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]

Looking further at this cylinder seal from Avaris

We have first a striding figure with a mace (I recognized it as a Pharonic rule in warlike stance, but some see it as a war god (1) while out Torah -apologist suggests it's God striding across mount Gerizim and Ebal. He mentions that some have seen it as representing Benjamin (whose symbol was a wolf) on pretty feeble association. in front is what appears to be a bird of prey falling or diving. We get a bull (symbol of Joseph, though the later symbol was a sheaf of grain or a bunch of grapes) above a band of water which is related to Reuben (whose symbol was a mandrake). Also these 'bands of water' are seen on a cylinder seal of Khamudi, last king of the Hyksos. There's the lion (of Judah) below another dead bird, and the trading ship of Zebulon. There's also the snake which is wished on Dan as a deprecatory epithet. Hardly a symbol it would be politic to put a ruler's cylinder seal.

There's also a claim of the city of Sheschem, symbol of Simeon, But I see a bit of imagination, there.

So we have Judah and Joseph, plus Zebulon, though I'd suggest they symbolise strength and royalty and the snake, wisdom rather than a derogatory epithet for Dan.

The trading ship relates to the ruler of the Hyksos as much as to the tribe of Zebulon. The other claims (Reuben, Benjamin and Simeon) strike me a pretty fanciful. And we still lack Gad, Asher, Issachar, Levi and Naphtali.

While this is your best 'evidence' (only evidence), I still think there is a fair case for seeing these symbols as relating to Hyksos rulership.

(1) There's a link to a more secularist view of the object.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/a ... alCode=aja

[otseng]

So the point with Senusret is that - as I said - a strong king can bring governors under his control. I'm not sure this isn't the general case and it is only weaker kings that allow local governors to stray.

The question for you is how and why if it's not the Biblical account? Why did the nomarchs willingly give power, both political and military, to the central government?

The Bible has the Joseph story and you (or some apologetics source), look around for something that seems to fit.

Of course I'm looking for things that fit, but I'm not making up the evidence, unlike Manetho. Anyone can confirm all of the evidence I've produced. And the evidence is stacking up and for all of these evidence to coincidentally fit the Bible is increasingly improbable.

So let me remind you;:you pointed to the three colours of that Hyksos statue and saw that as evidence of Joseph's many colored coat, though I argued that three colours isn't really enough to make the connection (unless one Really wants to).

I've looked at the original text and pointed out that the Bible just uses a plural form of color. So, technically all it needs to mean is more than one. We obviously see more than one, so it's pointless to argue 5 colors are required.

You also associated Joseph with Senusret who about 200 years before.

No, they were contemporaneous. I presented that argument in post 807 and you can double-check my math.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).

During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC

viewtopic.php?p=1069245#p1069245

The browsers are smart enough to get the point and also that I am blocking any move to invoke the long lives claimed in the Bible, and they will see your protest that you didn't claim that as crafty and doing you no credit because they know, as do I, that you are smart enough to see that I wasn't doing that.

Readers should also readily see I have made no claims about any long lives.

Because there are serious objections to making the Hyksos Israelites in themselves.

I suppose we can at least agree the Hyksos were Canaanites. What evidence do you have that Israelites were not part of the Hyksos?

As for evidence of the Biblical Joseph, the seal of Joseph and the palace evidence is persuasive for me. But, I'll present more evidence to support Joseph and the famine in a future post.

Manetho and Josephus on the Hyksos. (general Q on Internet)

Is the point made, or do you wish to did further into these two histories?

My point is this portrayal of the Hyksos is incorrect. Prior to the archaeological discoveries at Avaris, all historians accepted the Manetho/Josephus account. There was a systematic effort by the Egyptians to rewrite/erase the history of the Hyksos. Now, we have a better picture of the Hyksos, and after being mislead for thousands of years, we find the Bible's account to match what is revealed in recent archaeological discoveries.

To reiterate, I do not claim all of the Hyksos were Hebrews. All I claim is they were Canaanite. A part of them were Hebrews (Israelites). I think Josephus's point was he believed as well the Hyksos were associated with the Hebrews and not some other non-Canaanite entity.

Looking further at this cylinder seal from Avaris

(1) There's a link to a more secularist view of the object.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/a ... alCode=aja

Unfortunately, it's not a free download so I'm not able to read it in full.

[Rose2020]

It, the Bible, is still our best source of God's words to us. What else can possibly compare?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

If you do not believe in the Supremacy of Scripture then what revelation are you placing in front of Scripture. How are you determining that the Bible is not inerrant?

[TRANSPONDER]

It, the Bible, is still our best source of God's words to us. What else can possibly compare?

Well, the Muslims have always been right there in claiming that the New Testament is invalid and the Quran is actually the better revelation of God's Word.

From where I'm looking, these are just rival claims that have to stand on their own evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

So the point with Senusret is that - as I said - a strong king can bring governors under his control. I'm not sure this isn't the general case and it is only weaker kings that allow local governors to stray.

The question for you is how and why if it's not the Biblical account? Why did the nomarchs willingly give power, both political and military, to the central government?

The Bible has the Joseph story and you (or some apologetics source), look around for something that seems to fit.

Of course I'm looking for things that fit, but I'm not making up the evidence, unlike Manetho. Anyone can confirm all of the evidence I've produced. And the evidence is stacking up and for all of these evidence to coincidentally fit the Bible is increasingly improbable.

So let me remind you;:you pointed to the three colours of that Hyksos statue and saw that as evidence of Joseph's many colored coat, though I argued that three colours isn't really enough to make the connection (unless one Really wants to).

I've looked at the original text and pointed out that the Bible just uses a plural form of color. So, technically all it needs to mean is more than one. We obviously see more than one, so it's pointless to argue 5 colors are required.

You also associated Joseph with Senusret who about 200 years before.

No, they were contemporaneous. I presented that argument in post 807 and you can double-check my math.

So, the date of entering Egypt was 1876 BC (1446 + 430).

During this time would be the Pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty:
Senusret III - 1878 BC to 1839 BC

viewtopic.php?p=1069245#p1069245

The browsers are smart enough to get the point and also that I am blocking any move to invoke the long lives claimed in the Bible, and they will see your protest that you didn't claim that as crafty and doing you no credit because they know, as do I, that you are smart enough to see that I wasn't doing that.

Readers should also readily see I have made no claims about any long lives.

Because there are serious objections to making the Hyksos Israelites in themselves.

I suppose we can at least agree the Hyksos were Canaanites. What evidence do you have that Israelites were not part of the Hyksos?

As for evidence of the Biblical Joseph, the seal of Joseph and the palace evidence is persuasive for me. But, I'll present more evidence to support Joseph and the famine in a future post.

Manetho and Josephus on the Hyksos. (general Q on Internet)

Is the point made, or do you wish to did further into these two histories?

My point is this portrayal of the Hyksos is incorrect. Prior to the archaeological discoveries at Avaris, all historians accepted the Manetho/Josephus account. There was a systematic effort by the Egyptians to rewrite/erase the history of the Hyksos. Now, we have a better picture of the Hyksos, and after being mislead for thousands of years, we find the Bible's account to match what is revealed in recent archaeological discoveries.

To reiterate, I do not claim all of the Hyksos were Hebrews. All I claim is they were Canaanite. A part of them were Hebrews (Israelites). I think Josephus's point was he believed as well the Hyksos were associated with the Hebrews and not some other non-Canaanite entity.

Looking further at this cylinder seal from Avaris

(1) There's a link to a more secularist view of the object.
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/a ... alCode=aja

Unfortunately, it's not a free download so I'm not able to read it in full.

Ok. Well it really just says it's a Syrian war - god striding across mountains. That actually seems more probable to me than a pictorial representation of YHWH, though to me, the resemblance to a Pharaoh in warlike pose is even more likely. Plus symbols of rulership "in the Palace...in the palace.." suggest a Hyksos (Canaanite) Ruler rather than Hebrews. In short, you are left with no real evidence to support Genesis or Exodus. None. It is a false and delusionary claim to argue that a lot of poor and fiddled evidence stacks up to make a case. You Have Nothing.

And I have a some solid clues to indicate a Babylonian connection.

I'll check your math, but it has to be science - denial (or history denial) to have Joseph as advisor to Senusret III and 200 years later (if my math is correct) ruling Avaris. One of those has to be wrong. Apart from which, There is NO good reason to see Senusret as anything to do with Joseph, nor that statue (nor, indeed that cylinder - seal) in Avaris as anything to do with Joseph.

Manetho appears to represent the Pharonic 'spin' on the Hyksos. Archaeology seems to indicate that it was an immigration, not an invasion, though also it reflects the wars that the Hyksos picked with the Theban dynasty, and, while Canaanites probably stayed under Egyptian rule, 'Foreign' rule was defeated and ejected. So Manetho is not wrong in his view of the history. But it is evident that Josephus has tried to tweak the story to make it look like the Hyksos were Hebrews. There is no such justification for that.

You are not making up the evidence but Interpreting the evidence. It is the old story of fiddling the evidence to fit the Bible -claims, but they only support the Bible if you already believe the Bible. A ton of bad evidence does not stack up into Good evidence. I do not have to prove that the Hebrews were not part of the Hyksos; you have to prove that they were. The evidence, (not to say 'proof') is that the Hyksos look in no way like Israelites, nor does the Hyksos story look anything like the Exodus. Despite your denial, the cylinder seal does not in fact look very Israelite, nor does that statue look very Joseph - like. Your case for the famine and Senusret's grim face is dead before you start. If Joseph had warned the Pharaoh to prepare against a famine, your argument that Senusret looks worried fails. You Have No Evidence.

You are not dumb; you know (or should) that my not being able to disprove that some Hebrews may have been amongst the Hyksos does not somehow makes a case for Exodus. You are not dumb. You know as well as I do that I was not saying that you made a claim of a long life for Joseph, but ruling that out before the point even came up. The more you try to score a cheap point with that irrelevance and red - herring, the more it will hurt your case, not me.

It's the old problem of you thinking that the Bible case is reliable unless it can be disproven on evidence.In fact (given doubt and question) it is the Bible that has to make its' case, and despite some impressive efforts to relate the events of Books 1 and 2 to history and archaeology, it has really nothing substantial. Nothing.

And Nothing is what on history and archaeology is what any of the Pharaohs or the Hyksos had to do with Hebrews before the mention of Israel in Merneptah's stele.

Now, let's check your math. I'll Predict that you are making a date for Joseph going into Egypt which is (of course) nothing to do with Senusret's rule and Hyksos rule being 200 years apart - which was the point I was making.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yep; that's absolutely what you did. You are not dumb; I can only suppose that you either suffer from apologists' tunnel - vision, wherein they seem to hop from point to point while losing track of the actual argument (I have the Theory that Religious apologists cannot dare to actually Get the argument or that needful Faith might fail) or it was deliberate misdirection from the point that 200 years separates Senusret and the Hyksos (so Joseph can't be a political figure in both milieu) to a fair (but irrelevant) argument for when Joseph could have gone into Egypt.

As an analogy (but relevant to topic ) Joseph (from Galilee...or Bethlehem) and Family could have travelled to Egypt at any time in the 1st c BC or AD. Pick a year, any year. He could do it. But that would be irrelevant to the case for Joseph not being able to do it, because Luke says he went back to Galilee after a fortnight or so. That's the debunk. Just as Joseph (unless one appeals to a preternaturally long life) cannot be both advisor to Senusret III AND king Mushroomhat I of Avaris. The debunk of one or the other claim (which you did and do make) is inescapable, even if you did not actually post the excuse of a Joseph living at least 200 years.

Do you not Get this? Everyone else does, I would bet your credibility on it.

[TRANSPONDER]

Let's just see..



whether I can post this seal of Khamudi. The 'water -bands' are clear to be seen.

That looksgood

[otseng]

Manetho appears to represent the Pharonic 'spin' on the Hyksos. Archaeology seems to indicate that it was an immigration, not an invasion, though also it reflects the wars that the Hyksos picked with the Theban dynasty, and, while Canaanites probably stayed under Egyptian rule, 'Foreign' rule was defeated and ejected. So Manetho is not wrong in his view of the history. But it is evident that Josephus has tried to tweak the story to make it look like the Hyksos were Hebrews. There is no such justification for that.

Note that the only account we have of Manetho is from Josephus, so on what basis do you say that Hyksos did not include Hebrews? How can you tell what Josephus added to Manetho's account if his is the only historical account?

I do not have to prove that the Hebrews were not part of the Hyksos; you have to prove that they were.

Nobody has to "prove" anything. We only present our evidence and what best explains the facts and see what is the most plausible explanation.

You are not dumb; you know (or should) that my not being able to disprove that some Hebrews may have been amongst the Hyksos does not somehow makes a case for Exodus.

Again, I'm not asking you to "disprove" anything. All I'm asking for is counter-evidence to what I've presented.

Do you not Get this? Everyone else does, I would bet your credibility on it.

No, I don't get what you are trying to say. If anyone else gets it, please explain to me what Transponder is saying.

That looksgood

Your point?

[otseng]

More evidence of the story of Joseph...

To prepare for a famine, it would make sense to build canals. We see Senusret III built major canals during his reign.

"Senusret III cleared a navigable canal through the first cataract of the Nile River"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senusret_III

"There are a number of texts from the reign of Senusret III that mention canals the king either had built or refurbished, with the most significant being a canal that bypassed the first cataract of the Nile River just south of the modern city of Aswan."
https://dailyhistory.org/Was_there_an_A ... Suez_Canal

He also started on the infamous Canal of the Pharaohs.





"At least as far back as Aristotle there have been suggestions that perhaps as early as the 12th Dynasty, Pharaoh Senusret III (1878–1839 BC), called Sesostris by the Greeks, may have started a canal joining the River Nile with the Red Sea."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs

"Among his greatest accomplishments was the construction of the Canal of the Pharaohs, which served as a shining glory of his administration."
https://www.timelessmyths.com/characters/senusret-iii/

"The so-called Canal of the Pharaohs was first dug during the reign of Pharaoh Senusret III around 1850 BC. That canal ran from the Red Sea to the Nile River, but did not reach the Mediterranean."
https://www.sacyr.com/en/-/el-canal-que ... s-faraones

Another canal built during this time was Bahr Yusuf (the Joseph Canal).

"In prehistoric times, the canal was a natural offshoot of the Nile which created a lake to the west during high floods. Beginning with the 12th dynasty, the waterway was enlarged and the Fayyum was developed to enlarge Lake Moeris."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahr_Yussef

"We do know that between 1850 and 1650 BC a canal was built to keep the branches of the Nile permanently open, enabling water to fill Lake Quaran and keep the land fertile. This canal was so effective that it still successfully functions today. There is no record of who built the canal, but for thousands of years it has only been known by one name. In Arabic it's the Bahr Yusef. This translates into English as The Waterway of Joseph."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... seph.shtml

"It is an astonishing feat of engineering which to this day is known throughout Egypt as the ‘Bahr Yusuf’ – the Joseph Canal. This has always been its name. Moreover, the people of Egypt are perfectly happy to tell you that it was built by the Joseph of the Bible who once was Pharaoh’s ‘Grand Vizier'"
https://www.israel365news.com/138577/a- ... -this-day/

Another evidence of a drought during the time of Joseph is ice cores in Mt Kilimanjaro.

"Studies in 'ice cores' found in Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania - the mountain which supplies the Nile with its water - have revealed that a drought did take place around 3600 years ago - around the time the Bible sets Joseph's story."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religion ... seph.shtml

Senusret III also built a series of forts with massive granaries.

"Like his earlier 12th Dynasty predecessors, Senusret III now established a second series of forts along the Second Cataract. As with the town of Lahun, these forts reflect the all-pervasive presence of the central administration. The forts themselves were elaborate constructions, with wide mudbrick walls, towers, bastions and other architectural elements to permit an easy defense of the buildings. The interiors of the fortresses were carefully laid out, with a symmetrical grid of streets flanked by housing of different sizes for the various strata of society garrisoned there. Included were cultic places, workshops areas and the ubiquitous granaries, which in some cases reached surprisingly large proportions."
http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of ... ent-egypt/

"The interior of the fortress has streets paved with stone, large granaries, buildings thought to be an administrative center and a governor's house, and barracks."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uronarti

"Inside the fortress, excavations continued in the granary. After its administrative part had been explored in 2017, work now focused on one of the six storage chambers. Flotation of the excavated fill produced rich organic samples, 14C dates of which fall into the 12th Dynasty and the early 18th Dynasty. Species so far identified include wheat, barley and watermelon."
https://www.ees.ac.uk/shalfak

Gen 41:34-35
34 Let Pharaoh do [this], and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.
35 And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.

Money throughout Egypt were flowing into the central treasury.

"Resources previously circulating in the provinces were now presumably diverted toward the central treasury and subsequently redistributed to the now expanded civil service."
http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of ... ent-egypt/

Gen 47:14 And Joseph gathered up all the money that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house.

At these forts, trade was conducted with many exotic products.

"Interestingly, during that time, Egypt imported and exported many products, such as oils, ivory, pottery, and tiger and elephant skins."
https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/4/51 ... r-the-Nile

Gen 47:16-17
16 And Joseph said, Give your cattle; and I will give you for your cattle, if money fail.
17 And they brought their cattle unto Joseph: and Joseph gave them bread [in exchange] for horses, and for the flocks, and for the cattle of the herds, and for the asses: and he fed them with bread for all their cattle for that year.

And as mentioned before, power of the nomarchs diminished.

"The other major event of Senusret III’s reign is the almost complete disappearance of the great nomarchical families."
http://what-when-how.com/archaeology-of ... ent-egypt/

Gen 47:25 And they said, Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants.

Senusret III also had a good relationship with the Egyptian priests.

"Senusret III was a fighter, but behind him was a religious persona. He humbly worshipped ancient gods and promoted a peaceful relationship between pharaohs and priests."
https://www.timelessmyths.com/characters/senusret-iii/

Gen 47:22 Only the land of the priests bought he not; for the priests had a portion [assigned them] of Pharaoh, and did eat their portion which Pharaoh gave them: wherefore they sold not their lands.

Gen 47:26 And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, [that] Pharaoh should have the fifth [part]; except the land of the priests only, [which] became not Pharaoh's.

Given all of these and prior alignments, I believe the indirect evidence has remarkable correspondence with the Biblical account.