How do we know that the world isn’t simply a simulation of some sort? How do I know that my own thoughts aren’t a script or some program that is being played out by some celestial computer? We can’t know that. We could doubt and suspect almost anything- even our own consciousness. But at some point we have to come to terms with something. We have to adhere to an ideal or believe, if you will. This is understood. This is what my fiance’s parents and my own and countless Christians have asserted for centuries. “You must have faith”. Maybe we should, but not in that sense of the word. Not in a blind sense but in a sensible and checkable affirmation of something that cannot be immediately demonstrated at the moment. To find this faith, you have to start somewhere, so the best thing we can do is start at the most basic level.
For example, we must believe at some point that two plus two equals four. I can show you with any available objects that this must be believed. I can show you now with a sort of diagram.
Here is an:
In different languages the sum total of o’s is represented in different phonetic sounds and letter characters. Four, quarto, saddex, quatre, vier, chetyre, etc. These representations sound and look different, but they mean the same thing: oooo is oooo; ooo is not oooo; o is not oooo. It has been stated like this: “A” is not “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. This is basic but profound, and fundamentally applicable in the most invaluable of ways. This has been called “the law of non-contradiction”. If you can understand this you can understand anything, for this is the basic law that all others must answer to. If something contradicts itself the something is not “true”. If the word “true” means anything, at bottom it means that when you look at four crayons on a countertop, you’re looking at four crayons on a countertop.
If the apostle Peter was flawed in his assessment of Judaic law in relation to the New Covenant (Galatians 2:11), then that means that his faculties of assessment and reason are flawed. If his faculties of assessment and reason are flawed in one instance, then it should be assumed that he can be flawed in other assessments of his. Those assessments being his assertion that God has made his writings infallible, to name a big one. To say that his words are infallible is to make a contradictory statement, if he has shown himself to be fallible at other points. His assertion that he wasn’t flawed in one assessment of his because he was miraculously impeccable when he penned some of the letters in the New Testament must be untrue.
It is a seemingly dangerous and scary thing to admit that you may be wrong about something. No one wants to do it. In the case of the bold statements of the Bible it had better have overwhelming evidence that it’s claim to infallibly is true or it must resort to claiming a miraculous endowment from an assumed and unprovable God that it’s words are infallibly true.
Human beings do not have perfect and impeccable understanding. Paul didn’t as every writer of the Bible didn’t. If they are fallible we must be consistent and treat their statements as possibly fallible. To say that you cannot disprove that the Bible is inerrant isn’t saying anything either, because the burden of proof is always on the one making the assertion.
Tracing the words of the Bible back to the authors, it must be conceded that they were flawed and therefore their writings cannot be inerrant or infallible. And if the writers were fallible at the time they wrote it then their claim that they weren’t fallible proves that the Bible isn’t infallible after all- it’s contradictory. It is merely a work of human beings trying to eternally settle the why and how behind what is beyond their current understanding. And thus, I rest my case. The Bible’s claims to infallibility are inconsistent, and therefore untrue.