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]

Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.

If so, that's a topic of its own. But it's still an issue you have to deal with.

I'll address this when we get to the specific instances. But first you have not answered my question:

I've argued atheists have no grounds on judging anything to be morally good or evil. On what grounds can you make any objective moral judgment against Yahweh?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
(Isaiah 45:7)

I'll respond to this after you explain how you can justify the existence of objective morality.

[otseng]

That "The immediate problem is it puts God as the instigator of evil, which is contrary to God being an omnibenevolent God." is not a problem for The Creator but is a problem for those who have yet to distinguish the inerrant aspects of the Bible. Which inerrancy should be trusted? God is totally benevolent or God allows the atrocities to be experienced because it serves the rule-set The Father put in motion, because of a greater good anticipated through the experience of suffering?

I think these extra-Biblical terms like inerrancy and omnibenevolence just makes things muddier. A major problem is people have their own interpretations of what these words mean. So, I'd rather just drop these terms.

[William]

That "The immediate problem is it puts God as the instigator of evil, which is contrary to God being an omnibenevolent God." is not a problem for The Creator but is a problem for those who have yet to distinguish the inerrant aspects of the Bible. Which inerrancy should be trusted? God is totally benevolent or God allows the atrocities to be experienced because it serves the rule-set The Father put in motion, because of a greater good anticipated through the experience of suffering?

I think these extra-Biblical terms like inerrancy and omnibenevolence just makes things muddier. A major problem is people have their own interpretations of what these words mean. So, I'd rather just drop these terms.

Perhaps add to that, a major problem is people have their own interpretations of what words mean - even in the Bible.

So how would you now write the thread heading? "How can we trust the Bible if it's not {_______}?"

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3401

I'll respond to this after you explain how you can justify the existence of objective morality.

As I've mentioned, I'm not an atheist. So your question doesn't apply to me.

[alexxcJRO]

Is it wrong to perform an abortion?
Is it wrong to kill and eat animals?

The serious obfuscation begins.
Boring me with deflections and whataboutism

"whataboutism
/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."
https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... 8&oe=UTF-8

It's like this:
Group of persons X have punished and killed non-moral agents for religious reasons. They do not deemed it wrong.

Person 1 say it is wrong to do so.

Person 2 does not agree. Comes and says "but what about another group of persons Y who do have punished and killed non-moral agents for another reason. Are they wrong?".


It is wrong to stuff on meat, animal products, be fat and kill billion of animals in factory farming. ->most of Americans
It is wrong to kill countless of formed fetuses in abortions.

Again
Justification: Non-moral agents are blameless for they are incapable to discern right from wrong.

Therefore punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty is objectively wrong. Therefore it is objectively immoral.

Like it is with free will. One needs free will to be a moral agent.
One cannot punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y.

Example of non-moral agents: fully formed fetuses, infants, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth.
Please address my argument.

I'm not avoiding it. I already said I'd get to it. This is a huge topic and I want to be organized, so I'm taking the top down approach. We will eventually get to the specific details like slavery, genocide, etc.

I'm not trying to refute what you've said now, but will later.
This is another huge area of debate, which I've already covered in other threads.
I don't. I don't believe Yahweh has all those negative attributes that you claim he has. But, we'll get to those in later posts.

Later, later, its huge.
You are dogging almost all my points. You don't wanna answer questions, you don't wanna address things.
If its too huge for you go do something else if you don't wanna debate.

Not sure what you're claiming. Are you homophobic or genocidal? Are you omnipotent?

Please answer:
Q: You need omnipotence to not be homophobic or genocidal or unjust and punish non-moral agents together with moral agents or punish others for the missdeeds of others?

But first, atheists need to realize it is by faith they assert God is evil since they have no justification for believing in objective morality. Yes, they might claim it exists, but there's no viable justification for it. It's like I say I believe in God. But if I have no justification to believe in God, then it's merely a faith statement. If you agree atheists believe in objective morality is by faith, then I'm willing to go on to my next point. If you disagree, you'll need to provide logical arguments with evidence to back up that belief.

1.
But the point of arguing here was that the Bible portraits God as evil, malevolent, jealous, unjust, unwise, petty, genocidal, infanticidal, tribal, homophobic.
You don't wanna talk about that off course.
2.
It's logical analysis ultimately based on the logical absolutes.
You need to be able to differenciate between right and wrong to be a moral agent. And therefore have any moral accountability.
Like it is with free will. One needs free will to be a moral agent.

One cannot punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y.
Punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty is objectively wrong because these agents are blameless-innocent. Therefore it is immoral.
This is objectively true no matter the circumstance.

Of course it is relevant. You stated, "Q: If I said "X is wrong" because I said so would it be subjective morality or objective morality?(Yes/No)"

If X is "eat my dinner with my hands", then it is subjective morality.
If X is "murder a child with my hands", then it is objective morality.

Its irrelevant.
One says: "X is wrong because I say so".
Another one says: "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X".
Please answer:
Q: If I said "X is wrong" because I said so would it be subjective morality or objective morality?
Q: Is saying "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X" subjective morality or objective morality?

I have no idea what you mean by "Affective Empathy". Who or what decides what is affective morality and why should a violation of it be considered wrong?

I have already explained this.
Morality evolved because of natural selection.

Groups, pack, tribes that were more altruistic, that showed more cohesion, sympathy and empathy and cooperation were more likely to survive and find food. Groups were psychopathy was prevalent and showed mostly individual selfishness were less likely to survive.

We have an objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =affective empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the affective empathy) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

Our intrinsic "Morality" is tied to Affective Empathy.

Societal morality is subjective morality. One society's morality can be different from another's.

It depends.
Some can be subjective yes.
Some can be objective if it is based on logic which is based on the logical absolutes or to our intrinsic "Morality" which is tied to Affective Empathy.

[otseng]

Perhaps add to that, a major problem is people have their own interpretations of what words mean - even in the Bible.

Yes, we can have different meanings of what words mean, even outside the Bible. That is why we should at least offer what we think the words mean. And if it can refer to a recognized source the better.

So how would you now write the thread heading? "How can we trust the Bible if it's not {_______}?"

"How can we trust the Bible?"

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3401

I'll respond to this after you explain how you can justify the existence of objective morality.

As I've mentioned, I'm not an atheist. So your question doesn't apply to me.

It doesn't matter if you're not an atheist. You're the one making a moral judgment on God with the statement:

Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.

So, in order to make a moral judgment, you need to have a rational justification for objective morality. This is true for whatever worldview one has, whether it's an atheist, theist, deist, agnostic, or whatever. And by the way, you never answered what worldview you hold to.

If you cannot justify why your morality should be considered objective, it is merely your opinion that is stated about God and there is no moral oughtness of how God should act.

[otseng]

Is it wrong to perform an abortion?
Is it wrong to kill and eat animals?

The serious obfuscation begins.
Boring me with deflections and whataboutism

There is no obfuscation on my part. I'm just asking questions related to your post. You were the one who said:

Justification: Non-moral agents are blameless for they are incapable to discern right from wrong.

Therefore punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty is objectively wrong. Therefore it is objectively immoral.

Example of non-moral agents: infants, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth.

You said infants are non-moral agents. You also said it is objectively wrong to impose a death penalty on non-moral agents. So asking if it's wrong to perform an abortion is entirely relevant.

It is wrong to stuff on meat, animal products, be fat and kill billion of animals in factory farming. ->most of Americans

No, it's not morally wrong to eat meat. And it's not just Americans either that is eating meat, but the majority of people in the entire world.

It is wrong to kill countless of formed fetuses in abortions.

I agree with this. I will add though there are exceptions. In the case of a mother's life in jeopordy, it would not be unethical to choose the mother's life over the child's.

Like it is with free will. One needs free will to be a moral agent.
One cannot punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y.

I agree it requires free will to be a moral agent.

You are dogging almost all my points. You don't wanna answer questions, you don't wanna address things.
If its too huge for you go do something else if you don't wanna debate.

This is refuted by the fact this is the largest thread in the entire forum and I have spent years methodically covering issues that have been raised. So, we will eventually get to the specific instances of "evil" perpetrated by God.

Not sure what you're claiming. Are you homophobic or genocidal? Are you omnipotent?

Please answer:
Q: You need omnipotence to not be homophobic or genocidal or unjust and punish non-moral agents together with moral agents or punish others for the missdeeds of others?

I asked you those questions to point out one does not need to be omnipotent to not be homophobic or genocidal. Since you are not omnipotent and I assume you are also not homophobic or genocidal, then it refutes your statement.

1.
But the point of arguing here was that the Bible portraits God as evil, malevolent, jealous, unjust, unwise, petty, genocidal, infanticidal, tribal, homophobic.
You don't wanna talk about that off course.

I've been talking about this topic for the past several pages. What I'm addressing is the rational justification of making such a statement. If there is no justification for making an objective moral judgment on God, then the accusation against God is just a personal opinion and the entire charge doesn't need to be debated.

2.
It's logical analysis ultimately based on the logical absolutes.
You need to be able to differenciate between right and wrong to be a moral agent. And therefore have any moral accountability.
Like it is with free will. One needs free will to be a moral agent.

Yes, we need to have free will to be a moral agent and to have moral accountability. But this is not a justification for the existence of objective morality.

One cannot punish a being that does not have the free will in an instance X to not do the wrong thing Y.
Punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty is objectively wrong because these agents are blameless-innocent. Therefore it is immoral.
This is objectively true no matter the circumstance.

We intuitively know this is generally true, but outside of intuition, how do we know it's true?

Please answer:
Q: If I said "X is wrong" because I said so would it be subjective morality or objective morality?
Q: Is saying "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X" subjective morality or objective morality?

The first is subjective, the second is objective.

But how would one decide if the second one is true? Just because someone says "I say X is wrong no matter what anybody else says" doesn't justify that everyone ought not to do X.

Morality evolved because of natural selection.

No, natural selection does not explain morality. I've addressed the evolutionary theories in:

* Morality and Evolutionary Biology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* Evolutionary Ethics in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* The Origins of Human Morality in Scientific American

Groups, pack, tribes that were more altruistic, that showed more cohesion, sympathy and empathy and cooperation were more likely to survive and find food. Groups were psychopathy was prevalent and showed mostly individual selfishness were less likely to survive.

I've addressed this in the posts above.

It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

For most people yes. But if some dictator decides to rape and kill all his enemies, then it's just natural selection at play. He is more adapted to the situation and able to reproduce while stopping competitors from reproducing.

Some can be objective if it is based on logic which is based on the logical absolutes or to our intrinsic "Morality" which is tied to Affective Empathy.

Dictators also have their own logic and have their own sense of ethics. Why should they have to abide by affective empathy?

[alexxcJRO]

You said infants are non-moral agents. You also said it is objectively wrong to impose a death penalty on non-moral agents. So asking if it's wrong to perform an abortion is entirely relevant.

It's clear text whataboutism.

No, it's not morally wrong to eat meat. And it's not just Americans either that is eating meat, but the majority of people in the entire world.

The reality is human animals or non-human animals needed to eat meat to survive most of their existence in the hundred of millions of years animals existed. This is a necessary evil.
But it is morally wrong to stuff on meat, animal products, be fat and kill billion of non-human animals in factory farming. This is an unnecessary evil. This can be avoided.

Anyhow it's irrelevant to my point.

I clearly mentioned "punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty".
Eating meat for survival is not "punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty" dear sir.

This is refuted by the fact this is the largest thread in the entire forum and I have spent years methodically covering issues that have been raised. So, we will eventually get to the specific instances of "evil" perpetrated by God.

You have avoided most of what I said:

Problem of evil. Avoidance.

Bible says God is omnipotent. Avoidance.

God is portrait in the Bible God as evil, malevolent, jealous, unjust, unwise, petty, genocidal, infanticidal, tribal, homophobic. Avoidance.

The problem with a sentient being on one side being portrait as the most perfect, just, kind, benevolent, wise, extremely powerful being and on other side we have this being using its great might to punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic. Avoidance.

I asked you those questions to point out one does not need to be omnipotent to not be homophobic or genocidal. Since you are not omnipotent and I assume you are also not homophobic or genocidal, then it refutes your statement.

Irrelevant.
You said God is not omnipotent like that matters to my point: "Its like saying i am the most perfect, just, kind, benevolent, wise, powerful, influent and rich human but I use all that might to punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which I inflict great suffering. I punish some for the misdeeds of others. I ask for genocides. I am homophobic."
I does not matter if one being is not omnipotent to my point.

We intuitively know this is generally true, but outside of intuition, how do we know it's true?

Its logic sir. Not intuition.
It’s both wrong or illogical to punish the blameless, the innocent.
It’s both wrong or illogical to punish a being that does not have free will.

No, natural selection does not explain morality. I've addressed the evolutionary theories in:

* Morality and Evolutionary Biology in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* Evolutionary Ethics in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
* The Origins of Human Morality in Scientific American

Please provide a small snippet or a crux of the argument.

The first is subjective, the second is objective.
But how would one decide if the second one is true? Just because someone says "I say X is wrong no matter what anybody else says" doesn't justify that everyone ought not to do

1. I said : "Is saying "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X" subjective morality or objective morality?" and not "I say X is wrong no matter what anybody else says".
Careful now.

2.
One can say something is objectively wrong using logic which is ultimately based on the logical absolutes.
There is no planet in this universe or any place in any universe or plain of existence where
punishing a being that does not have free will is right or logical.

There is no planet in this universe or any place in any universe or plain of existence where
punishing the blameless, the innocent is right or logical.


3. So according to your logic if a supposed god says X is wrong because the being says so that is subiective morality.

[William]

Perhaps add to that, a major problem is people have their own interpretations of what words mean - even in the Bible.

Yes, we can have different meanings of what words mean, even outside the Bible. That is why we should at least offer what we think the words mean. And if it can refer to a recognized source the better.

So how would you now write the thread heading? "How can we trust the Bible if it's not {_______}?"

"How can we trust the Bible?"

Re words and their meanings, "containing no error" (in this case "the Bible") "How can we trust the Bible if it contains errors?".

Re the Bible - "What is there to trust and why must it be trusted?"

I shall put this to The Father.

______________________


Me: How can we trust the Bible?


The Father: viewtopic.php?p=1070402#p1070402
IF:
There is a mind behind creation
THEN:
We ought be able to communicate with it, using whatever physical devices we can create in order to do so.

Me: Including the mind one is…that too can be used as a device of communication.

The Father: Hugs and Kisses
Relaxed and informal...
Future Self

Me: That is a worthwhile goal.

The Father: Can You Answer This?
ז
Signals

Me: The original meaning of the letter Zayin is a “sword” or “sharp weapon,” with the word “lezayen” coming to mean “to arm” in the Modern Hebrew language.

The Father: "How can we trust the Bible?" First Source: "It Would Be Rude Not To."

Me: As in…the Bible contains (overall) the theme of the offer to individuals re being in a relationship with the Creator-Mind… re information which can cut through the costume of personality which otherwise prevents said personality from seeking or wanting connection with Creator.

The Father: You wrote. "In thinking more about that truly unknown thing called the sub or unconscious aspect of ourselves, I found myself thinking that we are to it, what our shadow is to us."
Rebirth Thanatophobic

Me: Thanatophobia is an intense fear of death or the dying process. Another name for this condition is “death anxiety.” One might be anxious about one’s own death or the death of someone one cares about.
In a sense, rebirth – or being “born again” is a shift away from said fear…through the interaction between The Father and the individual personality being reshaped (re “cut through the costume of personality which otherwise prevents said personality from seeking or wanting connection with Creator.”)


The Father: ג Due to the fact that the letter Gimel is the third letter in the alphabet, it has the numerical value of three. In mystical teachings, three represents stability and is significant in a number of ways in Biblical teachings. There are three patriarchs, for example (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob). Another well-known ancient Jewish teaching says that the world stands on three things: Torah, work (prayer) and acts of loving kindness.

Me: The significance underlying the symbol speaks of “Giving”.
What is there to trust and why must it be trusted?

The Father: Healing The Beast Parity Awake
(The last thing a fish notices is water.)
When have you felt most grateful?

Me: When in communion with You.

The Father: viewtopic.php?p=1132028#p1132028
You wrote: “The bible does not appear to specifically state that God is outside of the universe. More to the point it is simply a tradition of religion to think that is the case, only in terms of supernaturalist philosophy.
IF we are to accept that the biblical stories are true, THEN we must first establish that there are no natural explanations BEFORE we start making claims that the explanations are supernatural ones.”

Me: Yes. There is no reason to believe in the existence of some other universe where The Creator (uncaused) resides. Everything is taking place here in the One Verse.

The Father: Collective Soul Sensing A Life Mission
What is there to trust and why must it be trusted?
https://moci.life/

Me: Launched in 2023, MOCI proposes that science, religion, and philosophy – through no fault of their own – lack the necessary tools, language, and perspective to decipher the enigma of consciousness and interconnectedness.
The movement of consciousness and interconnectedness is, in effect, endeavoring to fine-tune the lens by which we perceive consciousness through the medium of art and storytelling. An agnostic, philosophical art, provides us with the capacity to experience and envisage ourselves as part of the vast field of consciousness where we are all one.
The Founding Materials of MOCI are created by one individual (James Mahu) so they can remain independent of any organization. They are multi-faceted expressions of music, visual art, a novel, and philosophic writings, shared with one purpose: to provide an onramp to explore consciousness and interconnectedness. The two most important things that remain enigmas to humanity.

The Father: The Nature of Role-Play Within Story-Lines
(Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway) - Temporary
Inner self “Information which can cut through the costume of personality which otherwise prevents said personality from seeking or wanting connection with Creator.”
(Engagement with its scary mysteriousness).

TRANSITION -