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: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 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
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Israelites and warfare

Post #3511

Post by otseng »

In warfare, were the Israelites any different than others in the ANE?

In terms of killing everyone, this was not considered unusual by their enemies.

William Lane Craig points out killing everyone in warfare was standard practice:
But then, again, we’re thinking of this from a Christianized, Western standpoint. For people in the ancient world, life was already brutal. Violence and war were a fact of life for people living in the ancient Near East. Evidence of this fact is that the people who told these stories apparently thought nothing of what the Israeli soldiers were commanded to do (especially if these are founding legends of the nation). No one was wringing his hands over the soldiers’ having to kill the Canaanites; those who did so were national heroes.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... canaanites

Wesley Morriston agrees:
Craig is making two claims here. The first is that life in the ANE was “brutal.” I take it that he means to remind us that in the wars of this period of history, no distinction was made between combatants and noncombatants. Women and children were killed or enslaved. Genocidal attacks were not uncommon, and the concept of corporate guilt was unproblematic. Whole nations/cities/tribes were held responsible for the behavior of individuals.

This is plainly correct. In their historical/cultural context, the ancient Israelites were not more brutal than their neighbors. Israelite warriors who slaughtered women and children would not have been doing anything especially unusual or morally suspect.
https://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/Did ... nocide.pdf

Paul Copan also agrees:
Furthermore, in the ANE, warfare was a way of life and a means of survival—a situation in which combatant and noncombatant were not always distinguished.
http://www.epsociety.org/library/printable/63.pdf

One thing that is different though is they did not use warfare to convert people to their religion.
the conquest of Canaan represented God’s just judgement upon those peoples. The purpose was not at all to get them to convert to Judaism! War was not being used as an instrument of propagating the Jewish faith. Moreover, the slaughter of the Canaanites represented an unusual historical circumstance, not a regular means of behavior.
https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... canaanites

They also did not torture or mutilate the bodies of their enemies to terrorize their enemies.
Unlike Joshua’s brief, four-verse description of the treatment of the five kings (10:24–27), the Neo-Assyrian annals of Asshurnasirpal (tenth century) take pleasure in describing the atrocities which gruesomely describe the flaying of live victims, the impaling of others on poles, and the heaping up of bodies for display.
http://www.epsociety.org/library/printable/63.pdf

And as I've argued, another difference is the justification for warfare was a judgment on sin and it was not based on race or nationality or geography.
otseng wrote: Mon Dec 18, 2023 7:26 am So, the charge that God committed genocide because of a nationality or race is fallacious. God is not judging people because of their ethnicity or country of origin. God judges people on their sin, regardless of their nationality.
Another difference is they were not an imperialistic nation. After the conquest of Canaan, the Israelites did not go on to conquer other nations. They did not attempt to conquer Egypt or Assyria or Babylon or Persia or Greece or Rome.
First, the killing of the Canaanites was sui generis, limited to this particular period of time of Joshua and shortly thereafter, after whose time Israel’s warranted battles (“Yahweh wars”) were defensive.

In the former case, we are not talking about genocide or ethnic cleansing, but a kind of corporate capital punishment that was deliberately limited in scope and restricted to a specific period of time. Was Israel’s warfare in Canaan precedent-setting? In Goldingay’s words, “Saul does not seek to devote the Philistines and David does not seek to devote the surrounding peoples whom he did conquer. Neither Ephraim nor Judah took on Assyria, Babylon, Persia, or the local equivalents of the Canaanites in the Second Temple period.” He adds that Deuteronomy and Joshua do not set a pattern that “invites later Israel to follow, or that later Israel does follow.”
http://www.epsociety.org/library/printable/63.pdf

User avatar
Masterblaster
Sage
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 40 times

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

Post #3512

Post by Masterblaster »

[Replying to otseng in post #3510]

Hello Otseng

Do you not see the vulnerability of your theist view, expressed in this reply.

It is a domino line, you believe Noah spoke to God, because there was a global flood, and you believe in the Bible that says it and you believe in God, ...so therefore.
That is not a logical modus for someone trying to make a case for Bible errancy.
I can extract truth from the Noah passage without having to use an inch tape to measure deck boards.,,,, in the same way that I extract truth from the Amalekite massacre. Real everyday truth.
The Bible is real it is not theological theory. It must have functional truth and it does not need camouflage or protection. It will display it's worth regardless.
'Love God with all you have and love others in the same way.'

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2962
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 533 times

Re: God hardening Pharaoh's heart

Post #3513

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3508
Where in the Bible has God spoken directly to everyone?
An irrelevant question. It's already been pointed out that the Bible doesn't say this.

Yes, anyone can claim to speak for God. But in the case of Noah, what he spoke about the flood was fulfilled
Not according to science. There's no evidence of a global flood.

Not according to history, either. By James Ussher's meticulous calculation, the Genesis flood began in 2348 BCE. That means that it would have wiped out well-established civilizations whose own historical records run through that period unbroken.

I've asked you before what your worldview was and don't recall you ever answering me. Can you point to the post that you answered me?
I don't see where you've asked, but no matter. Suffice it to say that I don't pretend to fully understand the nature of the Ultimate Source of Existence.

So, with your theist worldview, please present your argument that your morality is objective.
You have already stated that we are all instilled with an objective morality:
Since God is the creator of all and above time and he is the source of morality and goodness, then the morality instilled in us as image bearers of God would make it objective.
So you yourself have established my morality as objective.

User avatar
Masterblaster
Sage
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 40 times

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

Post #3514

Post by Masterblaster »

Hello

"Otseng:Where in the Bible has God spoken directly to everyone?
Athetotheist: An irrelevant question. It's already been pointed out that the Bible doesn't say this."

---
So let us drop this 'Bible is the word of God' stance. The Bible is a story that spans at least 3 millennia of human engagement with God belief. It has the truth of a tree. It starts with a tree and it crescends with a man hanging on a tree. Regard the Bible as a tree.
There is alot to this but there are no absolutes.

Take the truth of Noah's flood, the Persian Gulf is littered with submerged cities..

"The Persian Gulf was a dry-land river valley. As sea level rose during the glacial meltdown, the ocean gradually flooded into the Gulf."

Take the Babel tower, the Exodus, Eden, etc.
Even today you could base a lesson on recycling and sea rise on the Noah story of the Bible. Look at the Bible as it now is. It is unlikely to change, but you never know. Observe how the monotheistic engagement has progressed so far and try to make it work better.
It was wonderful to hear the Importance of the Jesus message being reaffirmed over the festive time. Jesus was quoted by King Charles, as he forwarded a message of hope for the world through love and conservation.
'Love God with all you have and love others in the same way.'

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

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

Post #3515

Post by otseng »

Masterblaster wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2023 7:31 am That is not a logical modus for someone trying to make a case for Bible errancy.
I'm not making a case for Biblical errancy in this thread.

For the issue of morality in the Old Testament, I'm not really addressing unbelievers either since they have no basis for objective morality. I'm addressing theists who have a hard time reconciling a loving God with the narratives of the OT.
The Bible is real it is not theological theory. It must have functional truth and it does not need camouflage or protection. It will display it's worth regardless.
For believers, yes. For unbelievers, no.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: God hardening Pharaoh's heart

Post #3516

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Dec 25, 2023 8:56 am [Replying to otseng in post #3508
Where in the Bible has God spoken directly to everyone?
An irrelevant question. It's already been pointed out that the Bible doesn't say this.
I'm not asking where the Bible says this. I'm asking for examples in the Bible where God directly speaks to everyone. You had made the assertion:
Athetotheist wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2023 11:10 am A god who can talk to an individual like Noah can talk to any number of individuals. Is anything said to anyone outside of Noah's family?
And I've responded God primarily speaks directly to prophets instead of the masses.
Not according to science. There's no evidence of a global flood.
I've covered this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1055177#p1055177

I've also covered the flood in many other threads. It's perhaps the topic that I've covered the most since the founding of the forum.
I've asked you before what your worldview was and don't recall you ever answering me. Can you point to the post that you answered me?
I don't see where you've asked, but no matter.
I asked you here:
otseng wrote: Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:23 am What worldview would you claim to have?
Suffice it to say that I don't pretend to fully understand the nature of the Ultimate Source of Existence.
OK.
So, with your theist worldview, please present your argument that your morality is objective.
You have already stated that we are all instilled with an objective morality:
Since God is the creator of all and above time and he is the source of morality and goodness, then the morality instilled in us as image bearers of God would make it objective.
So you yourself have established my morality as objective.
If you accept my explanation for the justification of objective morality, then I have no problem with it.

User avatar
Masterblaster
Sage
Posts: 555
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2023 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 70 times
Been thanked: 40 times

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

Post #3517

Post by Masterblaster »

Hello

Let me have a wee stab at objective morality.

Do we care about the dying children of Gaza?

Not a jot!

People are sunning themselves in the resorts of Turkey and Egypt, there are NFL matches taking place, there are Race meetings and there are Family get togethers. We are all so emotionally traumatized that we feel the overpowering urge to enjoy ourselves.

This is in our collective nature to see some of the troop devoured by lions but it is not visual baggage that impedes our own sense of being

But it is shocking though, thank god it's not me.
'Love God with all you have and love others in the same way.'

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20706
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Genocide summary argument

Post #3518

Post by otseng »

To summarize the accusation that God is genocidal:

It depends on what is meant by genocidal. If it means killing a group of people based on amoral reasons (race, nationality, geography, etc), then God is not genocidal. If it means killing a group of people, then God is genocidal. However, this is not what is typically meant by genocidal, otherwise all battles and wars would be genocidal.

The question is if God is justified in having people killed. I argue yes because he is judging sin. We see this today when the state executes people based on their crimes. For addressing immoral actions, it is a justifiable killing. It is not justified if someone is killed because of their race or nationality, as we see with the holocaust.

The top two instances of genocide brought up are the flood and the Canaanite conquest. I've addressed these at:
* Flood and morality
* Genocide and child sacrifices

There was also a large time gap in both instances to allow the people to change their ways. With the flood, it was 120 years. With the Canaanites, it was 400 years.

In warfare in the ANE, it was standard practice to kill everyone. But unlike other cultures, there is no evidence the Israelites participated in senseless brutality, had an imperialistic military to continue conquering other nations, or commit warfare with the intent of mass conversion.
viewtopic.php?p=1138504#p1138504

The biggest issue commonly brought up is the death of "innocent" children. People might accept adults were all sinners in the flood and in Canaan. But what about all those innocent babies?
otseng wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2023 6:09 amMyself, since I believe morality requires a free will choice, I think babies are amoral. Guilt and innocence are conditional on free will choice. We even see this with crimes which involve insanity. Those who are insane and are not able to have complete freedom of choice are judged less strictly than those who have total control of their free will.
I believe it is a categorical error to say babies are innocent. Babies can neither be innocent nor guilty because of a lack of ability to make moral choices.

But babies still died anyways in the flood. Yes, it is a tragedy. But the people were warned 120 years in advance. Also, nobody has proposed any way God could have saved them. In all ethical situations, there is not always a win-win situation, and it is the same with the flood.

Instead of God being charged as a racist or xenophopic, He is actually the opposite. God is xenophilic.
viewtopic.php?p=1138375#p1138375

God's heart is not to dominate through military power or to oppress any particular group, but to support and defend the weak and marginalized.
viewtopic.php?p=1138457#p1138457

Therefore God is not genocial as commonly defined.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2962
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 533 times

Re: God hardening Pharaoh's heart

Post #3519

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3516
I'm not asking where the Bible says this. I'm asking for examples in the Bible where God directly speaks to everyone. You had made the assertion:
A god who can talk to an individual like Noah can talk to any number of individuals. Is anything said to anyone outside of Noah's family?

I said that a god who can talk to an individual can talk to any number. The question is why any god who wants a message widespread wouldn't do so, skipping the middleman as in the "This is my beloved Son" declaration in Matthew 3:17.

Not according to science. There's no evidence of a global flood.
I've covered this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1055177#p1055177
And it looks like your coverage generated plenty of counterpoints.

Since God is the creator of all and above time and he is the source of morality and goodness, then the morality instilled in us as image bearers of God would make it objective.
So you yourself have established my morality as objective.
If you accept my explanation for the justification of objective morality, then I have no problem with it.
If the statement above is your explanation for the justification of objective morality, then you have to accept that my morality is objective and justified.
Last edited by Athetotheist on Tue Dec 26, 2023 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2962
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 533 times

Re: Genocide summary argument

Post #3520

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3518
It depends on what is meant by genocidal. If it means killing a group of people based on amoral reasons (race, nationality, geography, etc), then God is not genocidal.

The question is if God is justified in having people killed. I argue yes because he is judging sin.

Myself, since I believe morality requires a free will choice, I think babies are amoral.
If babies are amoral, then the killing of any baby can only be for an amoral reason. They cannot be put to death for sin.

I believe it is a categorical error to say babies are innocent. Babies can neither be innocent nor guilty because of a lack of ability to make moral choices.
I've already pointed out the moral flaw in this argument:

How convenient. Babies are born without the moral ability to choose innocence, and as soon as they acquire that ability they're automatically sinful and thus guilty. So it seems that there's never a wrong time to slaughter a child, at least when you're a god of perfect justice.

But the people were warned 120 years in advance.
Another argument repeated while ignoring a counterargument already made. Children born just before the flood are not warned.
Also, nobody has proposed any way God could have saved them.
I did propose a general warning to everyone who would be affected. Your response was that "God doesn't do things that way."

How about causing masses of trees or reeds to come together and form rafts for children to ride on? Feeding them with manna from heaven until the waters receded and then setting them down right around the ark on Ararrat? That's no more far-fetched than two [or seven, depending on which account you believe] of each animal fitting into the ark in the first place [unless the ark was a TARDIS].

There was also a large time gap in both instances to allow the people to change their ways. With the flood, it was 120 years. With the Canaanites, it was 400 years.
Really? Where does Jehovah say to the Israeites, "Give the Canaanites 400 years, and if they turn over a new leaf then don't slaughter them and take the land I promised to you"?
God's heart is not to dominate through military power or to oppress any particular group
In the case of Jehovah, where else would the Israelites get the idea for that course of action?

Post Reply