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: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 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
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Slavery

Post #3701

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:43 am And same arguments as before to bring up an omniperfect God, which the Bible never states. It is an illusory target that skeptics paint in order to imagine a straw man God to attack.
You come and say that like we have not talked about this before.
I showed the opposite. The Bible states that God-Yahweh is omni-perfect.

Omnibenevolence and omniscience:
You agreed God is omnibenevolent and omniscient.

God is perfectly good: "who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.
God is perfect in his works: "his works are perfect".
God is perfect in his speech and his words: "his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless;"
God is perfect in his justice: "all his ways are just"

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”
“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."


Omnipotence:
The modern Christian logic is the below verses are saying God is doing anything-"all things" that are logically possible. The verses prompted ideas of omnipotence.

"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"
"For nothing will be impossible with God.”
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me."
"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”"


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.


otseng wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:43 am
Unlike many other apologists, I accept chattel slaves existed and were even owned by the Israelites.
Yes, I agree this passage is referring to chattel slaves.
Good for you for not negating reality on this points.
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:43 am As I argued in Ten Commandments and case law, Exodus 21 is discussing case law. These would be addressing how to handle specific situations if they do occur. These are not "commandments" per se.
The problem is with not abolishing it and problem is making laws for chattel slaves.
We are talking of a omni-perfect being.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 493 times

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

Post #3702

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3696
You did not answer my question if you are a religious naturalist or not. If you are not a religious naturalist and you cited a belief from them, then how is that not borrowing a belief from them? If you are a religious naturalist, but you also stated you are a theist, then it conflicts with the beliefs of a religious naturalist.
Was I not clear enough? I picked a page from a website----which happened to be the religious naturalist site----because it listed versions of the Golden Rule in various religions. I was illustrating justification for objective morality outside the Bible.

If I had quoted various versions of the GR from a school textbook, would you assume that I worship education?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Objective moral values

Post #3703

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:09 am
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 7:53 am And I clarified your question by saying I just want your opinion. I don't care about what any law or well-being or any other god thinks. All you have to do is answer yes or no to each of them.

Here's the questions again:
Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?
My opinion? Sure, I'll give it a shot.

1. It is illegal to rape someone in most countries/cultures, and there are overriding rational reasons not to rape someone (the harm it causes), therefore it's wrong
2. It ought to be illegal to torture babies, there are overriding rational reasons not to torture babies, therefore it is wrong
3. No, it is illegal to commit genocide, therefore they ought to be brought to justice. Also, there was no rational reason for them to commit genocide, and there are rational reasons to prosecute those who do it.
4. Depends, but that's a personal decision that has the potential to harm someone, but seems to be a larger symptom of the relationship. I wouldn't do it myself, but I feel no grand compunction to not do it if my marriage was failing, hadn't seen my wife in years, etc.
5. Depends. Legally, it is generally wrong to steal from people , however, our legal system seems to allow that if you steal enough money to hire good lawyers, it appears to be legally acceptable. As for all stealing, all the time - I am sure there are good cases. For example, is it okay for someone to steal the key to the room they've been locked in by a kidnapper? Oh, right, you don't want questions and nuance...
6. Legally, it is wrong to murder someone - it's the definition of murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
7. I have no idea. I wasn't there and I don't know the situation.
There are two cases to be addressed. One is those that are against the judicial laws and another against internal values.

For judicial laws, why would they exist universally? If one country considered them to be acceptable, would that be OK?

For internal values, why ought they be considered to be wrong? If another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?
Let me ask you a more critical question:

What is the defining feature of an OMV? It can't be universal agreement, as we know OMVs are democratically decided. What is ONE OMV, and how do you know it's an OMV?
I believe in moral realism, which states that morals are independent of humans. Morals exist, even before humans started to exist. So morals are not decided by humans.

As for examples of OMV, that is what I've been presenting.
One would assume that if there is an OMV, it would not have universal agreement. For example, not all people think the 10Cs are real, yet, a Christian might try to argue that they are OMVs but the nature of them being expressed by Moses.
I assume you meant OMV would have universal agreement.

As for the Ten Commandments, I actually do not believe it is any laws or commandments (including the Bible) that is our source of objective moral values. Rather, they are built into us as humans. So everyone would have a sense of OMV, even if they've never been exposed to things like the Decalogue. What the Decalogue does do is codify some of the objective moral values into a written form.

As for universal agreement, let's take slavery as an example. It was only recently in human history that slavery has been outlawed. So, prior to that, slavery was universally practiced and accepted. Does that mean slavery was morally right in the past?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Slavery

Post #3704

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 9:16 am You come and say that like we have not talked about this before.
I showed the opposite. The Bible states that God-Yahweh is omni-perfect.
We have talked about this at length. And repeating yourself doesn't make your case any stronger.

We both agree that God is not omniperfect. So it's a straw man argument to attack an omniperfect God.
otseng wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2024 6:51 am
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Jan 11, 2024 3:54 amErgo not omniperfect.
As I've said, I agree God is not omniperfect.
The problem is with not abolishing it and problem is making laws for chattel slaves.
We are talking of a omni-perfect being.
Again, the omniperfect argument is a straw man.

But yes, I agree the Bible does not expressly prohibit chattel slavery. I'll state another thing I've never heard another apologist say - chattel slavery is not categorically morally wrong. There are actually instances where chattel slavery is morally acceptable.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3705

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Fri Jan 19, 2024 8:19 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3696
You did not answer my question if you are a religious naturalist or not. If you are not a religious naturalist and you cited a belief from them, then how is that not borrowing a belief from them? If you are a religious naturalist, but you also stated you are a theist, then it conflicts with the beliefs of a religious naturalist.
Was I not clear enough? I picked a page from a website----which happened to be the religious naturalist site----because it listed versions of the Golden Rule in various religions. I was illustrating justification for objective morality outside the Bible.

If I had quoted various versions of the GR from a school textbook, would you assume that I worship education?
I have no idea what you worship or what worldview you espouse, but you can clarify it for me.

As for the religious naturalist position, even they are borrowing their belief from other religions. The only thing that they are doing is removing the assertion that any gods exist.

Regarding objective morality outside of the Bible, of course they exist. I've never stated it doesn't. My belief is that everyone is born with a sense of objective moral values. I'm a moral realist so I believe morals existed prior to any humans existing.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2744
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 493 times

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

Post #3706

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3705
I have no idea what you worship or what worldview you espouse, but you can clarify it for me.
Suffice it to say that I don't necessarily believe in an anthropomorphic deity. Still I do hold the Golden Rule----in whatever form it's given, to be binding.

As for the religious naturalist position, even they are borrowing their belief from other religions.
And I borrowed from the borrowers.

Regarding objective morality outside of the Bible, of course they exist. I've never stated it doesn't. My belief is that everyone is born with a sense of objective moral values.
That's why you can't dismiss moral objections to Jehovah's behavior in the Bible.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: Objective moral values

Post #3707

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 5:14 am There are two cases to be addressed. One is those that are against the judicial laws and another against internal values.

For judicial laws, why would they exist universally? If one country considered them to be acceptable, would that be OK?
OK according to whom? The country, the individuals those laws favor, God, me, you? I'm really not sure we are getting anywhere if you can't recognize the problem with this line of thinking.

All morals are subjective until they are proven to be Objective: what distinguishes an OMV? What property do they have, and can you point to one, now, that we'd all recognize is an OMV whether we agree with it or not? What is the property we'd expect?

It can't be that we agree on it or not, or recognize it or not.

For example, the Sun is a sphere. Agree, disagree, ignore it... whatever, it's still a sphere and can be demonstrated as such. If you still refuse to acknowledge it, it's simply your opinion, but the Sun remains spherical.

The objective qualities are:

Solar Eclipses: During a solar eclipse, the Moon passes between the Earth and the Sun, casting a shadow on Earth. The shadow's edge always appears round, indicating that the Sun is a roughly spherical object. The shape of the shadow, known as the umbra, is consistent with what would be expected from a spherical light source.

Solar Limb Darkening: When we observe the Sun's outer edge (limb), we notice that it appears darker than the center. This limb darkening is a result of the Sun's spherical shape, causing the light to travel through a larger portion of the solar atmosphere at the limb compared to the center.

Gravity: The Sun's gravitational influence on nearby objects is consistent with a massive, roughly spherical body. The orbits of planets around the Sun, as well as the trajectories of comets and other celestial bodies, follow gravitational laws that are explained by a massive spherical object at the center.

Solar Rotation: Observations of the Sun's rotation provide evidence for its spherical shape. Different latitudes of the Sun rotate at different rates, a phenomenon known as solar differential rotation. This behavior is expected in a gaseous, spherical object.

Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO): Modern space-based observatories, such as the SDO, continuously monitor the Sun in multiple wavelengths. These observations, including high-resolution images and videos, confirm the Sun's spherical shape. Variations in solar activity, such as sunspots and solar flares, occur across the curved surface of the Sun.

Helioseismology: Helioseismology is the study of solar vibrations and oscillations. By analyzing the Sun's seismic waves, scientists can infer its internal structure. The behavior of these waves is consistent with the Sun having a spherical shape.

What is it about OMVs that you can list?
For internal values, why ought they be considered to be wrong? If another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?
They are wrong to you, to your family, group, clan, State, country, etc.

I'd offer that harm is the measure, but I know you disagree with that, which makes me worried for our future if Theists continue to develop our moral values.

You are going to say, "Well, that doesn't make them wrong in a universal sense."

That's right. But, IMO, there are no OMVs and that we Moral Agents must put in the hard work to navigate the cold, uncaring universe the best we can.
Let me ask you a more critical question:

What is the defining feature of an OMV? It can't be universal agreement, as we know OMVs are democratically decided. What is ONE OMV, and how do you know it's an OMV?
I believe in moral realism, which states that morals are independent of humans. Morals exist, even before humans started to exist. So morals are not decided by humans.

As for examples of OMV, that is what I've been presenting.
Cutting in front of the kid is wrong, even if there are no humans? Even if the kid is chatting with the cashier, and you are trying to buy life saving medicine for your child?

Seems it's absurd to me to consider anything absolutely wrong unless you make it situational.
One would assume that if there is an OMV, it would not have universal agreement. For example, not all people think the 10Cs are real, yet, a Christian might try to argue that they are OMVs but the nature of them being expressed by Moses.
I assume you meant OMV would have universal agreement.
No, that's my point. Even with Universal agreement, that doesn't mean there are OMVs (it was universally agreed that human sacrifice was considered moral, or infanticide, slavery, rape, etc.

My point is, one would expect an OMV to be obvious even if people didn't accept it. Like it wasn't legal for a white and black person to marry: Maybe that's exactly what God wanted, but people disagreed - but we'd all look at the law and say, "But it's the law - God's law - Universal Law - Objective."

For example, the Law of Gravity seems Objective. Some people believe they can fly when they jump off a building. So where is the OMV like that?
An inviolate law.

Like, if you try to cut in front of a kid at a store while trying to by a life-saving inhaler for your child, the universe simply stops you.
As for the Ten Commandments, I actually do not believe it is any laws or commandments (including the Bible) that is our source of objective moral values. Rather, they are built into us as humans. So everyone would have a sense of OMV, even if they've never been exposed to things like the Decalogue. What the Decalogue does do is codify some of the objective moral values into a written form.

As for universal agreement, let's take slavery as an example. It was only recently in human history that slavery has been outlawed. So, prior to that, slavery was universally practiced and accepted. Does that mean slavery was morally right in the past?
Again, according to who? The Law? The slave? A person who didn't like slavery? God? The Universe?

The best case I would make is that it was clear that it harms people, so if we tie morality to harm - yes, it was always wrong.

I'd love to know what measure you use? That God says so? I haven't heard God speak. Is he going to go on tour soon so we can see what he thinks?
“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
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Slavery

Post #3708

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 5:30 am Again, the omniperfect argument is a straw man.
We both agree that God is not omniperfect. So it's a straw man argument to attack an
omniperfect God.
Q: I agreed God is not said to be omniperfect in the Bible?
Q: Where?
Evidence for this claim.
otseng wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 5:30 am But yes, I agree the Bible does not expressly prohibit chattel slavery. I'll state another thing I've never heard another apologist say - chattel slavery is not categorically morally wrong. There are actually instances where chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
They were considered morally acceptable by humans till there were not anymore: abolitionist movement-Civil War.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #3709

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 9:43 amThat's why you can't dismiss moral objections to Jehovah's behavior in the Bible.
I'm not dismissing any of the charges, but taking them seriously. That's why I'm spending considerable time on this subject.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Objective moral values

Post #3710

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Sat Jan 20, 2024 12:24 pm
For judicial laws, why would they exist universally? If one country considered them to be acceptable, would that be OK?
OK according to whom? The country, the individuals those laws favor, God, me, you? I'm really not sure we are getting anywhere if you can't recognize the problem with this line of thinking.
Question is why would such judicial laws be similar for all countries? If one country said it's acceptable to kill all Jews, why should that be considered wrong?
All morals are subjective until they are proven to be Objective: what distinguishes an OMV?
Why not the opposite? All morals are objective until they are proven to be subjective.

Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures. Subjective morals would be limited to a particular time or culture or society.
What is it about OMVs that you can list?
Another diversionary tactic. We are talking about ethics, not physics.
For internal values, why ought they be considered to be wrong? If another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?
They are wrong to you, to your family, group, clan, State, country, etc.
You didn't answer my question. Again, if another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?
I'd offer that harm is the measure, but I know you disagree with that, which makes me worried for our future if Theists continue to develop our moral values.
More baseless opinions and personal accusations.
But, IMO, there are no OMVs and that we Moral Agents must put in the hard work to navigate the cold, uncaring universe the best we can.
If everything is subjective, then really there is no right and wrong moral behavior. Ultimately, what is considered right for one person can be considered wrong for another. What would be the factor is simply what the majority holds or something with authority dictates.
I believe in moral realism, which states that morals are independent of humans. Morals exist, even before humans started to exist. So morals are not decided by humans.
Cutting in front of the kid is wrong, even if there are no humans? Even if the kid is chatting with the cashier, and you are trying to buy life saving medicine for your child?

Seems it's absurd to me to consider anything absolutely wrong unless you make it situational.
You were the one that continually brought up arguments for moral realism. What do you think moral realism is?
I assume you meant OMV would have universal agreement.
Even with Universal agreement, that doesn't mean there are OMVs (it was universally agreed that human sacrifice was considered moral, or infanticide, slavery, rape, etc.
Right, universal agreement by itself does not mean it is objective. But if something is objective, it must have universal agreement.
My point is, one would expect an OMV to be obvious even if people didn't accept it.
I'm not so sure. If someone doesn't accept it, how could it then be obvious? If it was obvious, shouldn't they accept it?
Like it wasn't legal for a white and black person to marry: Maybe that's exactly what God wanted, but people disagreed - but we'd all look at the law and say, "But it's the law - God's law - Universal Law - Objective."
More spurious claims. Where does it say in the Bible a white and black person can not marry?
Like, if you try to cut in front of a kid at a store while trying to by a life-saving inhaler for your child, the universe simply stops you.
What you're suggesting is a universe that would be impossible to do anything morally wrong?
As for universal agreement, let's take slavery as an example. It was only recently in human history that slavery has been outlawed. So, prior to that, slavery was universally practiced and accepted. Does that mean slavery was morally right in the past?
Again, according to who? The Law? The slave? A person who didn't like slavery? God? The Universe?
Why keep on asking these things? All these questions are directed to you and simply asking for your position.
The best case I would make is that it was clear that it harms people, so if we tie morality to harm - yes, it was always wrong.
Then you're applying objective morality to say slavery is wrong since it was universally practiced and accepted in the past.
I'd love to know what measure you use? That God says so? I haven't heard God speak. Is he going to go on tour soon so we can see what he thinks?
What is the source of my morality? Ultimately God. God created all humans with a sense of morality. God also gave the Bible to codify proper behavior. It is summed up in the two greatest commandments.

[Mat 22:37-40 KJV] 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second [is] like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Post Reply