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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #764]

I'm looking for an objective definition, rather than examples. Your examples to me are simply minor issues. They have no impact on any doctrinal issues, so under my classification, they would all be minor points. You can even remove all those passages from the Bible and it would have no impact on doctrinal belief.

Simply pointing out a list of minor points do not invalidate the entire Bible. It would be like me pointing out all your typos, improper formatting, wrong terms used, false accusations, unsupported claims and then saying you are unreliable and everything should be discounted. I have to dig past those things and get to the core of what you are communicating. If I simply respond back to your posts and only point out your typos and formatting errors without ever addressing your main points, then it is not really discussing what is trying to be communicated. Instead, I spend little time mentioning these minor issues, but focus on the main points of what you are conveying.

Also, I still feel there's this expectation from skeptics in this thread that inerrancy is held to, even though the OP explicitly rejects inerrancy.

If the scribes copied perfectly (guided by an omniscient and omnipotent God) why would there be even small discrepancies?"

One can't be true and may be a copyists' error or a deliberate exaggeration (a lie in fact) either way.

A definition or classification? An untruth, particularly and perhaps specifically, knowingly. The writers who split off Hezekiah submitting and paying tribute to another part of the scriptures and replacing it with the Assyrians being smitten so that Jerusalem was saved, is (on all the evidence) a lie, a deliberate lie and we know why - to make out that God was looking after the Judeans.

Whether the lie is major or minor depends on the implications. Let's say in the anointing at Bethany the disciples clamour against Mary, but John alters it to just Judas. Now, given that one can make up all kinds of excuses, or just appeal to 'who knows?', the evidence in the text suggests that it was originally 'some people' (*Mark) but Matthew changed it to the disciples (as why would anyone change it to the other way?) and if John changed the story to point the finger at Judas, this is a knowing lie. I know it can be argued in other ways, but if such a deliberate alteration is done, it is a lie, but a minor one as it doesn't make much difference to Gospel credibility or lack of, since we already know the gospel -writers are fiddlers anyway.

I'm doing this at some length to clear up this red -herring nonsense about definitions of lie or what's major or minor, which are merely attempts at obfuscation and we all know it and we would rather see no more of it.

[otseng]

Major contradictions or discrepancies are, as I explained, ones that bring the credibility of the Bible -narrative into serious question and can't be easily explained. Obviously if the gospels (for instance) agree on something it is not going to be a discrepancy or contradiction. Also if easily explained or irrelevant (1) it is minor.

This is further indication of an inerrant view of the Bible. When there is no inerrant view of the Bible, unexplained discrepancies and contradictions can exist and it does not invalidate the text. As stated before, I hold a Maximalist (Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect.) view. This view allows for things to be incorrect. So, bringing up minor points, no matter how many are brought up, has no impact on my position.

because that is the lie - the evidence says they didn't 'die' - not so as to save Jerusalem (you will not, I trust pull 'oh...well surely Some died..' so as not to make yourself a laughing -stock).

Personal attack aside... are you claiming none of the Assyrians died?

they can see that the major contradictions DO call Bible reliability into question as well as I can,

What major contradiction are you referring to?

and your ongoing refusal to see it (or pretend that you don't) harms the credit of your case and your own., mate,

Posturing doesn't help your case. Please present logical arguments instead.

And it's not getting at you, mate; it's something that Believers catch, like C19, and it's not really their fault.

What C19 are you referring to?

One can't be true and may be a copyists' error or a deliberate exaggeration (a lie in fact) either way.

These are two different things. One deals with God micromanaging his book and the other is evaluating the Bible narrative in the way we'd evaluate any other book.

I'm evaluating the Bible as any other ancient book.

We acknowledge all books have errors in them. There is no perfect text or source. But, we can still rely on texts even if they are not perfect. We have to understand the primary meaning and not let the minor details detract from the main point. The Jerusalem siege is a good example of this. Is the main point of the text how the Assyrians died? I argue even the Jews didn't know they died. The main point is the entire nation of Judah was at the point of annihilation with absolutely no hope of salvation, but overnight they were spared. Do you disagree that this is the main point?

Why would it be hard to believe God smote the Assyrian army? I believe because skeptics see this as a supernatural causation, therefore the Bible is wrong. Not only skeptics take this approach, but so do liberal Christians. In this case, I don't think it really matters how they died, whether Gabriel got out his guns, mice ate away at the Assyrian weapons, a plague... who really cares? We can even attribute the death to a natural cause and it does not affect the main point of the passage.

[TRANSPONDER]

Major contradictions or discrepancies are, as I explained, ones that bring the credibility of the Bible -narrative into serious question and can't be easily explained. Obviously if the gospels (for instance) agree on something it is not going to be a discrepancy or contradiction. Also if easily explained or irrelevant (1) it is minor.

This is further indication of an inerrant view of the Bible. When there is no inerrant view of the Bible, unexplained discrepancies and contradictions can exist and it does not invalidate the text. As stated before, I hold a Maximalist (Almost all events, places, and people existed. Major points would be true and minor details could be incorrect.) view. This view allows for things to be incorrect. So, bringing up minor points, no matter how many are brought up, has no impact on my position.

Whatever you call it, important or major points that are demonstrably call into question Bible veracity, like fiddling actual historical events like the Assyrian Siege or the siege of Tyre to make s god -claim are significant points in the sketical side. The demonstrable unhistoricity of the Nativities being major,along with the dubious resurrection -claim, the shifted anointing, and rejection at Nazareth in Luke the missing Transfiguration in John, Genesis and (I argue) Exodus 1-40 inclusive.....and more contradictions and discrepancies than you can shake a stick at.

because that is the lie - the evidence says they didn't 'die' - not so as to save Jerusalem (you will not, I trust pull 'oh...well surely Some died..' so as not to make yourself a laughing -stock).

Personal attack aside... are you claiming none of the Assyrians died?

Trap fallen into despite me warning you about it, not attacking you. Congratulations.

they can see that the major contradictions DO call Bible reliability into question as well as I can,

What major contradiction are you referring to?

Any or all of them, examples given above. And in many other posts.

and your ongoing refusal to see it (or pretend that you don't) harms the credit of your case and your own., mate,

Posturing doesn't help your case. Please present logical arguments instead.{/quote]

Not posturing - just pointing to what everyone should be able to see - from apologetics 1 (arguing the evidence) to apologetics 2 (dancing about trying to score irrelevant technical points.

And it's not getting at you, mate; it's something that Believers catch, like C19, and it's not really their fault.

What C19 are you referring to?

There's on 1 C19 affecting us at the moment.

One can't be true and may be a copyists' error or a deliberate exaggeration (a lie in fact) either way.

These are two different things. One deals with God micromanaging his book and the other is evaluating the Bible narrative in the way we'd evaluate any other book.

I'm evaluating the Bible as any other ancient book.

So am I. But many other books will try to make points in tandem with the historical - polemic, religious or political. Those can't be ignored.

We acknowledge all books have errors in them. There is no perfect text or source. But, we can still rely on texts even if they are not perfect. We have to understand the primary meaning and not let the minor details detract from the main point. The Jerusalem siege is a good example of this. Is the main point of the text how the Assyrians died? I argue even the Jews didn't know they died. The main point is the entire nation of Judah was at the point of annihilation with absolutely no hope of salvation, but overnight they were spared. Do you disagree that this is the main point?

Why would it be hard to believe God smote the Assyrian army? I believe because skeptics see this as a supernatural causation, therefore the Bible is wrong. Not only skeptics take this approach, but so do liberal Christians. In this case, I don't think it really matters how they died, whether Gabriel got out his guns, mice ate away at the Assyrian weapons, a plague... who really cares? We can even attribute the death to a natural cause and it does not affect the main point of the passage.

You are in denial. I have pointed out good (indeed persuasive) reason to doubt the Bible claim that Jerusalem was 'spared' (let alone by God smiting anyone). The only reason that Sennacherib did not groan and say "I'd hoped I wouldn't have to spend yet more time doing this" and then take and sack Jerusalem was because Hezekiah submitted and paid tribute. Both sources agree this but the Bible tries to cover it up to fool later generations, in fact, into thinking that a god was looking out for them. This (if you remember) was an example of an actual event that cannot (as you tried to do) be used to bolster the Bible as reliable, because it lies about whether Jerusalem was saved or whether Hezekiah surrendered when offered terms.

Even if camp fever or shortage of supplies forced Sennacherib to offer terms, not only is there no reason to credit a god for that, but the Bible is peddling a lie by trying to cover up that Hezekiah agreed to submit - on all the evidence. You may call it posturing on my part or even 'personal attack (apologetics of the 3rd kind ) but your persistent denial - or attempted dismissal - of the main point of the case I'm making, about the Bible trying to lie about the event, must harm your case, with anyone whose mind is not blinded by Godfaith already.

[otseng]

What major contradiction are you referring to?

Any or all of them, examples given above. And in many other posts.

Sure, you can claim all your examples are major, but from my standpoint, there are all just trivial points. They do not affect any major Christian belief. And doubtful many sermons even mention the passages that you reference.

What C19 are you referring to?

There's on 1 C19 affecting us at the moment.

Actually, during this entire time, I've never gotten covid, so your claim that believers have fallen into errors like getting covid would not apply to me.

I'm evaluating the Bible as any other ancient book.

So am I. But many other books will try to make points in tandem with the historical - polemic, religious or political. Those can't be ignored.

Yet, you agree that the Assyrian account also has spin and you take that as the final authority without any question.

Both sources agree this but the Bible tries to cover it up to fool later generations, in fact, into thinking that a god was looking out for them.

You have not answered if any Assyrians died or not during the siege on Jerusalem. We need to settle this first.

but your persistent denial - or attempted dismissal - of the main point of the case I'm making, about the Bible trying to lie about the event, must harm your case, with anyone whose mind is not blinded by Godfaith already.

Uh, that is continuing to make personal remarks.

[TRANSPONDER]

What major contradiction are you referring to?

Any or all of them, examples given above. And in many other posts.

Sure, you can claim all your examples are major, but from my standpoint, there are all just trivial points. They do not affect any major Christian belief. And doubtful many sermons even mention the passages that you reference.

What C19 are you referring to?

There's on 1 C19 affecting us at the moment.

Actually, during this entire time, I've never gotten covid, so your claim that believers have fallen into errors like getting covid would not apply to me.

I'm evaluating the Bible as any other ancient book.

So am I. But many other books will try to make points in tandem with the historical - polemic, religious or political. Those can't be ignored.

Yet, you agree that the Assyrian account also has spin and you take that as the final authority without any question.

Both sources agree this but the Bible tries to cover it up to fool later generations, in fact, into thinking that a god was looking out for them.

You have not answered if any Assyrians died or not during the siege on Jerusalem. We need to settle this first.

but your persistent denial - or attempted dismissal - of the main point of the case I'm making, about the Bible trying to lie about the event, must harm your case, with anyone whose mind is not blinded by Godfaith already.

Uh, that is continuing to make personal remarks.

Your standpoint doesn't matter. Neither in fact does mine. It is really up to the reader to decide who makes the case.

And my case is that the Bible has lied, not to put too fine a point on it. Both sources agree what happened. Hezekiah submitted when Sennacherib offered terms. I am sure that Sennacherib had to do damage limitation as he had not made an example of Hezekiah's rebellion, but he does not lie, as the Bible corroborate the Assyrian account, but the Bible does lie by claiming it was God smiting the Assyrians that saved Jerusalem, not Sennacherib offering terms.

Whether any Assyrians died during the siege is irrelevant. If indeed there was a siege. Sennacherib reduced Lachish and then went to do - over Libnah. It seems he just sent to Jerusalem offering terms which were accepted and I doubt that Jerusalem was besieged at all. But whatever, even if killing half the besieging army, camp disease, running out of supplies or mice eating their tents forced Sennacherib to make terms, that does not alter nor excuse the spin (not to say Lie) in the Bible that God smote the Assyrians and no surrender or tribute is mentioned apart from in a different part of the Bible.

I've not gotten it either but there's a lot of it about, like whatever it was I was making it analogous to. And I am not making personal remarks here any more than before - I am pointing up the flaws in your method of argument, like trying to hinge the case on an irrelevance like whether any Assyrians died. Like maybe one fell down a well and drowned so that makes you and the Bible right? Get real It does not do your case (or you) any good to treat it like it's personal.

[TRANSPONDER]

I at times watch a video or talk on Assyria. I watched a talk on this specific matter (Sennacherib and Hezekiah). It did follow the Biblical narrative: Hezekiah offered terms which Sennacherib accepted but then (the speaker suggested) Sennacherib after taking the tribute, reneged and besieges the city anyway. He pointed to 'something odd' about the Assyrian narrative and implied that Sennacherib was coving something up. He used the term 'Spin'.

Now, nobody denies that Assyrian kings banged the drum about their conquests but they aren't known for lying about what they do. I do suspect that Sennacherib doing a deal with Hezekiah was a climb down and he had to make it look like a triumph. But that said, the sequence of events is, the start of the campaign, taking a lot of towns, investing Jerusalem, Hezekiah paying tribute and Sennacherib taking it to Nineveh (1).

In pointing up 'something odd' about this, the speaker implies that the Assyrians are lying and that something smote the Assyrians (which could simply be camp disease) that sent the King back defeated with all that tribute and, or so it seems, the submission of Hezekiah, which Sennacherib had supposedly rejected.

Now THAT strikes me as odd. Which is why I suggests that the Bible did the spin and the events fitted the Assyrian account. Sennacherib arrived, Took Lachish and invested Libnah, sent to Hezekiah: "See this? You're next!" And Hezekiah paid the tribute after seeing the game was up, not as soon as Sennacherib arrived, as the speaker proposed. And of course Sennacherib took the tribute and submission and was glad to portray that as a triumph. It is not the only such video talk that accepts the order of events as in the Bible (one even thought it added something to have the narrative read out in Hebrew) and does not consider that it fiddles the tribute so it isn't the reason the Assyrians withdraw. But if you fit it with the Assyrian account, it makes sense - but it does put the skids under the claim that God saved the city.

There may have been some camp disease, shortage of supplies or a plague of mice, but, not only is that nothing to do with God (nah- you need the Assyrian army to magically vanish overnight), but Sennacherib had an army besieging Libnah. He still had an army. All things considered, it makes more sense if the paying of tribute and submission was the reason the attack was called off, and the suggestion that Sennacherib took the tribute and then refused the submission makes less sense, and conflicts with the Assyrian account.

So others must decide which explanation is more likely. The video presenter never even considered that the Bible might be fiddling the facts. It wasn't too much of a surprise when I checked and found out his historians' credentials - an evangelical Bible apologist. I know - the bias card. But I will consider at least that something happened to force Sennacherib to call off the campaign. But the Bible apologist side never seem to be able to consider that it was because Tribute and submission was paid, as the Assyrian AND Biblical record says - but the Bible pushes it out of the way and makes it a miracle instead.

Next discussion... the 'prophecy' of Tyre.

Sorry to labour this, but again, otseng puts the best case possible, and all the elements have to be considered in deciding which accounts is closer to he truth.

"What ...is the capital of Assyria?"

"What do you mean? The first Assyrian capital or the second?"

"I don't know... (arrgggggg...)"

[otseng]

Whether any Assyrians died during the siege is irrelevant.

It certainly is relevant. If none of his military died in Jerusalem, then it lends more credence to them leaving because of a tribute given to them as Lachish. It means they took the money and left without engaging in a battle at Jerusalem. However, if some died, then they did proceed to Jerusalem and continued to fight Judah, even after getting the tribute at Lachish.

There may have been some camp disease, shortage of supplies or a plague of mice, but, not only is that nothing to do with God (nah- you need the Assyrian army to magically vanish overnight), but Sennacherib had an army besieging Libnah. He still had an army.

If some of the Assyrian army died at Jerusalem, it is not recorded in the Assyrian records. And it is recorded in the Bible. So, who then has the spin?

[TRANSPONDER]

No, it is irrelevant. People die on both sides in Campaigns, never mind specific battles or sieges, and that doesn't alter the results. It would be absurd to argue that God gave the Confederates a win at Gettysburg because a lot of Union soldiers died. Certainly some Assyrian soldiers died at Lachish, but that was a total victory for Assyria. Some could have died during a siege of Jerusalem, either by disease or arrows from the walls. There may not have been a siege at all, just bringing the army and siege towers from Laschish.

If Hezekiah agreeing to (offered) terms was the end of that campaign, then it's a win for Sennacherib, and whether any Assyrians died during it is irrelevant as (if we suppose the tribute was paid to end the campaign, not at the start) submission and tribute is not God saving Jerusalem even if there were deaths amongst the Assyrians. Whether Hezekiah agreed to submit is the relevant point, not whether any Assyrians died.

[otseng]

Some could have died during a siege of Jerusalem, either by disease or arrows from the walls. There may not have been a siege at all, just bringing the army and siege towers from Laschish.

If Hezekiah agreeing to (offered) terms was the end of that campaign, then it's a win for Sennacherib, and whether any Assyrians died during it is irrelevant as (if we suppose the tribute was paid to end the campaign, not at the start) submission and tribute is not God saving Jerusalem even if there were deaths amongst the Assyrians. Whether Hezekiah agreed to submit is the relevant point, not whether any Assyrians died.

If Hezekiah received a tribute at Lachish and he lost soldiers at Jerusalem, it would mean he did not immediately return back to Assyria, but instead continued to Jerusalem to attack it. There's no other way to interpret it if he lost soldiers at Jerusalem. This is precisely why the Assyrian account does not anything about losing any men at Jerusalem. But, we know from a third source (Herodutus) that something caused the Assyrians to die at Jerusalem.

Herodotus wrote that the Assyrian army was overrun by mice when attacking Egypt.[5] Some Biblical scholars take this to an allusion that the Assyrian army suffered the effects of a mouse- or rat-borne disease such as bubonic plague.[3][6] Even without relying on that explanation, John Bright suggested it was an epidemic of some kind that saved Jerusalem.[3]

In What If?, a collection of essays on counterfactual history, historian Willian H. McNeill speculates that the accounts of mass death among the Assyrian army in the Tanakh might be explained by an outbreak of cholera (or other water-borne diseases) due to the springs beyond the city walls having been blocked, thus depriving the besieging force of a safe water supply.

Henry T. Aubin writes in The Rescue of Jerusalem: The Alliance Between Hebrews and Africans in 701 B.C. that the Assyrian army was routed by an Egyptian army under Kushite (Nubian) command.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_ ... _Jerusalem

A major reason this is important is it reveals the Assyrian account has spun the truth. It mentions nothing about any loss at Jerusalem. And it reveals an inconsistency in their account. If they received the tribute at Lachish and it really was Jerusalem raising the white flag, then why would they continue to attack Jerusalem?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's still irrelevant. In announcing victories, nobody makes a point of how many they lost in any battle. I don't even know that a siege even took place. Sennacherib's lieutenants went there after Lachish fell, with the ability to have a siege and (as I argue) Hezekiah THEN gave in and paid tribute, not before then. And that was end of that campaign, and not because Sennacherib's army was wiped out as clearly it wasn't. Assyrian spin - in addition to the usual boasting - was that Sennacherib had not flattened Jerusalem but had done a deal. The spin is not trying to cover up that he lost his army. He still had the army at Libnah. If the army has been smit, Hezekiah would not have paid tribute or submitted which both the Bible and Assyria agree he did. But the Bible says it happened before the siege -threat not after. That's the spin, and frankly I think the Assyrian account makes more sense.