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: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 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
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3139
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3391 times
Been thanked: 2084 times

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

Post #131

Post by Difflugia »

otseng wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 9:02 amGod was not directly involved in the creation of the Bible. God did not overrule anybody's personality, memory, muscles, etc when the authors wrote.

...

Since the Bible is a work of men, why then should it be expected to be perfect and without any contradictions?
The problem I ultimately have maybe just boils down to definitions. I have no problem with what you've said here, even in a theological sense. The problem I have is that if these are true, then what does it mean to call the Bible "the Word of God," which you earlier asserted also applies to the Bible.

There are all kinds of theological ways to reconcile a Bible that isn't inerrant with Christian theology. We can, for example, simply say that God has many ways to save those whom He would save. I can't, though, reconcile calling it the Word of God unless there is something qualitatively different about the Bible than any other human literature. If the Bible is presenting the fruits of human effort to understand God, how is that different than a devotional, even if it's the best of the best? The MacArthur Study Bible represents John MacArthur's devotional efforts to understand the Bible. If the Bible is a human effort, what is it about the Bible text itself that makes it more authoritative than MacArthur's commentary on the text?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 8663
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1005 times
Been thanked: 3744 times

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

Post #132

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 8:17 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 6:20 pm Yes. The Flood was extensively debated on my previous forum and any number of far -fetched hypotheses were thrown up so as to explain away the problems, from a supposed sea of flood water under China (there isn't one) to removing the animal waste with a mechanical system powered by a dinosaur on a treadmill (1). In the end, the most persistent dude could not explain the problem of feeding the animals after the Ark landed, despite arguing that olive trees can survive under water and had in the end to resort to 'God can find a way' and that the Flood happened despite the evidence against, because the Bible says so. It's where we always end up.
One of the longest threads on this forum is A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood? in which I debated this awhile ago. Yes, there are unresolved issues with a global flood. But, I still maintain it is the best explanation so far that we got to explain many geological features (and that includes secular theories).

... (clip)
One of the longest threads..several of them...on my previous forum were Flood and Ark debates. I haven't looked at yours (yet) but I know that our opponents simply recycled Creationist book and website arguments from Noachian metalworking (a boat that long would require metal framing) to a Pangaea without mountains (so the present water would suffice..clever, eh? ;) ) and mountains suddenly thrusting up above the water in order to simulate water draining away. In just a few months really. The ingenuity in coming up with anything that looked like an explanation was astonishing and problems were dismissed and in the end 'Faith -based 'The Bible says so, so it must have worked somehow'.

So you tell us that you don't work from faith but from evidence. We shall see. So far (with the resurrection thread) I have seen a dismissal of evidence and argument that looks very faith -based to me. I can't recall a single thing you conceded from the dodgy sanhedrin charge, the dubious spear thrust and the odd behaviour of Arimathea to the dubious angelic message, the appearance to the women contradiction and the dodgy tomb -guard claim just to name a few. I don't recall that you even conceded a case to answer or a worthy alternative of 'invented tales'. It seemed to be 'I think my belief is better' and that's the end of it. That's classic faith -based, chum and the discussion on Genesis, the Ark and the Flood seems to be going the same way.

That is, Faith and searching out Creationist arguments to support it, rather than looking at the evidence of both sides and opting for a conclusion or at least keeping it open. I'm not attacking you, but pointing out that declarations of conviction and assertions of following evidence ('I'm convinced so that should be good enough for you') will get you nowhere.

Where is the flood level with everything from Trilobites to T rex and indeed sheep and horses in it? The excuse that different sized particles will layer out hardly accounts for geologically distinct layers with evolutionary - developed forms in each. The 'run faster' apologetic hardly works with Devonian fish that could outswim dinosaurs (and should be above) being actually in strata below. This stuff might satisfy those who don't know, but only if they don't look, but it could only satisfy those who have debated the matter if they practise faith - based selecting research.

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 8663
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1005 times
Been thanked: 3744 times

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

Post #133

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:03 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 10:51 am Biblical is irrelevant - that assuming as evidence what you are trying to support with evidence.
Suppose we did throw out the Bible, how would you know what God is like? Is he omnipotent or not? Is he omniscient or not? We could rely on the testimony of people who hear directly from God who post on this forum, but would that be an acceptable source? We could read an article in an encyclopedia, but where did they get their source? For Christians, we would ultimately need some material that is as close as possible to those that have seen and heard Jesus. And one argument why the Bible can be considered authoritative is that these testimonies have been collected into what we now call the New Testament.
If we threw out the Bible, it wouldn't matter.
Philosophical - unless we are talking on informal logical fallacies, you can keep it. 'Philosophy' in Theist terms seems to means making logic stand on its' head
When I refer to philosophy, I'm referring to the standard view of philosophy.
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental questions, such as those about existence, reason, knowledge, values, mind, and language."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy
I bet ;) In my experience it's about fiddling logic and trying rhetorical tricks. We shall see, but so far I have seen a lot of misdirection and red -herring work.
I have no problem with God being omniscient, the only thing I've mentioned is God not being omnipotent.
Well, we run into a problem right away, unless you reject Genesis as not being factual. Unless you have another original theory with God needing Eden to happen to make man sinful. But then we have God doing a flood and regretting that he'd done it. I don't see how that squares with omniscience.
I do not believe it's really relevant to this thread - whether God is omnipotent or omniscient. I'll just say I do believe God is omniscient, but one can reject omniscience and still accept the Bible as authoritative.
I think it is, given that a certain leeway is given. Obviously a god who looks like a human blundering though the undergrowth shouting for Adam to come out hardly looks like the God of Christianity. We are looking at doubts, discrepancies and contradictions of what God is even like,.
I imagine you'll say they can be explained, but this can only be with less plausible explanations, like Noah collecting dinosaur eggs to the Marys splitting up so we could have one meeting Jesus and the other not - an apologetic we saw here not long ago.
Neither of these examples you gave here I would consider "serious" errors. But, as for the flood actually occurring or not, I do consider that as an impediment for the acceptance of the Bible as authoritative for myself. And it has been a topic that I've debated the longest on.
Really :D In all your debates you never ran up against the problem of overcrowding on the Ark, which was bad even before they had to have the prehistoric animals on as well because of dinosaur tracks in the supposed 'Flood' levels? So did you argue juvenile dinos rather than dino eggs?
And yes, as I recall you don't consider Matthew saying the women saw Jesus and Luke saying they didn't a 'serious' error. I cited one clever fellow who at least tried the 'mary's split up' argument. I don't recall that you even addressed it. I can only recall you arguing about the meaning of 'ad hoc'.
You may also like it that I don't use the 'miracles don't happen' apologetic to doubt the resurrection.
You're right, I like that too!
So it really comes down to how much we can trust those records.
Yes, I agree.
We have had them sold to us by Christian preachers as a single integrated tale, but when one realises how contradictory elements have been selected to make one story, we should have serious doubts.
We should return what they have sold, esp if they claim everything recorded in the Bible is perfect and without error.
If you want to do that, good luck defending it, but of course you've already opted for mistakes to be blamed on men. So neither you nor I need to return to the perfect Bible discussion.
you have to recall that a LOT of doubters used to be believers but they came to see that their belief was based on bad evidence. So bias towards their present position is understandable and even reasonable, no? On the other hand I recall you said you'd been persuaded by the evidence. Such as feasibility studies for the Flood. But hadn't you seen the refutations? (1) . Haven't you seen them now? A link was given.
And a lot of skeptics as well have become believers. Yes, we all have biases, whether we realize them or not.


I have already made my point on supposed converts from atheism (they never seem to know the arguments except on the theist side), but the evidence never mind appeal to Faith is what (logically) matters.
No, I have not clicked into that link. It's enough of a challenge to juggle all the balls of simply responding to what people have actually posted. And I don't have time to also run down every side trail that is presented. But, if we want to debate about the flood here (hopefully briefly), I'm willing to do it.
:D I bet you didn't. Well I'd probably have to since I have a certain amount of experience in apologetics but I'm no expert in geology or palaeontology, though I know about the failure of RATE and the validation of cross -referencing of geological dates and that fossil are dated by the rocks, not rocks by the fossils (as Genesis -literalist Creationist flood -enthusiasts sometimes claim) and I know that there are transitional forms and two critters will not (without magic) make for a species, even if there was anything to eat after the flood.
Totally from Bible apologists and apparently nothing from the other side.
It is difficult to find a balanced perspective from any side.
To repeat, bias is irrelevant, evidence is relevant. I only mention that those who claim to have been converted from atheism never show familiarity with the apologetics. Sure they may have not believed, but they only got the theist side. That's the point, not that either side is biased.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #134

Post by otseng »

Mithrae wrote: Tue Oct 12, 2021 12:52 pm While rejecting 'omnipotence' you maintain that God is 'almighty,' suggesting that it's more an issue of what these words mean rather than envisaging a weak deity.
Yes.
Once upon a time we had a Jewish member (cnorman perhaps) with a signature line saying something like "The Torah is the word of God... and some of it is even true!" In other words, it is errant but still the 'word of God.'
Yes, my belief has been influenced by Jewish thinking. It was a 4 hour message from Ray Vander Laan, "The Bible from Jesus' Culture Perspective 2000 Years Ago", that really opened my eyes.

The Bible was written (primarily) by Jews and to those familiar with Judaism. We do not really understand their mindset and perspective. We approach the Bible from a western (Greek) mindset and with our modern assumptions. And when we try to approach the Bible from those glasses, things look skewed. So, fundamentally, the issue is not really the Bible, but our own paradigm that we approach in reading the Bible that makes it look "incorrect".

We've discussed one assumption already - that the Bible needs to be perfect. It appears to me the majority of the attacks on the Bible is that it is not perfect. However, this assumption of perfection is from Greek philosophy, not Hebrew philosophy. This standard of perfection also did not exist in the minds of the writers or the recipients (most of them anyway). And the degree of precision that we expect today certainly did not exist during the time of the authors. Dictionaries didn't exist, they didn't have access to vast amounts of information at their fingertips, masses did not have college degrees, they did not take high school classes on how to cite sources correctly. I even doubt people had a ruler in their homes.
eternal torture and so on are pretty much the most evil things in human history and human imagination
I do think this perspective is another major barrier to accepting the Bible. There's a lot to unpack in this, but can dive deeper in this later.
in my case these major problems eventually led to my loss of 'faith.'
You're certainly not alone. Another person that has influenced me to think about this topic was Bart Ehrman. He is an eloquent and very intelligent person that was once a devout Christian. There are probably only a handful of people who know the Bible more than him. But now he is an atheist because he could not square up the Bible with the doctrine of inerrancy. And my personal conviction is it is the latter that is flawed, rather than the former. Unfortunately, this doctrine is so embedded into society that even atheists assume it is true.
That's why I think it's important to emphasize the fact that even many biblical authors themselves pointed to something better than the written word
No doubt about it. And this is another mentality that has crept into Christianity - that the Bible itself is God. It is not something to be worshipped. It is a pointer to God, not God itself. The Bible is a book about God written by regular people. And it is subject to the same limitations, flaws, imperfections like all other books.

However, it can still be trustworthy, authoritative, and our ultimate guide in understanding God and Jesus.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

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

Post #135

Post by nobspeople »

If we accept the bible has errors, omissions, contradictions... how are we to determine which items are 'correct' and which are 'in error'?

Some would say 'test the spirit', but that seems to be taught from the bible: 1 John 4:1-21 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God..."
Was this correct or not?

Some would say 'have faith'. Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." Again, is this true or no?

So the bible can have errors. Then this mean good, ol' fashion christian activity of pickin'-n-choosin' comes into play.
Every. Single. Word: Every. Single. Story: Every. Single. Teaching can be be wrong.
What is one to believe? And how can anyone that's not a christian think they can trust anything in the bible if it's capable of having errors?

Logically, they can't. Only if they want to believe it and pick out what fits their chosen lifestyle agenda to be true and what isn't is the only way to trust the bible.
If christians openly say 'yeah, the bible can be wrong' then there's little to no reason to trust it at all for those who want more than wishful thinking and hope.
Not only, then, should christianity be thrown out with the bath water, but the whole bathroom needs demolished and redesigned.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

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

Post #136

Post by Mithrae »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 12:25 pm
otseng wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 9:03 am Neither of these examples you gave here I would consider "serious" errors. But, as for the flood actually occurring or not, I do consider that as an impediment for the acceptance of the Bible as authoritative for myself. And it has been a topic that I've debated the longest on.
Really :D In all your debates you never ran up against the problem of overcrowding on the Ark, which was bad even before they had to have the prehistoric animals on as well because of dinosaur tracks in the supposed 'Flood' levels? So did you argue juvenile dinos rather than dino eggs?
And yes, as I recall you don't consider Matthew saying the women saw Jesus and Luke saying they didn't a 'serious' error. I cited one clever fellow who at least tried the 'mary's split up' argument. I don't recall that you even addressed it. I can only recall you arguing about the meaning of 'ad hoc'.
Direct logical contradictions like resurrection appearances are 'serious' problems for the doctrine of inerrancy, but just thinking up a quick tier-list of potential problems I'd say that they are arguably the least significant kind, or close to it:
Errors/stylistic choices we might expect from any source - If the stories of Jesus were orally transmitted before being written down, we'd expect some minor discrepancies between different records, as Otseng has suggested. Similarly the allegory of the 'the fall' or the myth of a global flood are the same sort of thing we find in other cultures; proof that a literal 'fall' or actual global flood never occurred doesn't make it bad for ancient authors to have recorded those stories of their cultures, and doesn't prevent them from potentially having literary or philosophical value.

Errors genuinely undermining the reliability of that author - Rather than being innocent repetition of divergent oral traditions, a good case can be made that some, maybe many of the gospel discrepancies are a result of the authors actively changing the story to suit their theological agenda (eg. Luke's changes to the Olivet discourse in ch21 versus Mark 13/Matt 24, particularly since Luke alone explicitly asserts the factual accuracy of his account). That's a pretty serious credibility problem... for Luke. Doesn't much affect other authors, and doesn't even make Luke entirely useless either.

Errors undermining the reliability of the bible as a whole - Contrary to some critics' assumptions, I'm not entirely sure what this would even look like. The closest to it I can think of are those which speak to issues with the canonization process itself, the fact that Jews and Christians at times have been willing to embrace and continue to embrace even wildly, obviously false prophecies like Ezekiel or the Revelation. If stuff like that made the cut - not just innocent errors or even agenda-driven falsehoods but explicitly attributing those falsehoods to God himself - how can any of it be worthwhile? But even then, I suppose a believer could view canonization as a useful and necessary pointer towards the books' value, even if not definitive or sufficient.

Problems undermining the perceived main purpose/s of the bible - These are the issues which are really serious, to my mind. Is the bible meant to teach us to love one another? It endorses and in cases actively commands genocide, slavery, eternal torture and the like, in numerous different sections! Is the bible meant to promote a relationship with God? Fixation on an intermediary object as a means of communication actively impedes any kind of 'relationship' with a deity supposedly able and eager to communicate with his followers directly. Of course they're not as cut and dried as logical contradictions or factual errors; but they're obvious enough that I'd wager anyone choosing not to acknowledge that the bible is sub-optimal if not completely incompatible with claimed purposes such as those will probably not acknowledge many (if any) of the mere factual problems either.



It's also worth noting that as a religion Christianity not only doesn't need biblical inerrancy or biblical authority; strictly speaking it doesn't even need a resurrection or a heaven or even a God. Presumably most Christians get plenty of value out of their church community, the cultural trappings of literature, music etc., the moral framework and existential values to be found in their stories... whereas they don't actually know (whatever some might claim) whether the metaphysical claims are true at all. So even if it turned out that those supposedly core doctrinal/metaphysical claims were false (which can't be proven anyway, but hypothetically) it would be pretty close to zero value lost from the religion - a little hope or self-assurance, I suppose - while all of that other value could potentially remain. Seems to me that critics who think they're going to 'disprove' or undermine Christianity with a few biblical contradictions aren't really understanding the actual value and role of religion as a sociological phenomenon.

I'd hazard a guess that in most cases Christians who refuse to acknowledge factual errors or logical contradictions aren't at their core doing so out of dishonesty. Rather, because many preachers and critics alike insist that this or that is an essential doctrine, they're faced with the apparent choice of either denying that there's a problem there or essentially smashing up the vast chunk of their lives and identities which have been invested in the Christian community and culture. Obviously not many folk will do the latter, so it's easier to convince themselves that there's no problem with that 'essential' doctrine to begin with. In a weird way, critics claiming that Christianity is 'false' because of alleged problems with some core doctrines - rather than a religion with some adherents believing and centralizing false or dubious things - could be putting up psychological barriers to the progress of reason.

If Christianity were false (2019 thread)

TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 8663
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1005 times
Been thanked: 3744 times

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

Post #137

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Very good. I'd only remark that I DO consider the resurrection fundamental to Christianity. If that is not true, or there is real cogent reason to see it as an invented claim, then the foundation of Christianity collapses more surely than any edifice built on sand and only Faith -based denial will keep Belief going.

Some (like Jefferson) may have rejected the resurrection (along with the other miraculous stuff) and just regarded Christianity as the best moral code there was. It is understandable at the time, but the fact is, I think we can do better now (though one might doubt it from the way we are acting these days :| ) and even 'we need it, true or not' is no longer the justification of Christianity that it used to be.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #138

Post by otseng »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 10:13 am I can't, though, reconcile calling it the Word of God unless there is something qualitatively different about the Bible than any other human literature. If the Bible is presenting the fruits of human effort to understand God, how is that different than a devotional, even if it's the best of the best?
It's qualitatively different from any other book in human history in that: These might not prove it's the "word of God", but undeniably the Bible is qualitatively different from any book in human history.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20631
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 199 times
Been thanked: 341 times
Contact:

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

Post #139

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Wed Oct 13, 2021 11:55 am So you tell us that you don't work from faith but from evidence. We shall see.
From this thread, where have I appealed to faith?
So far (with the resurrection thread) I have seen a dismissal of evidence and argument that looks very faith -based to me. I can't recall a single thing you conceded from the dodgy sanhedrin charge, the dubious spear thrust and the odd behaviour of Arimathea to the dubious angelic message, the appearance to the women contradiction and the dodgy tomb -guard claim just to name a few.
I don't recall debating this recently. What thread are you referring to?
Where is the flood level with everything from Trilobites to T rex and indeed sheep and horses in it?
I'll say at the onset that the flood theory is not able to answer for everything. But, neither can standard geology theories.
I have a certain amount of experience in apologetics but I'm no expert in geology or palaeontology
That makes two of us.

BTW, could you check your formatting of your posts? It's hard to decipher what is being quoted and what you are adding in your posts. In your last post, it makes it seem I wrote the entire thing.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3746
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1671 times
Been thanked: 1131 times

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

Post #140

Post by POI »

otseng wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 am
POI wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 7:38 pm
otseng wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:30 pm
POI wrote: Sat Oct 09, 2021 4:44 pm Paul asserts ALL Scripture. This means when Scripture speaks about Adam and Eve, a flood, the Exodus, slavery, women's oppression, etc; it's is all given by God. Which means it's all true. But is it?

Was there an actual Adam and Eve?
Was there an actual flood?
Was there an actual Tower of Babel?
Was there an Exodus from Egypt?
Is slavery moral?
Should women remain silent and not be allowed to lead men; especially in Church?
Is homosexuality an abomination?
I do believe Adam, global flood, etc to be literal events. But, there are true born-again Christians that love Jesus that do not believe these to be literal events. Are they still going to heaven? Yes. So, ultimately, it doesn't matter if a Christian takes these literally or figuratively.
If you were to find out all the listed above did not happen, and if you also thought slavery and women's inequality was immoral, would you still believe? If so, why?
When I was a new Christian, the story of the global flood was one of my objections to the Bible. I thought if I can't accept this, what value really is the entire Bible? If it has one major fictitious story in it, what about all the other claims?

A short time later, Walt Brown came to Atlanta and gave a talk. Several of my friends and I from Georgia Tech went to go see it. And he made a really good case for the historicity of a global flood. He backed up his theory with one physical evidence after another. And to this day, I believe his theory is the strongest.
Okay, it sounds like you are saying that if you were to find out that a Biblical flood did not take place, you would have no choice but to reject the Bible as authoritative. I have to ask...

What are some of these these key findings, from Walt Brown, which backs up his theory of a "Biblical global flood"?
otseng wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 amI also decided to get a Masters degree in Science and Religion a few years ago. And it strengthened my faith in the compatibility of Christianity and science.

So, as I learn more, it has actually strengthened my belief in the claims of the Bible.
People, from all walks of life, take comparative religion course(s) and get science degrees, alll-the-while, strengthening their beliefs in their respective faith(s). Which, by the way, happen to be diametrically opposed to the Christian faith.
otseng wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 amAs for slavery, it is a complex subject.
Really, it is not. But I can see why you have to say this ;) I guess in life, we all suffer from cognitive dissonance from time to time. --- Like me being a meat eater...
otseng wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 am But, let me say part of the problem is our anachronistic viewpoint. We place our modern views of slavery into the past and think they should have our same perspective. The Bible was dealing with slavery from the perspective of where they were at. Given that perspective, the Bible was actually quite progressive at that time.
LOL! The Bible is ambiguous, and sets very little boundaries regarding slavery; unless you are a Hebrew. Furthermore, when Jesus later comes along, rather than to express His abolition for the practices of slavery, He reinforces them. Hence, undefined slavery,stands forever, under Biblical law.
otseng wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 amWomen remaining silent is based on a single verse - 1Co 14:34. "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

I do not believe this to be an absolute command to apply to all women in churches at all times at all places. Even in 1Co 11:5 it talks about women praying and prophesying: "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven."

In the NT, women led churches. 1Co 1:11 says, "For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you."
I smell more cognitive dissonance here... :( Paul is responsible for nearly 50% of the NT. At best, you provide a contradiction. If you possess a vagina, you are restricted in allowed authority. It seems pretty clear that, according to Paul, the hierarchy is as follows (God/Jesus > men > women). I trust I need not provide the Verse(s) to back up this claim?
otseng wrote: Mon Oct 11, 2021 8:55 amAs for homosexuality, it's become so politicized that it's hard to have a sensible debate on this. Unfortunately, Christians have focused too much on this and the Bible mentions many other sins also (which all Christians are just as guilty of). Paul says in 1Co 6:9-11, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

All sinners, whether they be homosexuals, idolaters, adulterers, covetous, drunkards, revilers, etc can be sanctified through Jesus Christ who forgives us of all our sins. No sinner is worse or any better than any other sinner and all can become completely forgiven through Jesus.
It's not that hard... If such a God does exist, He expresses that 'homosexuality' is an abomination. However, you cannot control who you are attracted to... Aside from God hating homosexuality, why is homosexuality a sin?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Post Reply