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]

In the Old Testament, we see sexual acts between males resulted in capital punishment.

[Lev 20:13 KJV] 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

There are also other sexual sins that result in death:

Adultery

[Lev 20:10 KJV] 10 And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Child sacrifice

[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.

Sex with close relatives

[Lev 20:11 KJV] 11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Beastiality

[Lev 20:15 KJV] 15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.

Fornication, rape with a betrothed woman

[Deu 22:23-25 KJV] 23 If a damsel [that is] a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, [being] in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

A wife found not to be a virgin

[Deu 22:20-21 KJV] 20 But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

[POI]

(U) Not being able to edit the OP does not preclude skeptics from posting their own summary of their arguments.

POI I tried doing so in this thread (viewtopic.php?t=39327), but the summaries keep getting lost, as more responses roll in. If I was able to always edit the OP thread, I could instead do what you do

(U) And I addressed this in my summary.

POI I do not recall anything there which addresses why God just doesn't abolish such practices, like he does for "cursing your parents". As I've stated, one could rationalize 'valid' reasons to "curse your parents", but God instead tells you not to do it. Why not just also do so for slavery and be done with it?

(U) I've never claimed who is doing a better job or a worse job on complex topics compared to the ANE cultures.

POI You already stated (paraphrased) "why expect the Bible to explain, in more detail, what other ancient documents don't?" Then why address the Bible on this topic, or any topic, if it does no better job in explaining complex topics?

(U) Yes, it's fallacious because the modern concept of gay is not found in ancient cultures:

POI So, God is okay with male-on-male sexual relations?

(U) Like the issue with slavery, a major problem with the issue of homosexuality is our modern terms do not correlate with how people in ancient society viewed homosexuality.

POI It does not have to jive with whatever term we choose to use at present. The premise is still the same. God thinks male-on-male "action" is an abomination. The rest of your response was a big nothing burger. Is God clear on his stance, as to whether or not it is okay for males to have physical relations with other males, or not? I think he is clear. God doesn't like it. Do you disagree?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3849

Are you comparing same-sex relationships to killing?

No. I'm simply showing just because we see something done by animals does not mean it is morally acceptable behavior for humans.

Just because something is attributed to God doesn't mean that it's a morally acceptable action.

[Athetotheist]

Sex acts, between same-sex or opposite-sex partners, can be safe or unsafe depending on the act and the circumstance. Safe sex acts between same-sex partners, therefore, cannot be compared to destructive acts such as kiling, rape etc.

[alexxcJRO]

It is not simply on logical grounds, but also on ethical grounds. Skeptics point out the "evil" things God does, but in fact they are not objectively evil. So, skeptics need to first demonstrate God's actions are actually evil before they can claim God is illogical.
With your argument, if God is not immoral, then what is illogical or contradictory? If God ought not to behave in a different way, then what is wrong or logically contradictory with the way he has behaved?

The contradiction is that on one side God is claimed to me the the most powerful, knowledgeable, just, wise, loving, kind being in existence and other things point to God being extremely malevolent, unkind, unwise, unjust, ignorant, not loving.
There is no mention of ethics. No one is saying God is immoral but the concept does not make logical sense. We have a logical contradiction.

Contradictory to what? Your personal opinion? The opinions of homosexuals? Why should your opinion or the opinion of homosexuals be the normative stance?

Logic sir: law of noncontradiction.
God is claimed to me the the most powerful, knowledgeable, just, wise, loving, kind being in existence. Yet he does something that points to extreme ignorance, malevolence, unkindness, immaturity, injustice.

Animals also eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other's holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak. With your argument, all of these things also appear naturally, so are these all morally acceptable and people should engage in them?

Dear sir that fact that these non-humans animals(non-moral agents-uncapable to discern right from wrong because they lack enough mental faculties) behave in homosexual behaviour points to homosexuality being a description of the universe. These animals did not choose to behave sinfully(gay) and are not able to comprehend-self reflect their behaviour.

God is claimed to me the most powerful, knowledgeable, just, wise, loving, kind being in existence. Yet he condemns a thing(homosexual behaviour) for which he is responsible for(being a description of the universe). God supposedly created the universe and all life on planet Earth.

God the most powerful, knowledgeable, just, wise, loving, kind being in existence, condemning something he is responsible for is illogical.
Points to a contradiction.

Also the non-human animals behave( eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other's holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak) mostly because for survival reasons and because they are uncapable to discern right from wrong because they lack enough mental faculties->non-moral agents.

They live in a harsh, unkind universe where such things are mostly necessary to ensure reproduction and survival of the specie.
God if it exists is responsible for all this malevolence and cruelty.

[otseng]

(U) Not being able to edit the OP does not preclude skeptics from posting their own summary of their arguments.

POI I tried doing so in this thread (viewtopic.php?t=39327), but the summaries keep getting lost, as more responses roll in.

That's one reason I title my posts. You can search for posts that you've created by title.

If I was able to always edit the OP thread, I could instead do what you do

One of the privileges of being the omnipotent forum owner.

(U) And I addressed this in my summary.

POI I do not recall anything there which addresses why God just doesn't abolish such practices, like he does for "cursing your parents".

I stated, "Therefore, chattel slavery is subjective. Since chattel slavery is subjective, it is impossible to make any normative moral statements about it. Making a statement to either condone it or condemn it is not possible."

POI You already stated (paraphrased) "why expect the Bible to explain, in more detail, what other ancient documents don't?" Then why address the Bible on this topic, or any topic, if it does no better job in explaining complex topics?

I'm simply saying the contents of these slavery laws are not significantly different between the Torah and other ANE laws. At a minimum, if other ANE laws are not simply dismissed as immoral or illogical laws, then the same should apply to the Torah.

(U) Yes, it's fallacious because the modern concept of gay is not found in ancient cultures:

POI So, God is okay with male-on-male sexual relations?

No, God is not okay with it according to the passages in Leviticus.

Why should it be okay? On what grounds should it be considered morally acceptable?

[otseng]

Just because something is attributed to God doesn't mean that it's a morally acceptable action.

I grant it doesn't conclusively prove it, but it is a valid justification for it. The attributions to God are also consistent, so it lends further credence to the attributions. Whereas the argument that something is found in nature makes it morally acceptable is not consistent.

[otseng]

Sex acts, between same-sex or opposite-sex partners, can be safe or unsafe depending on the act and the circumstance. Safe sex acts between same-sex partners, therefore, cannot be compared to destructive acts such as kiling, rape etc.

I assume we agree unsafe acts would be unacceptable? So, the question then is what constitutes an unsafe act?

[otseng]

The contradiction is that on one side God is claimed to me the the most powerful, knowledgeable, just, wise, loving, kind being in existence and other things point to God being extremely malevolent, unkind, unwise, unjust, ignorant, not loving.
There is no mention of ethics. No one is saying God is immoral but the concept does not make logical sense. We have a logical contradiction.

You are using ethical language with "just, wise, loving, and kind".

[otseng]

Also the non-human animals behave( eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other's holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak) mostly because for survival reasons and because they are uncapable to discern right from wrong because they lack enough mental faculties->non-moral agents.

Yes, of course they are non-moral agents. And one cannot derive morality from non-moral agents. Thus it is illogical to argue homosexuality in humans is morally acceptable from the actions of non-moral agents.

They live in a harsh, unkind universe where such things are mostly necessary to ensure reproduction and survival of the specie.
God if it exists is responsible for all this malevolence and cruelty.

Are you saying it is cruel to ensure reproduction and also one's survival?