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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3988

There’s no evidence that all of these were held to be holy. One is called “sacred” in this.

holy

adjective as in religious, sacred
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/holy

The dictionary cannot tell you
if the people who had these works considered them holy. A definition of a word is not evidence.

I already I’ve read some of these accounts and wanted to know what you’ve read. Obviously none since you had to google what’s out there and couldn’t name any you’ve actually read.

Have you read the Egyptian Book of the Dead [the papyrus of Ani]? It's full of prayers. The prayers are addressed to gods. People apparently believed in them.

The westminster prayer book is full of prayers and no believer considers it holy. Examples of books considered holy by those believers are the Bible and the Koran. There’s a difference (huge) between books considered holy and books enjoyed or considered helpful. Books of prayers are helpful.

Surely the point with other creation myths is not whether they were considered 'Holy' or not, but that they were believed to be explanation of how everything was created. As to other religious Holy Books...well, they are held to be Holy.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3988

There’s no evidence that all of these were held to be holy. One is called “sacred” in this.

holy

adjective as in religious, sacred
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/holy

The dictionary cannot tell you
if the people who had these works considered them holy. A definition of a word is not evidence.

I already I’ve read some of these accounts and wanted to know what you’ve read. Obviously none since you had to google what’s out there and couldn’t name any you’ve actually read.

Have you read the Egyptian Book of the Dead [the papyrus of Ani]? It's full of prayers. The prayers are addressed to gods. People apparently believed in them.

The westminster prayer book is full of prayers and no believer considers it holy. Examples of books considered holy by those believers are the Bible and the Koran. There’s a difference (huge) between books considered holy and books enjoyed or considered helpful. Books of prayers are helpful.

Surely the point with other creation myths is not whether they were considered 'Holy' or not, but that they were believed to be explanation of how everything was created.

Yes, this is a valid point and I agree.. However, It’s difficult to know if anyone believed them. As I wrote, some intelligent ancient Greek philosophers didn’t believe the Greek deity myths and said so. That they had myths doesn’t mean anyone believed it. But they point out the superiority of the Biblical account.

As to other religious Holy Books...well, they are held to be Holy.

There is only one holy book in the list. The others were just old books. Not all religious books are or were holy.

[otseng]

POI My given definition of 'might' encompasses your given definitions of authority. (i.e.) All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates. Video 1 also goes on to explain further. (i.e.) "the buck has to stop somewhere."

I've given the definitions of authority from multiple dictionaries, which is contrary to your definition. So, in order to justify your argument, you are giving your own definition which is contrary to dictionary definitions.

POI But WHY are the rules actually right? Is it because:

1) you say so?
2) because of other reasons?
3) other?

Please explain your selected answer.

Ultimately, because I created this forum and I set the original rules.

Note that I could have set the rules and not have any form of enforcement. It would still be what is right, even though there is no "might" behind it.

(U) How is authority different than might? Though authorities do carry the ability to enforce the rules, it is not might itself that makes things right. As with this forum, it is not the disciplinary actions that make things right, but the rules that decides what is right.

POI In your set of beliefs, God is both the rule maker, as well as the rule enforcer. Nothing has been demonstrated, outside of my already given definition of "might" supports this conclusion -> "All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates". "The buck stops with him."

The buck stops with any highest form of authority. There is no more appeal after the Supreme Court. There is no more appeal after a king. There is no more appeal to anyone after I make a decision on this forum.

(U) Or if a school bully forces a kid to give him his lunch money, it does not making stealing right. Or if the mafia forces a business to pay protection money, it doesn't make extortion right.

POI Your believed upon God offers 'free will', or lack there-of. Just like a bully or a mafia boss. Bully - "Give me your lunch money or else." Mafia boss - "Pay us the money to protect you or else." Meaning, God's ruleset is instead compulsory. It does not encompass the classic defitnion of free will (i.e.) "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.".

Of course people still have free will to either obey or disobey God. People have free will to either obey or disobey the rules on this forum. And it is clearly laid out in the rules if they continually disobey, then will eventually get banned. Yet, we've had numerous people who freely chose to violate the rules.

But WHY does God not want male-on-male sex?

I've already addressed this question.

(U) So, it is not might that makes something right, but authority.

POI Sorry, "might makes right" still stands unattested.

I've contested it multiple times. But I'll let readers assess whether your argument is valid or not.

POI I already presented option 3, given by Frank Turek, which is a circular option.

I've also argued it's not circular.

(U) A normative claim is how people should or should not act. Where does Jesus say people should be either rich or poor? Whereas with male on male sex, the Bible says men should not engage in it.

POI Jesus tells the "rich" to do X. Jesus states the "rich" will X. Is "rich" a clearly objective term? If so, why? Is it because Jesus says so? How do you know if you are actually 'rich' or not?

We're talking about morality, not about if terms are objective or not. So, this is a red herring.

POI Are you actually going on record to state that God is okay with a male giving another male a 'hand job' or oral gratification, because he does not get specific enough in the Torah?

More false attribution. I'm not saying anything not explicitly prohibited in the Bible is okay. Nothing is mentioned about many things, but that doesn't mean they are okay.

But, if one wants to interpret the Leviticus passages as encompassing all sexual activity, they are free to do so. But, I believe it's specifically referring to anal sex.

(U) Non sequitur. Why should God have to think how some people might think?

POI Do your "morals" come from God or not?

Don't see the relevance to your assertion - "I'm stating a homophobe thinks gay sex is icky. Why? Because the thought of two males having intercourse is not appealing to them. Hence, since God thinks it's disgusting, is why many of us humans think it is disgusting."

Also, I've never stated gay sex is icky, so how am I even involved in your assertion?

(U) Disagree with your conclusion. People might like to engage in it, but the normative course is they should not engage in it.

POI Christian moral realism 101 -- If your morals agree with God, then God gave them to you. If they do not, then they are being intercepted by evil/other.

Who's arguing for that?

(U) Please state exactly what you are referring to in the second video that I have not already addressed.

POI So far, "might makes right" still stands unattested.

You did not answer my question. If you're going to say "Please look to the second video to see why the theist's position fails", you'll need to state what exactly you are referring to. Simply reiterating your claim and claiming it's unattested is not addressing the issue.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3990

The dictionary cannot tell you
if the people who had these works considered them holy. A definition of a word is not evidence.

Sacred = holy = sacred.

The westminster prayer book is full of prayers and no believer considers it holy.

The gods were considered holy, and many still are.

[POI]

(U) I've given the definitions of authority from multiple dictionaries, which is contrary to your definition.

POI Being all powerful, who cannot be overturned, and also creates, are all attributes of your God, right?

(U) Ultimately, because I created this forum and I set the original rules.

POI Then as Frank Turek has pointed out, in video 1, your given response indicates that your reasoning is arbitrary.

(U) Note that I could have set the rules and not have any form of enforcement. It would still be what is right, even though there is no "might" behind it.

POI But WHY is your given rules for this arena actually right? Is it merely because you say so, or are there reasons outside your mere say-so? In other words, what reason(s) propelled you to elect such given rules?

God is 'right' because he assigns what is right/wrong, based upon his own nature. And since he possesses the "might", as I have defined, is why he is "right". Therefore, "might makes right", which as Frank T. points out, is arbitrary.

(U) The buck stops with any highest form of authority. There is no more appeal after the Supreme Court. There is no more appeal after a king. There is no more appeal to anyone after I make a decision on this forum.

POI I agree. But is this WHAT makes the ruling actually right?

(U) Of course people still have free will to either obey or disobey God. People have free will to either obey or disobey the rules on this forum. And it is clearly laid out in the rules if they continually disobey, then will eventually get banned. Yet, we've had numerous people who freely chose to violate the rules.

POI Do your rules need to be followed merely because you say so, or are your reasons justified outside your say-so? So far, in regard to the topic of 'anal sex', it is bad because God says so, which is arbitrary, as explained in video 1.

(U) I've already addressed this question.

POI Maybe you now realize the conflict. It is either because God says so, which is arbitrary, (or), reasons outside God's say-so, which then means we no longer need God. You have debated with others, of the reason(s) as to why 'anal sex' is 'bad'. Hence, you have demonstrated that you no longer need God to justify your morals. This is exactly why Frank tries to argue for a third circular option. The latter part of video 2 explains why.

(U) We're talking about morality, not about if terms are objective or not.

POI So am I. Jesus Judges the 'rich'. He is assigning a judgement value upon an objective finding. So-and-so has X amount of money, which is X. Is 'rich' an objectively moral term, or is it always subjective? I am not offering a red herring. My point being, is that once God/Jesus weighs in on a topic, theists no longer deem that topic subjectively moral or immoral, it is now objectively moral. (i.e.)

Jesus says anal sex is bad - objective!
Jesus says Bob is rich - objective!

If I say either of the two, and do not conjure up some invisible God-like-force to substantiate it, then theists state I cannot justify "objective morality." And yet, asserting a God gets you no closer, as I keep pointing out.

(U) More false attribution. I'm not saying anything not explicitly prohibited in the Bible is okay. Nothing is mentioned about many things, but that doesn't mean they are okay.

But, if one wants to interpret the Leviticus passages as encompassing all sexual activity, they are free to do so. But, I believe it's specifically referring to anal sex.

POI More rubberstamping. So, you believe male-on-male hand jobs, male-on-male French kissing, and male-on-male oral, is all okay with the God of the Bible? Seriously?

(U) Don't see the relevance to your assertion

POI My prior explanation explains the relevancy. Many humans think gay sex is an 'abomination' because God gives us our morals to think this.

Do you, or do you not think God gives humans their moral compass?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3990

The dictionary cannot tell you
if the people who had these works considered them holy. A definition of a word is not evidence.

Sacred = holy = sacred.

That a modern author decides it’s “sacred” doesn’t mean those people did. The contents of most of those works are such that they would not have considered them sacred or holy.

Ancient societies more often had few writing materials and anything religious were kept for the priesthood. The majority would not have access to written material so they played little role. Why is this important?

The westminster prayer book is full of prayers and no believer considers it holy.

The gods were considered holy, and many still are.

I’m afraid you’re making this up. You assume this. There are peoples who presented offerings to what they knew were evil beings and those creatures are never considered holy. Being a spiritual being is not automatically a holy one.

[alexxcJRO]

Again, since the Bible does not explicitly say God is unjust, then you are using your personal moral judgment to claim God is unjust.

You agreed indirectly(not being directly stated) something can demonstrate another thing.
So you complaining the bible does not states something directly is stupid.
Your are arguing with your logic. Comical.

Of course you are making a personal moral judgment. Do you claim God is unjust?

The Bible does indirectly. I am just conveying what it does using meaning of words and concepts.

Justice was done in the sense that punishment resulted from David's sin of taking the census. But, was it fair David's subjects would bear the brunt of David's sin? I'd agree that it was not fair.

So God was unfair. Contradicting the claim of perfect justice and/or God's is perfect in all his works.

Just because we don't understand the how does not negate the fact male on male sex happens in prisons.

It can't happen while feeling disgust-> zero attraction, zero sexual attraction for the erection by its process necessitates sexual attraction and arousal.
Its a contradiction.

I would guess if you would go into a prison and tell one of the perpetrators that he is a bisexual, then I don't think he would take that too well.

Irrelevant to my point.

Where have you stated something that I have not given a counter argument?

The mentioned thing was never given a counter argument by you. You always stopped after I gave that reply.

And you claiming the Bible says something that it does not directly say is not?

It says something indirectly. I never said is says that directly.

[otseng]

(U) I've given the definitions of authority from multiple dictionaries, which is contrary to your definition.

POI Being all powerful, who cannot be overturned, and also creates, are all attributes of your God, right?

God also has many other attributes - love, patient, just, merciful, etc. Just because God has an attribute doesn't mean all the attributes mean the same. With your argument, then mercy makes right, love makes right, just makes right, etc.

(U) Ultimately, because I created this forum and I set the original rules.

POI Then as Frank Turek has pointed out, in video 1, your given response indicates that your reasoning is arbitrary.

Don't follow your logic. What exactly did Turek state that makes me creating the forum to set what is right arbitrary?

(U) Note that I could have set the rules and not have any form of enforcement. It would still be what is right, even though there is no "might" behind it.

POI But WHY is your given rules for this arena actually right? Is it merely because you say so, or are there reasons outside your mere say-so? In other words, what reason(s) propelled you to elect such given rules?

The why doesn't matter. Did I the provide the justification for the rules on the rules page? No. Do they still define what is the right behavior that is expected on the forum? Yes. Are they actually right for this forum? Yes. Has anybody asked for the why for the rules before? No.

God is 'right' because he assigns what is right/wrong, based upon his own nature. And since he possesses the "might", as I have defined, is why he is "right". Therefore, "might makes right", which as Frank T. points out, is arbitrary.

And as I've pointed out, you have a circular definition of right:

"Right" - Whatever God says is considered 'right', because he possesses the 'might'.

This is a circular definition.

And you also have a definition of might contrary to dictionary definitions:

POI My given definition of 'might' encompasses your given definitions of authority. (i.e.) All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates.

I've given the definitions of authority from multiple dictionaries, which is contrary to your definition.

So your entire argument of "might makes right" is entirely based on faulty definitions.

(U) The buck stops with any highest form of authority. There is no more appeal after the Supreme Court. There is no more appeal after a king. There is no more appeal to anyone after I make a decision on this forum.

POI I agree. But is this WHAT makes the ruling actually right?

At a minimum, it is subjectively right for that particular area of domain (US, a kingdom, this forum). What would make something objectively right? The only basis would be if it could be traced back to God.

POI Do your rules need to be followed merely because you say so, or are your reasons justified outside your say-so?

Everyone needs to follow the rules because they are part of the forum. Though I do have reasons for the rules, it is not necessary for the rules to be explained in order for them to be the standard of right behavior on the forum.

Ultimately though, I base the principles of the forum on my sense of moral values and the principles of the Bible. I believe everyone should be respected because everyone is created in the image of God. I believe everyone should be treated fairly and there should not be preferential treatment for those "on my side".

So far, in regard to the topic of 'anal sex', it is bad because God says so, which is arbitrary, as explained in video 1.

And as I've repeatedly asked, what has been shown in the video that I have not addressed?

POI Maybe you now realize the conflict. It is either because God says so, which is arbitrary, (or), reasons outside God's say-so, which then means we no longer need God.

God's nature is not arbitrary, so there is no conflict.

You have debated with others, of the reason(s) as to why 'anal sex' is 'bad'. Hence, you have demonstrated that you no longer need God to justify your morals.

Yes, I've given both religious and secular reasons why anal sex is bad. Providing both does not mean the other is nullified, but rather provides additional support to each.

This is exactly why Frank tries to argue for a third circular option. The latter part of video 2 explains why.

And I have to ask again, what is exactly stated that I have not addressed?

(U) We're talking about morality, not about if terms are objective or not.

POI So am I. Jesus Judges the 'rich'. He is assigning a judgement value upon an objective finding. So-and-so has X amount of money, which is X. Is 'rich' an objectively moral term, or is it always subjective? I am not offering a red herring. My point being, is that once God/Jesus weighs in on a topic, theists no longer deem that topic subjectively moral or immoral, it is now objectively moral. (i.e.)

Jesus says anal sex is bad - objective!
Jesus says Bob is rich - objective!

No, your analogy is not relevant as I've been pointing out.

"Rich" is not a moral term. Where does the Bible say it is wrong to be rich? There is no normative claim about being rich in the Bible (or in any human laws), so being rich is not even relevant to morality.

If I say either of the two, and do not conjure up some invisible God-like-force to substantiate it, then theists state I cannot justify "objective morality."

You're not even talking about morality when discussing being rich.

POI More rubberstamping. So, you believe male-on-male hand jobs, male-on-male French kissing, and male-on-male oral, is all okay with the God of the Bible? Seriously?

Yes, I'm providing more rubberstamping of corrections of your false attributions. Here's what I stated: "I'm not saying anything not explicitly prohibited in the Bible is okay. Nothing is mentioned about many things, but that doesn't mean they are okay. But, if one wants to interpret the Leviticus passages as encompassing all sexual activity, they are free to do so. But, I believe it's specifically referring to anal sex."

POI My prior explanation explains the relevancy. Many humans think gay sex is an 'abomination' because God gives us our morals to think this.

Do you, or do you not think God gives humans their moral compass?

God gives people their moral intuition, but that doesn't mean we all have perfect or identical moral judgments and behavior. We are still fallen and prone to sin and have skewed moral judgments. So just because some people have a certain stance on morality doesn't mean that is how God views it.

[otseng]

You agreed indirectly(not being directly stated) something can demonstrate another thing.
So you complaining the bible does not states something directly is stupid.

Anyone can provide indirect arguments for a claim. Nobody is saying using indirectness is not allowed. The issue is you making a indirect moral assessment on situations in the Bible by thinking God is unjust and commits atrocities and genocides.

Of course you are making a personal moral judgment. Do you claim God is unjust?

The Bible does indirectly.

So you are then presenting a moral judgment, not a logical argument. If the Bible explicitly stated God is unjust, only then would it be a logical argument since it's simply stating what the Bible says without making any moral judgment.

Justice was done in the sense that punishment resulted from David's sin of taking the census. But, was it fair David's subjects would bear the brunt of David's sin? I'd agree that it was not fair.

So God was unfair. Contradicting the claim of perfect justice and/or God's is perfect in all his works.

Who claims fairness is perfect justice or is a requirement for God?

Just because we don't understand the how does not negate the fact male on male sex happens in prisons.

It can't happen while feeling disgust-> zero attraction, zero sexual attraction for the erection by its process necessitates sexual attraction and arousal.
Its a contradiction.

You can't extrapolate your own attraction to everyone. I can't understand or sympathize with homosexual arousals, but that doesn't mean gay people cannot get aroused by seeing other men. Likewise, we cannot make a statement that prisoners cannot get aroused in different circumstances.

Where have you stated something that I have not given a counter argument?

The mentioned thing was never given a counter argument by you. You always stopped after I gave that reply.

That does not answer my question. Please point to a specific argument I have not given a counter argument to.

It says something indirectly. I never said is says that directly.

Yes, and as I've pointed out above, you are then making an indirect moral judgment.

[alexxcJRO]

Anyone can provide indirect arguments for a claim. Nobody is saying using indirectness is not allowed. The issue is you making a indirect moral assessment on situations in the Bible by thinking God is unjust and commits atrocities and genocides.

You say "Nobody is saying using indirectness is not allowed" and then say using indirectness is an issue.
Not making any sense.

So you are then presenting a moral judgment, not a logical argument. If the Bible explicitly stated God is unjust, only then would it be a logical argument since it's simply stating what the Bible says without making any moral judgment.

It is logical sir no matter how many times you try to straw-man.
Some passages point to A. This happens directly or indirectly.
Some passages point to non-A. This happens indirectly.

Who claims fairness is perfect justice or is a requirement for God?

So God is unfair in his punishments but that is perfect justice.
So God is unfair but that is compatible with "all his works are perfect".
Q: In what world? Delulu world?

You can't extrapolate your own attraction to everyone. I can't understand or sympathize with homosexual arousals, but that doesn't mean gay people cannot get aroused by seeing other men. Likewise, we cannot make a statement that prisoners cannot get aroused in different circumstances.

I was not talking of my attraction. I was talking in general.
It can't happen(in general) while feeling disgust-> zero attraction, zero sexual attraction for the erection by its process necessitates sexual attraction and arousal.
Its a contradiction.

That does not answer my question. Please point to a specific argument I have not given a counter argument to.

You agreed God is omnibenevolent.
Then retracted.
This:
"In case of negating omnibenevolence:
1.A benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient Being cannot but love all, show benevolence to all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too. Ergo it is omnibenevolent too.
Doing otherwise will make the being not only not be omniscient, but severely ignorant.
2.You cannot have a being that is perfect in its works("his works are perfect") and the same time does imperfect things like not loving all equally or be benevolence to all equally."

You have avoided the above like the plague always. Please don't.

Yes, and as I've pointed out above, you are then making an indirect moral judgment.

If the Bible did not have used any moral language you might have a point.
By since it does I can borrow the language and concepts that involve that language.
It's like with the problem of evil.
God is said to be X. Problem of evil, suffering points to non-X. Ergo contradiction.
Moral judgements is about what ought to be.
I am talking about what is.