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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3429

My statement is about the origin of moral evil. God does not directly create moral evil, but moral evil is a result of the ability to choose. So, the specific instance of Pharaoh does not nullify the origin of moral evil.

The specific instance of Pharoah isn't about "the origin of moral evil". It's about the statement that "who he will he hardeneth".

As to specifically about Pharaoh's case, I do not think God overrode his free will. Yes, God could've hardened it, but it doesn't necessarily mean all free will has been removed.

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Romans 9:20-21)

Clay has no free will.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3430

What about the children that were innocent? It was a 120 year span until the flood came, so the people who heard the warning could've decided not to have any children. And if they had children, the parents could've given their children to Noah and let them live. And if they didn't give them to Noah, couldn't God have supernaturally saved all the innocent children? Doubtful since Noah and his family had to spend a long time building the ark to save themselves. So, if righteous Noah was not saved supernaturally, why would anybody else be saved supernaturally?

So the accusation that God brutally downing every innocent child on earth is a false picture of the flood account. Rather, God had warned the people they would be judged because of their evil hearts. They had 120 years to repent and to accept salvation through the ark. But none except Noah's family heeded the warning.

If no one else repented, then they would have gone on having children and those children would have been innocent when they died in the flood.

This is just another desperate, irrational attempt to salvage an ill-conceived legend.

[William]

Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity. But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence.

Let's unpack this and see what can be discovered.

"Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity."

This is true.

"But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence."
(Note - please direct the reader to the rule)

Here are the rules:

3. Do not portray yourself as speaking directly for God or as a special messenger of God.

viewtopic.php?t=22302

Evidence should ideally be accessible by the general public. When quoting material not accessible by the general public (professional journals, out of date books), provide substantial quotes to allow the reader to understand the material. Journal abstracts are typically accessible to the public and may be quoted freely.

viewtopic.php?t=16903

The difference between you and Jesus is you are the one debating here, not Jesus. As you acknowledge, anyone here on this forum can claim direct communication with God. If we allowed personal claims of hearing from God as evidence, then it would not be debating, but just sharing personal opinions and stories.

I think that your points reflect my own. They underline a specific process mentioned by Biblical Jesus which has been usurped through rule-sets to ensure that regardless of Jesus' primary message (for the individual to connect with The Father) that no such connections are recognized as acceptable, if they are not direct quotes from the Bible.

In that - these biblical writings are scribed by folk from another time and place who have portrayed themselves as "speaking directly for God or as special messengers of God." and any information outside of the Bible is to be regarded as "non-evidence" in support of any such claims, mostly on the grounds that such is not directly quoted from the Bible and thus can be dismissed without due consideration.

Treated as such, one doesn't even have to align what is offered as evidence (outside of the Bible) with what is contained within the Bible to test such evidence against the Bible. One simply has to treat it as trash . As rambling. As just the sharing personal opinions and stories "non-relevant to debate."

Even the existence of this thread (massive or otherwise) cannot - in Truth - Hope for the result of any individual personality connecting with The Father and building a relationship with that Being.

Christianity (and its various Bibles and interpretations of those) cannot provide that for anyone. It can only (at best) be a device pointing to that provision - where to go, but more often than not (historically speaking and relative to modern times) it is used to point only to itself/variations of itself.

Q: What evidence is there to support that having a relationship with the Bible is an acceptable substitute for having a relationship with The Father? As such, what point is there is trusting the Bible? Why should the Bible be trusted?

[TRANSPONDER]

Good question (I watch even if I don't join in) and rather comes down to 'why the Bible (and indeed Christianity) is the only way to God? True, John (read as is) says, through Jesus and no other way, but that is palpably not true, and Paul (Romans) makes it clear that one can come to God and even commune with God even before Jesus was, and presumably afterwards. So clearly John is wrong. Must be.

Sure, Paul says that all fall short. But that doesn't alter the fact that theoretically,or potentially, one does not need Jesus for reaching God, before the Gospels or after. If not then all Jews from Abram through Moses are damned, Righteous or not.

This means, why cannot one reach God (or "god") with other religions? I can hear the objections - I could post them myself - but seriously, why would God not permit mental communication with Him in other ways? Through other religions or without? Even the idea that Christianity has to be the way; which Christianity? Protestantism? Catholicism? If both are ok, why not Islam, or Buddhism even?

Sure, deeds as well as words, that's understood. Where was it I read 'Mental preparation for realizing the Ultimate precludes being a criminal or scrooge' or something like that? But the deeds themselves will not accomplish the mental connection. Christianity, sure, but why Only Christianity? If so, it wouldn't matter if any or all of the religions were wrong, so long as they led to connection with God.

[otseng]

Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
(Romans 9:20-21)

Clay has no free will.

Humans are not clay.

If no one else repented, then they would have gone on having children and those children would have been innocent when they died in the flood.

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.

[otseng]

Treated as such, one doesn't even have to align what is offered as evidence (outside of the Bible) with what is contained within the Bible to test such evidence against the Bible. One simply has to treat it as trash . As rambling. As just the sharing personal opinions and stories "non-relevant to debate."

With your logic, then every historical event is trash, not just the Bible. How do we know anything is true? What makes any historian's account trustworthy?

Christianity (and its various Bibles and interpretations of those) cannot provide that for anyone. It can only (at best) be a device pointing to that provision - where to go, but more often than not (historically speaking and relative to modern times) it is used to point only to itself/variations of itself.

What makes your claim of hearing directly from the Father credible?

Q: What evidence is there to support that having a relationship with the Bible is an acceptable substitute for having a relationship with The Father? As such, what point is there is trusting the Bible? Why should the Bible be trusted?

With the Bible, I'm not arguing it's credible because the people in the Bible or who wrote the Bible heard from God. I'm arguing it's credible because it aligns with extra-Biblical evidence (Flood, tower of Babel, archaeology, cosmology, etc). Is there any evidence you are hearing from the Father? How can it be verified?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #3436]

Treated as such, one doesn't even have to align what is offered as evidence (outside of the Bible) with what is contained within the Bible to test such evidence against the Bible. One simply has to treat it as trash . As rambling. As just the sharing personal opinions and stories "non-relevant to debate."

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.

How do we know anything is true?

How do we know any of the claims of the Bible are true?

But that is not the focus of my argument.

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.

My comment which you quoted above is clearly stating that, at the very least, one tests out the evidence of what is offered, with what the Bible say's and question any perceived contradictions which may be apparent, rather than simple follow a rule which allows for one to treat any such evidence as "not evidence"/"trash" et al.

What makes any historian's account trustworthy?

Belief holds such up as Truth, but belief alone does not make any account true/false and thus, trustworthy/non-trustworthy.

That is why I asked;
Q: What evidence is there to support that having a relationship with the Bible is an acceptable substitute for having a relationship with The Father? As such, what point is there is trusting the Bible? Why should the Bible be trusted?

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).

I even tried to go further (Post#3421) after your response, by narrating the first part of the message by way of allowing the reader access to what/how I was thinking while the message was being generated, and why/how I reacted/responded to the information as I did.

I also pointed out where The Father had mentioned such in the original generated message by quoting part of the original message that was generated, that being;

The Father: "IF:
There is a mind behind creation
THEN:
We ought be able to communicate with it, using whatever physical devices we can create in order to do so."

Me narrating: "The Father is not saying these things are inherently unhelpful, but they are there as a sign to a destination, not the destination itself."

With the Bible, I'm not arguing it's credible because the people in the Bible or who wrote the Bible heard from God. I'm arguing it's credible because it aligns with extra-Biblical evidence (Flood, tower of Babel, archaeology, cosmology, etc). Is there any evidence you are hearing from the Father? How can it be verified?

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.

[alexxcJRO]

I'm trying to get at what you mean by punishing a non-moral agent. I take a non-moral agent to mean an agent that has no free will and no morality. It cannot be judged for an offense because it cannot freely choose between right and wrong. Therefore it cannot be "punished" for any crime. However, I agree it's possible to kill a non-moral agent, but not punish one for any immoral act.

If you're referring to the flood, I'll post that in a separate post.

Q: Why is this so hard?
Q: Am I speaking of quantum mechanics?
These are simple things to understand.

Please don't avoid again:

Yahweh is punishing non-moral agents with moral agents in those 3 examples I gave.

Yahweh, the perfect being punished the Amalek, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents for attacking the Israelites.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the whole humanity the moral agents together with the non-moral agents in the Noah story.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the people of Samaria, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
And so on.

"16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God." (Deuteronomy 20:16-18)

"Now go, attack the Amalekites. Destroy everything that belongs to them as an offering to the Lord. Don’t let anything live. Put to death men and women, children and small babies. Kill the cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”(1 Samuel 15:3)

“13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[a] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[c] high all around.[d] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.”(Genesis 6:13-17)
“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,
because they have rebelled against their God.
They will fall by the sword;
their little ones will be dashed to the ground,
their pregnant women ripped open.”[a]”(Hosea 13:16)

Actually your response shows you're the guilty one here. Though you claim empathy can account for objective moral judgment, I've already presented three secular respected sources that admit evolutionary theories cannot account for objective morality. And it's doubtful you've even read any of it since you asked me to summarize it.

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

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

This process is an objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.
If the process is an objective mechanism therefore it follows that the morality that results is objective.

As you've stated, it's a "necessary evil":
This shows there is a higher principle at stake that makes eating meat acceptable.

It means the mentioning of consumption of meat is irrelevant to my point.

What I'm getting at is what does it mean to be omnipotent. As you've admitted, God can be "practically omnipotent(logically)" which means God is not actually omnipotent, as defined by God can do absolutely anything.
I've never claimed or argued for God being omnipotent. What I do claim is God is the most powerful being in the universe.

I don't care. My point always was that the concept does not work logically no matter how one frames it. Classic omnipotence, modern omnipotence, caca omnipotence.

One does not need omnipotence(classic senses) to not punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic.

Again, if you're referring to the flood, I'll post that in a separate post.

I am not only talking only of the flood sir.
Stop with the straw-man and obfuscation.
I am referring to the 3 instances in the Bible mentioned above where Yahweh punishes the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; one instance where Yahweh is punishing some for the misdeeds of others(David census), Yahweh is asking for genocides(Amalek and the others), Yahweh is being homophobic(commands in Leviticus).

Of course you're implying it. You bring up a list of evil people and then imply God should not act like these evil people. If you're making a moral judgment on God, you'll implying how God ought to act which is contrary to how God has acted.

Stop with desperate straw-man.
I am not saying how Yahweh should act.
I am saying Yahweh is portrait like the following malevolent characters: Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Genghis Khan, Darth Sidious, Frieza.
Adress my point please how I make it.

Just because people are treated differently doesn't mean God doesn't love all people. Parents treat their children differently, but that doesn't mean they don't love all their children. Yes, God has chosen Israel to be a special people, but it is not an easy burden to carry as attested to by all the persecution they've endured throughout history. But there is something that God does not love and actually hates. And that would be sin. And it applies to all people, whether it is the Gentiles or the Jews. If anyone sins, then God hates it and will judge people for it (and the Jews are not excluded from this).

Again with irrelevant analogies.
Humans are flawed and very limited beings. Limited in both knowledge, power and mostly malevolent and evil.
Yahweh is said to be a omni-perfect being.
My point was that a omni-perfect, omniscient being cannot but love 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.
Yahweh commands the Israelites to commit genocides against Amalek and the rest. Clearly not loving all equally or does not love all and has favorites.

You're the one that brought up aliens - "The law of non-contradiction I would say applies to aliens on the other side of the galaxy." So, I'm just following your argument. And continually making the accusation of boring you is also uncivil.

Your example was completely irrelevant to my point.

What is your definition of objective and subjective morality?

As I've stated:
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 8:00 am
A subjective morality is a morality that would only apply to a certain group of people at a certain time. An objective morality would apply to all people for all time. Since God created all people and He is the source of morality, that morality would apply to all people for all time.

It's irrlevant what my definition is.
I was using your logic sir.
You said: “The first is subjective" aka: “One says: "X is wrong because I say so.""
Therefore “One(God) says: "X is wrong because I say so."" is subjective morality.
You are done. Finished by your own logic.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

Off course you don't.

Again:
The Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

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

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

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

No idea what you're referring to here either. If you think I'm quote mining, then please point out where I'm doing it instead of making these vague accusations.

Wrong again.
I did not. I explained my remark's existence.

The quote is not from me, but from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So, why should anyone believe you over a peer-reviewed secular academic source?

I do not care where the quote is from and who made it.
The problem if Homo Sapiens Sapiens ought to be good or not is irrelevant to the fact that morality evolved. Evolution of Homo Sapiens Sapiens happened. This is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming.

[otseng]

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.

[otseng]

Q: Why is this so hard?
Q: Am I speaking of quantum mechanics?
These are simple things to understand.
Please don't avoid again:

More uncivil comments. I've been giving you free passes, but will no longer tolerate your continued violations after repeatedly pointing them out to you.

Yahweh, the perfect being punished the whole humanity the moral agents together with the non-moral agents in the Noah story.

I addressed this is Flood and morality.

Yahweh, the perfect being punished the Amalek, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents for attacking the Israelites.
Yahweh, the perfect being punished the people of Samaria, the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
And so on.

I'll address genocide next.

Sir again:
The Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

Simply repeating it does not give weight to your argument. If you do want to give weight to your argument, read through and address my arguments I had posted:

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

What I'm getting at is what does it mean to be omnipotent. As you've admitted, God can be "practically omnipotent(logically)" which means God is not actually omnipotent, as defined by God can do absolutely anything.
I've never claimed or argued for God being omnipotent. What I do claim is God is the most powerful being in the universe.

I don't care. My point always was that the concept does not work logically no matter how one frames it. Classic omnipotence, modern omnipotence, caca omnipotence.

If you're going to use the word omnipotent, you do need to care. How exactly do you define omnipotence?

I am not only talking only of the flood sir.
Stop with the straw-man and obfuscation.

This is an indication you have no rational counter-argument to my post about the Flood and morality. You had mentioned multiple times about the flood in previous posts, now you leave it out below:

I am referring to the 3 instances in the Bible mentioned above where Yahweh punishes the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; one instance where Yahweh is punishing some for the misdeeds of others(David census), Yahweh is asking for genocides(Amalek and the others), Yahweh is being homophobic(commands in Leviticus).

Yes, and I will get to those.

Of course you're implying it. You bring up a list of evil people and then imply God should not act like these evil people. If you're making a moral judgment on God, you'll implying how God ought to act which is contrary to how God has acted.

Stop with desperate straw-man.
I am not saying how Yahweh should act.

If you're not saying how God ought to act, then we can actually just stop the debate here. A moral judgment requires oughtness. So, there is nothing immoral about God's actions.

Again with irrelevant analogies.
Humans are flawed and very limited beings. Limited in both knowledge, power and mostly malevolent and evil.
Yahweh is said to be a omni-perfect being.
My point was that a omni-perfect, omniscient being cannot but love 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.

There is nobody claiming God loves everyone equally. So, it's your argument that is the straw man.

What is your definition of objective and subjective morality?

It's irrlevant what my definition is.

Then it's irrelevant what you claim about God and his morality.

Again:
The Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

I'll let readers assess if simply repeating your claims rather than addressing my arguments against respected secular articles is a valid argument.