dogma of virgin birth with it, as well (incidentally) damaging the claim that Matthew was a Jew, a follower of Jesus or even understood the scriptures, but it's the precedent they set for the debunk of the resurrection - stories that undermines Christianity. So many of the Bible -validating books i read tried to prove that the resurrection must have happened. But the evidence is against it.

It is so very 'errant'. It is terminally contradictory. minimal errors (like one or two angels) is irrelevant. Contradiction about whether the women saw Jesus or not (and when) is relevant It doesn't matter that there may be a Bethany, a Pilate, a crucifixion, a Caiaphas or even a Jesus. Even if the arrest, trial and crucifixion was true, the resurrection accounts would still fail. Just as if you could show that Mespotamia had exported Ziggurat - building all over the ancient world, that would still not make the Biblical tale 'doctrinally' credible.

[TRANSPONDER]

One of the most significant Biblical archaeological discoveries is the Dead Sea Scrolls.

"The discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls in a remote Judean Desert cave in 1947 is widely considered the greatest archaeological event of the twentieth century."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls

"Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is among the more important finds in the history of modern archaeology."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dead-Sea-Scrolls

This discovery affirms the reliability of the transmission of the Old Testament. Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one could argue the Old Testament could've been corrupted with transmission errors since the oldest copy in existence was the Leningrad Codex, which dated to around 1008 AD.

"At one time, scholars imagined the Masoretic Text (our earliest Hebrew manuscript of the Bible before the Scrolls’ discovery) to be riddled with scribal errors and editorial changes."
https://www.logos.com/how-to/study-the-dead-sea-scrolls

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls pushes the oldest text of the Hebrew Bible back over a thousand years.

"Today scholarly opinion regarding the time span and background of the Dead Sea Scrolls is anchored in historical, paleographic, and linguistic evidence, corroborated firmly by carbon 14-datings. Some manuscripts were written and copied in the third century B.C.E., but the bulk of the material, particularly the texts that reflect on a sectarian community, are originals or copies from the first century B.C.E.; a number of texts date from as late as the years preceding the destruction of the site in 68 C.E. at the hands of the Roman legions."
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/hi ... ea-scrolls

Comparison of the text between the Masoretic and the Dead Sea Scrolls show strong stability, even after a period of a thousand years of copying. It refutes the claim the Hebrew scripture has been riddled with transmission errors that would make the text unreliable.

"the differences between the biblical texts found at Qumran and the MT only rarely affect the meaning of a passage—such as differences in spelling or the addition or subtraction of a conjunction. This suggests that the greatest care was taken by the scribes who copied the Scriptures."
https://www.logos.com/how-to/study-the-dead-sea-scrolls

"the scrolls did not utterly transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text."
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... a-scrolls/

"The discovery demonstrated the unusual accuracy of transmission over a thousand-year period, rendering it reasonable to believe that current Old Testament texts are reliable copies of the original works."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

"Comparative studies reveal word-for-word identity in 95 percent of the text. Minor variants consist mostly of slips of the pen or spelling. Only 13 small changes were discovered in the entire Dead Sea Scrolls copy of Isaiah, eight of which were known from other-ancient sources. After 1,000 years of copying, there were no changes in meaning and almost no changes in wording"
https://ses.edu/has-the-bible-been-accu ... centuries/

"It’s true that there are differences between the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text—the Hebrew manuscript on which our modern Old Testament is based. Some of these are relatively insignificant, such as differences in spelling or the height of Goliath (the Dead Sea Scrolls say he was 6’6”, the Masoretic text says he was over nine feet tall). Some are more significant, such as one scroll that provides an explanation as to why God asked Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which makes that story look more like the book of Job. There are also additional psalms attributed to David and Daniel, and more prophecies from Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Daniel. Despite these textual variants and significant differences, the similarities in both ancient and more modern texts actually prove that the transmission of Scripture over the ages has been remarkably accurate."
https://www.thenivbible.com/blog/myths- ... a-scrolls/

"Fragments of every book of the Hebrew Bible (except the Book of Esther) were found in the Qumran caves, the most famous of the Dead Sea Scrolls sites. Remarkably, some of these ancient copies are identical to the traditional text of the Hebrew Bible that is used today. Other copies preserve differences in the text, which was in the process of standardisation."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/featured-scrolls

"Many biblical manuscripts closely resemble the Masoretic Text, the accepted text of the Hebrew Bible from the second half of the first millennium ce until today. This similarity is quite remarkable, considering that the Qumran Scrolls are over a thousand years older than previously identified biblical manuscripts."
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn ... troduction

You can view the Dead Sea Scrolls at:
https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive

That brings up a good point. Does 'inerrant' mean 'true' or 'accurately coped?' Obviously meticulously copying a fairy tale through generations (whether or not through oral tradition) does not make it true, but the transmission of the tale is accurate. So yes it's a use of the 'inerrancy' idea that perhaps pulls me in when I'm thinking it means 'true'.

In fact (on my previous board) I used to maintain that Matthew having Jesus quote about 'babes and sucklings' showed that he must have used the Septuagint as the passage in the OT doesn't read like that. But a poster pointed up that Matthew's quote actually agreed more with the OT passage in the Qumran scrolls, which I confirmed.

That required a rethink and the possibility that NT quotes might actually be as used in the 1st c and it is the Bible OT version (and thus the Mazoretic reading) that disagrees with the Qumran scrolls, and the Septuagint could be more accurate a translation than was credited. There's obviously a lot to look into there, but - if that's the case - then the discussion changes from 'innerrant' - carefully copied by men, never mind God ensuring it was accurate' to 'Absolutely copied by men, sometimes with errors or changes, but generally recording the sense, whether or not that was true'.

Some substantial changes, mistakes, alterations or misreadings puts God's micromanaging out of the window and it's purely, 'can we rely on the present Bible as copying the original documents without serious errors?'

This is what the Dead Sea apologetic is about, I think. 'If the Jews copies their scriptures accurately over thousands of years, we can trust the Gospels to have accurately reported the events'.

Yes, I think that's the apologetic, and is intended to counter the argument "we can't trust the Jesus story as there could have been alterations in the text". Minds, It could be a strawman objection, because of course the critique of the NT is that it more or less copied (with minor errors) a tall story that was a lie in the original.

[otseng]

but my view on how much the Bible fails makes it irrelevant to to talk about inerrancy meaning every single place, person and event has to be wrong before one can talk of 'inerrancy'.

Not really. The commonly held view of inerrancy is the entire Bible is without error. So, just a single error would attack the doctrine of inerrancy. There is no need to show every single place, person, and event is wrong.

It is also pointless to talk of Doctrinal fails or non doctrinal fails. It has been said, if the Bible is not believable in earthly claims, how can we believe the heavenly claims?

We agree on many of the earthly claims of the attack on Jerusalem. We agree there was a battle between Judah and the Assyrians. We agree Sennacherib attacked Jerusalem and then left without conquering it. What we do not agree on is why Sennacherib left. I do not see that as sufficient reason to consider the Bible as unreliable and "not believable in earthly claims".

Doctrine is the core beliefs. It is the main points of Christianity. When these are refuted, then the structure collapses. However, refuting minor points do not invalidate the main claims. Again, since I hold to a maximalist (4) position and not absolute maximalist (5), I allow for minor points to be incorrect.

If you do not accept the distinction of what is major and what is minor are doctrinal and non-doctrinal points, then where do you draw the line of what is a major point (which would invalidate the reliability of the Bible) and what is a minor point (which would not invalidate the reliability of the Bible)?

The god and miracle claims are false

They are only false because of the assumption naturalism is true. In order for you to claim miraculous claims are false, you must first prove naturalism is true, which, afaik, nobody has ever done this.

Don't blame you; it should have read: "how would you comment on it being non -credible that they were brought about by Biblegod for the purpose the Bible says?" And to clarify that, if the Flood was real but not total (so the reason for the Flood couldn't be what the Bible says), or if..say, clay tablets were found saying that a Mesopotamian king sent ambassadors who spoke different languages to all other nations to teach them how to build Ziggurats (and it was nothing to do with confounding people so the tower wouldn't reach heaven) would you say the Bible was true because the 'Babel' event happened or false because religious Spin had been put on it?

Your examples do not clarify what you're asking because I've never claimed any of your examples. I believe the flood was total and never said anything about ambassadors sent out to teach others how to build ziggarats.

If the evidence was compelling, yes. I had a quick look, but there always seemed to be large islands even during the most Waterworld period. But obviously to get from that to the Biblical flood much less a Flood for the reason the Bible says is just more that you have to validate.

The word "island" is not in the article. What it does say is: "ancient Earth was an unbroken expanse of water, without a single continent." So, what large islands are you referring to?

My point in presenting the article is even scientists can posit the entire world being covered with water. So, it lends credence to the possibility of the entire world being covered with water, which is what the Bible claims.

This is why the resurrection for me is the focal debate of Bible credibility.

I would agree with this.

It is a stand or fall for Christianity. Paul hit the nail (not the one he was trying to hit ) when he said if the resurrection wasn't true, then the (Christian) faith is in vain.

Since we both agree on this, we will get back to the resurrection after discussing archaeology.

It is so very 'errant'. It is terminally contradictory. minimal errors (like one or two angels) is irrelevant. Contradiction about whether the women saw Jesus or not (and when) is relevant It doesn't matter that there may be a Bethany, a Pilate, a crucifixion, a Caiaphas or even a Jesus. Even if the arrest, trial and crucifixion was true, the resurrection accounts would still fail.

I'll repeat the question from above... if you do not accept the distinction of what is major and what is minor are doctrinal and non-doctrinal points, then where do you draw the line of what is a major point and what is a minor point?

[otseng]

That brings up a good point. Does 'inerrant' mean 'true' or 'accurately coped?' Obviously meticulously copying a fairy tale through generations (whether or not through oral tradition) does not make it true, but the transmission of the tale is accurate. So yes it's a use of the 'inerrancy' idea that perhaps pulls me in when I'm thinking it means 'true'.

I'm not arguing for inerrancy, so that concept can be thrown out.

But, yes, having a good copy does not mean the original is factually correct. All I'm addressing is the scenario where the copy would be different from the original. Even if the original was correct, if the copy is different, then the copy could be incorrect. The Dead Sea Scrolls removes that possibility.

Some substantial changes, mistakes, alterations or misreadings puts God's micromanaging out of the window and it's purely, 'can we rely on the present Bible as copying the original documents without serious errors?'

God "micromanaging" the origin of the Bible is not part of this thread, so we can throw that concept out as well. Though I personally do believe God is involved in the origin of the Bible, it is not part of the discussions here. As I've stated before, no supernatural causation will be invoked in this thread.

This is what the Dead Sea apologetic is about, I think. 'If the Jews copies their scriptures accurately over thousands of years, we can trust the Gospels to have accurately reported the events'.

Actually, more specifically, it only applies to the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The reliability of the text of the NT would be another line of argument.

[TRANSPONDER]

That brings up a good point. Does 'inerrant' mean 'true' or 'accurately coped?' Obviously meticulously copying a fairy tale through generations (whether or not through oral tradition) does not make it true, but the transmission of the tale is accurate. So yes it's a use of the 'inerrancy' idea that perhaps pulls me in when I'm thinking it means 'true'.

I'm not arguing for inerrancy, so that concept can be thrown out.

But, yes, having a good copy does not mean the original is factually correct. All I'm addressing is the scenario where the copy would be different from the original. Even if the original was correct, if the copy is different, then the copy could be incorrect. The Dead Sea Scrolls removes that possibility.

Some substantial changes, mistakes, alterations or misreadings puts God's micromanaging out of the window and it's purely, 'can we rely on the present Bible as copying the original documents without serious errors?'

God "micromanaging" the origin of the Bible is not part of this thread, so we can throw that concept out as well. Though I personally do believe God is involved in the origin of the Bible, it is not part of the discussions here. As I've stated before, no supernatural causation will be invoked in this thread.

This is what the Dead Sea apologetic is about, I think. 'If the Jews copies their scriptures accurately over thousands of years, we can trust the Gospels to have accurately reported the events'.

Actually, more specifically, it only applies to the Old Testament, not the New Testament. The reliability of the text of the NT would be another line of argument.

Agreed, more or less, though what you throw out is a Christian apologetic rather than a Skeptical one. The Qumran texts (in one case at least) do diverge from the present OT and I presume the Mazoretic reading, and appear to match the Septuagint better (and thus the readings of the Jesus quotes, though that does not excuse Matthew's misunderstanding that leads to the Virgin prophecy and the two donkeys, never mind the prediction of the massacre of innocents. We can both agree that innerancy of the God - micromanaging kind is not an option, so God has to work through humans. It is just a question of whether the human efforts are creditable enough for Bible veracity (and thus a god being true) or whether the Bible is so false that human story -tellers, to be frank, are at work here and no god (even if there is one) is involved at all.

Call it innerrancy or something else; that is the real discussion, not God's micromanaging of His Book.