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]

Interesting take. Hitler, I believe, would say the same thing. It's not that they were Jews, it was because they were sinners... what with all their disease, false gods, and sinful ways...

He could claim that, but the evidence is they were discriminated against because they were Jews, not because of any crimes that they committed.

The Holocaust was the culmination of a number of factors over a number of years.

Historic antisemitism , the rise of eugenics and nationalism , the aftermath of the First World War, the rise of the Nazis, the role of Adolf Hitler, the internal operation of the Nazi state, the Second World War and collaboration all played key roles in the timing and scale of the final catastrophe.

https://www.theholocaustexplained.org/how-and-why/why/

The Nazi persecution of Jews developed in several “stages” in Germany from 1933 to 1939. The Nazis used a combination of laws and decrees, propaganda, intimidation, and violence to segregate Jews from German society, remove them from the economy, and force them to leave the country.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/ ... -holocaust

Jews living across Europe became the primary target of Nazi hatred and violence. Attacks against other groups of people—such as individuals with mental or physical disabilities, political prisoners, Romani, Soviet citizens and prisoners of war, LGBT people, Slavs, and Jehovah’s Witnesses—also became a part of the Nazi program to “purify” German society. Those who did not fit within Nazi standards of a “master race” faced capture and horrific brutality in the attempted genocide now known as the Holocaust.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/a ... l-solution

In fact, isn't that exactly what modern racists say? "I'm not racist! I think white people can be [N word]s, too! I don't judge people by their color - but whether they steal and live in squalor. It just so happens that it's mostly people of a certain color that do those things. That's why prisons are full of Black and Brown people - because they keep sinning - not because of racism!"

Modern racism is a very complicated issue. I've even created an entire subforum to discuss this. But I'll just say this, people are allowed to judge others based on their actions, but not allowed simply because of their ethnicity or race.

[William]

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

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

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

Exactly. How would any other book relating historical events be determined if it's reliable?

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

This would be for another thread.

Your understandable confusion is in my use of the word "random".

This also would be for another thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the reliability of the Bible, not your generated messages.

This also would be for another thread. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the reliability of the Bible, not your generated messages.

The GM was about the reliability of the Bible.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3448

If the story says that they didn't repent, that indicates that they didn't believe a flood was coming. So they would have seen no reason to stop having [innocent] children.

Right, they didn't believe Noah's message. But it doesn't mean they were not warned.

Their babies weren't warned----and weren't guilty of anything.

There's no getting around that.

[William]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #3453]

Their babies weren't warned----and weren't guilty of anything.

Out of interest, how does one go about "warning babies"?

I agree the babies were not guilty of anything, due to their natural inability to comprehend any language but I also agree that given the opportunity, the parents would educate said babies to not believe (as the parents did not believe) therefore, the call to kill the babies by drowning could be justified unless there was some other way in which (the God under question) could save those babies from drowning.

I could even go so far as to make suggestions on how this could have been done...but I am also somewhat like a baby in regard to lacking knowledge which might assist me in doing so correctly.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #3454

Out of interest, how does one go about "warning babies"?

I agree the babies were not guilty of anything, due to their natural inability to comprehend any language but I also agree that given the opportunity, the parents would educate said babies to not believe (as the parents did not believe) therefore, the call to kill the babies by drowning could be justified unless there was some other way in which (the God under question) could save those babies from drowning.

Parents of children who were babies when such a flood struck wouldn't have time to warn them before the flood struck.

There's no way around that.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #3454

Out of interest, how does one go about "warning babies"?

I agree the babies were not guilty of anything, due to their natural inability to comprehend any language but I also agree that given the opportunity, the parents would educate said babies to not believe (as the parents did not believe) therefore, the call to kill the babies by drowning could be justified unless there was some other way in which (the God under question) could save those babies from drowning.

Parents of children who were babies when such a flood struck wouldn't have time to warn them before the flood struck.

There's no way around that.

Of course not, but it has been pointed out that the parents didn't believe the flood would happen so wouldn't have felt the need to ward their "children who were babies" anyway, (even if they could) and this in itself doesn't answer the question on how anyone should go about warning babies - how do we warn babies of anything until they are no longer babies and can understand warnings?

There is no way around that, as far as I am aware...

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to William in post #3456

Of course not, but it has been pointed out that the parents didn't believe the flood would happen so wouldn't have felt the need to ward their "children who were babies" anyway, (even if they could) and this in itself doesn't answer the question on how anyone should go about warning babies - how do we warn babies of anything until they are no longer babies and can understand warnings?

There is no way around that, as far as I am aware...

That's right----and that's the point.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to otseng in post #3451]
The point is that other people did those things, but to racists, it was only a sin worthy of death when z certain group did it.
That's the point.
They didn't kill the group because if their group, they killed them because of the sins they attributed to the group.
That's the point you tried to twist for the Biblical example, yet, Nazis and and Jews is an apt comparison.
Further, I have to question the morals of a religion that requires people to defend genocide.

[AgnosticBoy]

Interesting take. Hitler, I believe, would say the same thing. It's not that they were Jews, it was because they were sinners... what with all their disease, false gods, and sinful ways...

He could claim that, but the evidence is they were discriminated against because they were Jews, not because of any crimes that they committed.

I don't have a problem with genocide just as long as it is justified, as in, everyone killed was actually guilty of a capital offense. What I find to be damning in the Bible is when babies or the innocent are included in genocidal acts. If that happened during the Global Flood (Genesis 6) then I find that to be inexcusable. I'm open to logic and verifiable evidence to the contrary, but what I've found from those who would justify that gets down to personal or selective standards/morals, at some point. That's one of the reasons I stop being a believer, although I still think the Bible has some good and helpful things to say on other matters.

[alexxcJRO]

I addressed this is Flood and morality.
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:
"Were the people who lived before the flood innocent? No. Sin had permeated everyone."

Wrong.
The statement is simply not factual and illogical.
Non-moral agents are blameless and innocent. The non-human animals have done zero wrongs or sins. The helpless-the severely mentally impaired from birth have done zero wrongs or sins.
The few days helpless, basically completely ignorant babies have done zero wrongs or sins.
They did not deserved to be punished and suffer greatly together with the moral agents.

I'll address genocide next.
Yes, and I will get to those.

You keep posponing things. Avoidance at its maximum level.
Never have I ever seen one to avoid so much.

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

This is ridiculous.
We could have been created by super Advanced Aliens 200 000 years ago. Genetic manipulation of let's say few ancient Autralopithecus Afarenses.
Dear sir the affective empathy-mirror neurons mechanism i mentioned is real even if we ignore the idea that Morality evolved through the mechanism of Evolution.

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

If I go with your definition: Yahweh is supossedly omnipotent in the sense that can do anything logically as long is not contradicting his omni-perfect-good-benvolent side.

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.
One just needs few course of logic, philosophy and a good reality check.

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.

The desperate straw-man continues.
I can using logic and usage of known concepts/words to analyze a concept.
The concept of Yawheh is illogical and stupid.

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

But Yahweh is said to be omni-perfect in the good side, benevolent side plus omniscient.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

My point was that an 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.
Doing otherwise will make the being not omni-perfect or omnibenevolent. But an imperfect being who has favorites and helps the favorites against the other who are not favorites. This include ideas of genocides and complete annihilation.

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

It was you logic sir. You were finished by your own logic. So funny.

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

Q: What arguments?
Q: Stupid arguments?

1.
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.

2.
Even if Evolution of humans did not happen.
We could have been created by super Advanced Aliens 200 000 years ago. Genetic manipulation of let's say few ancient Autralopithecus Afarenses.
Dear sir the affective empathy-mirror neurons mechanism i mentioned is real even if we ignore the idea that Morality evolved through the mechanism of Evolution.