How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20838
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20838
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Genocide and child sacrifices

Post #3441

Post by otseng »

Here's a sampling of recent posts of skeptics bringing up genocide in the Old Testament:
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 2:50 am Yahweh is asking for genocides(Amalek and the others)
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 4:41 pmThis doesn't even touch on the ordered genocide in the Bible I might add.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:42 amYour answer is completely in line with Yahweh flooding the world and commanding genocide:
Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 11:22 am The list of mass genocide authorized by "God" for his favorite tribe is long.
And we have the popular quote from Dawkins:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Richard Dawkins

Yes, the Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy those in the land of Canaan.

[Deu 20:16-17 KJV] 16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

What was the reason for their destruction? Because God is capricious? No. Because God is racist? No. The reason is to judge sin.

[Deu 20:18 KJV] 18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

[Deu 9:5 KJV] 5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

[Deu 18:9-10 KJV] 9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

What sins were the Canaanites guilty of?

Though there were many, one of the most egregious was child sacrifices.

[Lev 18:21 KJV] 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.
Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity represented as an upright, bull-headed idol with human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death.

Plutarch reports that during the Phoenician (Canaanite) sacrifices, “the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of the wailing should not reach the ears of the people.”

Oxford professor John Day wrote: “In fact, we have independent evidence that child sacrifice was practiced in the Canaanite (Carthaginian and Phoenician) world from many classical sources, Punic inscriptions and archaeological evidence, as well as Egyptian depictions of the ritual occurring in Syria-Palestine, and from a recently discovered Phoenician inscription in Turkey. There is therefore no reason to doubt the biblical testimony to Canaanite child sacrifice.”
https://clayjones.net/wp-content/upload ... rticle.pdf
The practice of child sacrifice among Canaanite groups is attested by numerous sources spanning over a millennium.

There was in the city a bronze image of Kronos, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire. It is probable that it was from this that Euripides has drawn the mythical story found in his works about the sacrifice in Tauris, in which he presents Iphigeneia being asked by Orestes: "But what tomb shall receive me when I die? A sacred fire within, and earth's broad rift." Also the story passed down among the Greeks from ancient myth that Cronus did away with his own children appears to have been kept in mind among the Carthaginians through this observance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice
While it is inconclusive what the Phoenicians called themselves, many scholars believe they went by the same name the Bible gives them: Canaanites.

The Phoenicians were never ruled as one “empire,” and historians do not consider them a vast dominion or kingdom. Rather than being identified as a common culture or people, the Bible (as well as Greek literature) identifies the early Phoenicians according to the city-state they belonged to. Sidon/Zidon and Tyre are the two main cities referenced in the Hebrew Bible.

Scholars previously disputed whether or not Baal worshipers actually practiced child sacrifice. Some claimed the references to child sacrifice were an attempt by biblical authors to disparage other religions. But today there is significant archaeological evidence for the barbaric rite. While Baal was worshiped throughout the ancient Middle East, the most compelling evidence for child sacrifice comes from the Phoenicians—specifically, Phoenician Carthage, situated in modern-day Tunisia.
https://armstronginstitute.org/48-uncov ... hoenicians
Throughout antiquity, sacrifice might have been utilized in times of great strife. But one cult stands out from the rest for its brutality: the cult of Moloch, the alleged Canaanite god of child sacrifice.

The cult of Moloch is believed to have been practiced by the people of the Levant region from at least the early Bronze Age, and images of his bullish head with a child burning in his belly persist until the medieval times.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

More on child sacrifices at:
viewtopic.php?p=1081397#p1081397

Later, the Israelites also committed the same sins and they too would be judged for it. God not only judged the heathen for their sins, but also with Israel as well.

[Lev 20:2 KJV] 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

[2Ki 16:3 KJV] 3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.

[Jer 32:35 KJV] 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

[Eze 20:26 KJV] 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I [am] the LORD.

So, the charge that God committed genocide because of a nationality or race is fallacious. God is not judging people because of their ethnicity or country of origin. God judges people on their sin, regardless of their nationality.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15250
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Why trust the Bible?

Post #3442

Post by William »

otseng wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 6:33 am
William wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2023 4:55 pm
With your logic, then every historical event is trash, not just the Bible.
That is an unnecessary flip since the focus of my argument has to do specifically with rules specifically suppressing all messages deemed as "from those speaking directly for God or as special messengers of God", except any messages which are of that nature which are contained in the Bible.
In this thread, the Bible is treated like any book on history. If you claim the Bible is to be treated as trash, then all history books should be treated as trash.
My focus is on rules-sets which allow one license to treat the post I shared as something not worthy of the same respect that one grants to the Bible.
Bottom line, that's the rules set forth here. Debating the rules is not the purpose of the OP. Feel free to create a separate thread about it.
What makes your claim of hearing directly from the Father credible?
I claimed no such thing.
I shared a randomly generated message placing "The Father" as the personality I (the other personality) was engaging with, and then shared the results as evidence.
The Original Generated Message (under question).
A randomly generated message is not evidence. It literally rightly belongs in random rambling.
The Father and The Son.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3354
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 597 times

Re: God hardening Pharaoh's heart

Post #3443

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3435]
Humans are not clay.
Then Romans 9 gives a false analogy.
God didn't force them to have children before the impending judgment. If they knew the flood would be coming and they had children, it would be their responsibility for allowing their children to go through the flood by bearing them.
If the story says that they didn't repent, that indicates that they didn't believe a flood was coming. So they would have seen no reason to stop having [innocent] children.

Again, there's no way to sugar-coat the story or justify how it goes.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15250
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #3444

Post by William »

In this thread, the Bible is treated like any book on history.
The interesting thing about this idea is that compared with other historical events claimed, the bible lacks comprehensive supporting evidence and unlike other historical books, is dependent on the readers to have faith in what it teaches. Other historical books don't intend the reader to go that far.
So this "treatment" is specifically different in that regard.

The idea of arguing any supposed supporting evidence for the accuracy of said historical accounts is linked to convincing the reader to have faith in the Biblical stories (as being historical fact) and therein sharply diverges from the same path other historical books are on, thus is not "treated like any book on history" at all.

The supposed supporting evidence - presented as a growing list with the following points;

1. Case study of Hezekiah
2. Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
3. Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
4. Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
5. Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
6. Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
7. Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
8. Start discussing Bible and resurrection
9. Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
10. Start discussing Old Testament ethics

are claimed to being historically significant (as having actually happened) and therefore, the Bible should be believed - at least just as true - as any other historical documents, and therefore be treated - at least just as relevantly - as any other historical documents and "trusted".

Since billions of folk are doing this anyway, and this directly impacts on history (as it goes along) and has done for hundreds of years already, what exactly is the point to trusting it or for that matter trusting any historical documents?

How has it been shown that trusting the Bible is any good or serves any particular outcome for humanity, given the history of the humanity we are addressing here?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15250
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: Why trust the Bible?

Post #3445

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #3439]
What makes your claim of hearing directly from the Father credible?
I claimed no such thing.
I shared a randomly generated message placing "The Father" as the personality I (the other personality) was engaging with, and then shared the results as evidence.
A randomly generated message is not evidence. It literally rightly belongs in random rambling.
On the contrary. That is why I also replied to your question;
"Is there any evidence you are hearing from the Father? How can it be verified?
with;
It can be verified in the same manner as other such things must be verified. Through examining the process for oneself through use, re repeatability.
Your understandable confusion is in my use of the word "random".

The selection process used is general/would generally be recognized as "random" but randomness hasn't been scientifically shown to be real.
Further to that, generating messages in this repeatable manner and having the messages being consistently coherent/understandable adds to the evidence against any true randomness existing, thus forces us to question and find answers as to why a supposed random thing can produce such messages.

If we are to believe in the existence of randomness as a real phenomena, in order to stay true to that we would have to consider that The Universe is the result of a random process (rather than a mindful one) and by using a supposed random method to select journaled lines which contain - among other things - personal knowledge, common knowledge and internet links this supplies supporting evidence that randomness should not simply be supposed as existing, in the same breath as offering the alternative - that everything is mindfully produced and randomness - while looking as if it exists, does not.

Re the thread subject, "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" all history is either random (mindless) or involves some type of mindfulness and certainly if the Bible is to be treated as "without error" or even just "inspired by some more-than-human mind" the idea of randomness being real has to be placed aside as an argument against mindfulness/a mindful creator (which the Bible is often pointing to) and thus - historically - mindfully produced rather than randomly produced.

However, this does not mean that the bible alone should be treated as such - as an "only" trustworthy source through which any mindful creator would use in order to convey messages to human beings and all else relegated to being “random rambling” to ensure that a double standard is not being employed.

User avatar
AgnosticBoy
Guru
Posts: 1653
Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:44 pm
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 168 times
Contact:

Re: Genocide and child sacrifices

Post #3446

Post by AgnosticBoy »

otseng wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:26 am So, the charge that God committed genocide because of a nationality or race is fallacious. God is not judging people because of their ethnicity or country of origin. God judges people on their sin, regardless of their nationality.
I see two routes to this objection. One is that it is not literal in that it was part of war rhetoric. Here's one simple explanation from another forum:
TracyRN, post: 376, member: 3 wrote: God ordered the killing of a lot of people but these were not innocent people. A good book on this topic is one by Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster. Another one is by Matthew Flannagan, Did God Really Command Genocide? Coming to Terms with the Justice of God

Passage that calls for all to be killed...

Numbers 21:2-3
Then Israel made this vow to the Lord: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” 3 The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah.

Fast Forward to the book of Joshua 17:12-13...
12 Yet the Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region. 13 However, when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out completely.

The Canaanites are back in the story again.
Another explanation has to do with God judging people based on his foreknowledge (2 Peter 3:8) or based on what he knew they would do. It explains why God would include babies as sinners, but plenty would still question if that's justified since that opens the door to other moral issues.
- Proud forum owner ∣ The Agnostic Forum

- As a non-partisan, I like to be on the side of truth. - AB

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 582 times

Re: Genocide and child sacrifices

Post #3447

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:26 am Here's a sampling of recent posts of skeptics bringing up genocide in the Old Testament:
alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 2:50 am Yahweh is asking for genocides(Amalek and the others)
Clownboat wrote: Mon Oct 30, 2023 4:41 pmThis doesn't even touch on the ordered genocide in the Bible I might add.
boatsnguitars wrote: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:42 amYour answer is completely in line with Yahweh flooding the world and commanding genocide:
Diogenes wrote: Fri Jul 07, 2023 11:22 am The list of mass genocide authorized by "God" for his favorite tribe is long.
And we have the popular quote from Dawkins:

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
Richard Dawkins

Yes, the Israelites were commanded to utterly destroy those in the land of Canaan.

[Deu 20:16-17 KJV] 16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee [for] an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: 17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; [namely], the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

What was the reason for their destruction? Because God is capricious? No. Because God is racist? No. The reason is to judge sin.

[Deu 20:18 KJV] 18 That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.

[Deu 9:5 KJV] 5 Not for thy righteousness, or for the uprightness of thine heart, dost thou go to possess their land: but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD thy God doth drive them out from before thee, and that he may perform the word which the LORD sware unto thy fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

[Deu 18:9-10 KJV] 9 When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. 10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch,

What sins were the Canaanites guilty of?

Though there were many, one of the most egregious was child sacrifices.

[Lev 18:21 KJV] 21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through [the fire] to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I [am] the LORD.
Molech was a Canaanite underworld deity represented as an upright, bull-headed idol with human body in whose belly a fire was stoked and in whose outstretched arms a child was placed that would be burned to death.

Plutarch reports that during the Phoenician (Canaanite) sacrifices, “the whole area before the statue was filled with a loud noise of flutes and drums so that the cries of the wailing should not reach the ears of the people.”

Oxford professor John Day wrote: “In fact, we have independent evidence that child sacrifice was practiced in the Canaanite (Carthaginian and Phoenician) world from many classical sources, Punic inscriptions and archaeological evidence, as well as Egyptian depictions of the ritual occurring in Syria-Palestine, and from a recently discovered Phoenician inscription in Turkey. There is therefore no reason to doubt the biblical testimony to Canaanite child sacrifice.”
https://clayjones.net/wp-content/upload ... rticle.pdf
The practice of child sacrifice among Canaanite groups is attested by numerous sources spanning over a millennium.

There was in the city a bronze image of Kronos, extending its hands, palms up and sloping towards the ground, so that each of the children when placed thereon rolled down and fell into a sort of gaping pit filled with fire. It is probable that it was from this that Euripides has drawn the mythical story found in his works about the sacrifice in Tauris, in which he presents Iphigeneia being asked by Orestes: "But what tomb shall receive me when I die? A sacred fire within, and earth's broad rift." Also the story passed down among the Greeks from ancient myth that Cronus did away with his own children appears to have been kept in mind among the Carthaginians through this observance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sacrifice
While it is inconclusive what the Phoenicians called themselves, many scholars believe they went by the same name the Bible gives them: Canaanites.

The Phoenicians were never ruled as one “empire,” and historians do not consider them a vast dominion or kingdom. Rather than being identified as a common culture or people, the Bible (as well as Greek literature) identifies the early Phoenicians according to the city-state they belonged to. Sidon/Zidon and Tyre are the two main cities referenced in the Hebrew Bible.

Scholars previously disputed whether or not Baal worshipers actually practiced child sacrifice. Some claimed the references to child sacrifice were an attempt by biblical authors to disparage other religions. But today there is significant archaeological evidence for the barbaric rite. While Baal was worshiped throughout the ancient Middle East, the most compelling evidence for child sacrifice comes from the Phoenicians—specifically, Phoenician Carthage, situated in modern-day Tunisia.
https://armstronginstitute.org/48-uncov ... hoenicians
Throughout antiquity, sacrifice might have been utilized in times of great strife. But one cult stands out from the rest for its brutality: the cult of Moloch, the alleged Canaanite god of child sacrifice.

The cult of Moloch is believed to have been practiced by the people of the Levant region from at least the early Bronze Age, and images of his bullish head with a child burning in his belly persist until the medieval times.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/moloch

More on child sacrifices at:
viewtopic.php?p=1081397#p1081397

Later, the Israelites also committed the same sins and they too would be judged for it. God not only judged the heathen for their sins, but also with Israel as well.

[Lev 20:2 KJV] 2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

[2Ki 16:3 KJV] 3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.

[Jer 32:35 KJV] 35 And they built the high places of Baal, which [are] in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through [the fire] unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

[Eze 20:26 KJV] 26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I [am] the LORD.

So, the charge that God committed genocide because of a nationality or race is fallacious. God is not judging people because of their ethnicity or country of origin. God judges people on their sin, regardless of their nationality.
Interesting take. Hitler, I believe, would say the same thing. It's not that they were Jews, it was because they were sinners... what with all their disease, false gods, and sinful ways...

In fact, isn't that exactly what modern racists say? "I'm not racist! I think white people can be [N word]s, too! I don't judge people by their color - but whether they steal and live in squalor. It just so happens that it's mostly people of a certain color that do those things. That's why prisons are full of Black and Brown people - because they keep sinning - not because of racism!"
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20838
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Re: God hardening Pharaoh's heart

Post #3448

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 1:34 pm If the story says that they didn't repent, that indicates that they didn't believe a flood was coming. So they would have seen no reason to stop having [innocent] children.
Right, they didn't believe Noah's message. But it doesn't mean they were not warned.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20838
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #3449

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 3:49 pm The supposed supporting evidence - presented as a growing list with the following points;

1. Case study of Hezekiah
2. Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
3. Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
4. Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
5. Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
6. Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
7. Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
8. Start discussing Bible and resurrection
9. Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
10. Start discussing Old Testament ethics

are claimed to being historically significant (as having actually happened) and therefore, the Bible should be believed - at least just as true - as any other historical documents, and therefore be treated - at least just as relevantly - as any other historical documents and "trusted".
Exactly. How would any other book relating historical events be determined if it's reliable?
How has it been shown that trusting the Bible is any good or serves any particular outcome for humanity, given the history of the humanity we are addressing here?
This would be for another thread.
William wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 5:12 pm Your understandable confusion is in my use of the word "random".
This also would be for another thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the reliability of the Bible, not your generated messages.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20838
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 363 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #3450

Post by otseng »

AgnosticBoy wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2023 2:00 am One is that it is not literal in that it was part of war rhetoric.

Numbers 21:2-3
Then Israel made this vow to the Lord: “If you will deliver these people into our hands, we will totally destroy their cities.” 3 The Lord listened to Israel’s plea and gave the Canaanites over to them. They completely destroyed them and their towns; so the place was named Hormah.

Fast Forward to the book of Joshua 17:12-13...
12 Yet the Manassites were not able to occupy these towns, for the Canaanites were determined to live in that region. 13 However, when the Israelites grew stronger, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor but did not drive them out completely.
I believe the war rhetoric argument is more addressing the number of people killed. Obviously there is a discrepancy between "completely destroyed" and "did not drive them out completely". So, "completely destroyed" would be a hyperbolic statement.

I don't think anyone is arguing because they were not totally destroyed that it would not be considered a genocide.
Another explanation has to do with God judging people based on his foreknowledge (2 Peter 3:8) or based on what he knew they would do. It explains why God would include babies as sinners, but plenty would still question if that's justified since that opens the door to other moral issues.
After thinking about morality and free will in our previous discussion, I'm now leaning towards babies cannot be judged as either being guilty or innocent. Judging them this way requires them to be able to choose between evil and good. Since I do not believe babies are able to choose between moral choices, they are amoral agents. So it's a classification error to say babies are either innocent or guilty.

Post Reply