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

[Masterblaster]

Hello otseng
You write:
"My conclusion is God did not command genocide based on any amoral reasons, but he did command genocide based on sins"

Is this your conclusion?

Does this mean that these people
- got what they deserved
- reaped what they sowed
- got reigned in by God or
- imploded on themselves

How does this conclusion read, in your understanding?

[otseng]

If something is logically impossible to do without punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, then it shouldn't be done and a god of perfect justice would avoid it.

And not let sins be judged? If so, then God is not a God of justice.

....except that, in the story, Jehovah isn't drowning a world full of toddlers to save his own life. He has nothing at stake, so the analogy is weak.

The analogy is there is not always a win-win situation.

If other gods happen to be gods, then any discussion of God is a discussion of them.

At this point, it's just your subjective opinion on any gods, including Yahweh, so there's no need really to address your charges.

[otseng]

Jews or Canaanites: were they hated because of the race/culture/population, so people decalared what they did were sins? (Classic racism)

I've presented evidence both Biblically and extra-Biblically the Canaanites sinned. And likewise the Jews have sinned. What you have to demonstrate through evidence is none of them did anything immoral and it was strictly on amoral criteria they were judged.

My final point was that you appear to have argued the your belief about a matter (free will, etc), simply gave you the ability to argue as if its true and ignore contrary beliefs.

No idea what you're talking about. If you have evidence for your position, I'll argue against that. But if you don't and just simply reassert your claims, they will be ignored.

[otseng]

If the verses quoted in my post do not contain the command for the Israelites to commit genocide I don't know what can be more a clear example of such a thing.

I'm not discounting the Israelites committed genocide. What I'm arguing is the intent. If the intent is because of racial discrimination, then it'd be unjustified. If God is using them to punish for immoral actions, then it's justified.

[otseng]

One has to wonder why Otseng is trying to defend this action, when he seems to think that their destruction was because of their sin - yet, I thought everyone sins?

Yes, everyone sins. And eventually everyone will be judged for their sins.

I don't understand why someone would let their moral compass be so corrupted by religion.

Skeptics have not justified their belief in any objective morality, so why should anybody care about your standard of morality?

After all, we all know why the story was written: to justify a rulers actions. The guy wanted to kill his enemy. He said "God told me to do it, so shut up."

And the Jews justified themselves getting taken over by the Assyrians and Babylonians because of their sins? Doesn't make any sense.

Think of all the genocide, or mass, State murders over the history of the world: If someone claimed "God told me to, because of their sin", Otseng would be compelled to defend them.

The point is what is justified and not justified. Let's take the case of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was hanged by the Nazis. Was it justified or not?

The kicker is that these murderers, while cutting the throats of babies, said to their victims, "I have to kill you - because you are sinners." To me, that's an atrocity whether you call it genocide or not.

Is it an atrocity to sacrifice babies?

[otseng]

Hello otseng
You write:
"My conclusion is God did not command genocide based on any amoral reasons, but he did command genocide based on sins"

Is this your conclusion?

Not sure why you ask that since I specifically wrote it was my conclusion.

Does this mean that these people
- got what they deserved
- reaped what they sowed
- got reigned in by God or
- imploded on themselves

How does this conclusion read, in your understanding?

Let's suppose at the end of WWII, all the Nazis responsible for the deaths of the Jews and other groups in the concentration camps were not judged. How would the public react to that?

[otseng]

As I mentioned, during the global flood, there was a period of 120 years between the pronouncement of the judgment and when the flood came.

What about the Canaanites? Was there any time for them to change their ways? According to Gen 15, there was a 400-year period. During this time, their sins grew to the point where they would ultimately be judged by their destruction.

[Gen 15:13-16 ESV] 13 Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. 14 But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. 15 As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. 16 And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

The passage implies they were at their peak of sinfulness when the Israelites were commanded to kill them.

(CEB)
The fourth generation will return here since the Amorites’ wrongdoing won’t have reached its peak until then.

(GNT)
It will be four generations before your descendants come back here, because I will not drive out the Amorites until they become so wicked that they must be punished.

(UST)
After your descendants have been slaves for four hundred years, they will come back here. They will take control of this land and defeat the Amor people. This will not happen before that time, because the Amor people have not yet sinned to the degree that I would punish them like that for it.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

"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)

This theological chat is very typical of it's genre.God is assigned a plan. It is usually 'our' plan.Even in Genesis God does not stick the legs on on Tuesday and the heads on ,on Wednesday. He follows what is humanly rational

God does not need us defending him/it for something some of us said he/it did. This discussion is enclosed on itself.
We examine a line of script that demands eradication of a people and their livestock by God. Is that an impossible demand to an incompetant servant.Is it imperfect in itself.

The livestock apparently are resurrected later in the narrative so no animals were harmed in the making of this biblical incident.
This stuff resonates with modern events, osteng mentioned WW11 . The government of Israel has declared that their agenda is to 'wipeout' Hamas. Easier said than done. They are already burdened with POW's, they are restrained from killing the children by their own morality and by the weight of public opinion. Their stated objective is already fundamentally compromised. In olden times you killed men ,women, children and livestock ...end of.

Here is where the vociferous debate encloses itself. I advocate an all encompassing God, and so do others. That makes It the overseer of all things, including atrocities, and that is just that. Yes God is our world and all things in it and unfortunately things go down in a bad way, with or without him/her/it/.
The logic of wiping out Hamas is that Israel as a Jewish state, cannot exist in the cross hairs of an existential threat. It is the same logic as the Bible story.

[Masterblaster]

Hello
When you are good ,you are good! I described God's order to Saul as being an impossible order to an incompetant servant. It was improper(flawed).

Well, they sure got mileage out of the livestock in this story. Apparently Saul kept a few of the best ones and Samuel was not pleased and neither was god.

" Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the Lord regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel"

I told you, this is more politics than religion.
God messed up because his man didn't see it through! Happy Christmas!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3482

And not let sins be judged? If so, then God is not a God of justice.

A god who punished the innocent along with the guilty would be unjust. A god who couldn't figure out a way not to punish the guilty without punishing the innocent would be incompetent.

At this point, it's just your subjective opinion on any gods, including Yahweh, so there's no need really to address your charges.

What makes an opinion of a god objective? A bunch of likeminded followers writing books about that god?