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]

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.

I have my own opinion, but it's irrelevant why God chose to do it that way. Throughout the Bible, that's how God has acted.

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.

Then we'll go on and assume you believe that God is the creator of all and is above time and the source of morality and goodness and created all of us as image bearers of God.

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.

My argument is addressing the morality of babies, not the death of babies. Babies dying is still tragic, but labeling them as innocent or guilty would not be relevant.

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.

Again, for the death of babies, it is still tragic. I'm not saying it's fine to kill a baby at any time. In the case of the flood, I've argued there was no way to save them (without a supernatural cause).

Children born just before the flood are not warned.

Yes, but their parents were. Also how do you know there were any babies born just before the flood?

I did propose a general warning to everyone who would be affected. Your response was that "God doesn't do things that way."

You proposed a warning by God speaking directly to everyone. I already mentioned everyone was warned by the giant ark being built and most likely Noah as well preached. Everyone would've known about this. At a minimum, it was a subject of mocking by everyone else.

How about causing masses of trees or reeds to come together and form rafts for children to ride on?

And exactly how would those trees come together to form a ship that can withstand a massive flood?

Feeding them with manna from heaven until the waters receded and then setting them down right around the ark on Ararrat?

How can babies feed themselves?

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].

That's another area for debate.

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"?

Never said God said that.

In the case of Jehovah, where else would the Israelites get the idea for that course of action?

What course of action are you talking about? The conquest of Canaan? It was commanded by God as a judgment for the Canaanite's sins.

[otseng]

As further evidence the destruction of nations is based on sin, we see this same thing happening to Israel.

Israel eventually followed the ways of the Canaanites and also sacrificed their babies to idols.

[Deu 32:17 KJV] 17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

[Psa 106:37 KJV] 37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

Even Solomon fell and sacrificed to Molech.

[1Ki 11:7-9 KJV] 7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that [is] before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 8 And likewise did he for all his strange wives, which burnt incense and sacrificed unto their gods. 9 And the LORD was angry with Solomon, because his heart was turned from the LORD God of Israel, which had appeared unto him twice,

Ahaz also sacrificed to idols.

[2Ki 16:2-3 KJV] 2 Twenty years old [was] Ahaz when he began to reign, and reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, and did not [that which was] right in the sight of the LORD his God, like David his father. 3 But he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, yea, and made his son to pass through the fire, according to the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD cast out from before the children of Israel.

Manasseh also sinned.

[2Ch 33:1-2, 6 KJV] 1 Manasseh [was] twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned fifty and five years in Jerusalem: 2 But did [that which was] evil in the sight of the LORD, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom the LORD had cast out before the children of Israel. ... 6 And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.

As a result of the sins of Israel, God rose up Gentile nations to judge Israel.

[Eze 9:4-5 KJV] 4 And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. 5 And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:

[Amo 2:4-7 KJV] 4 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Judah, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they have despised the law of the LORD, and have not kept his commandments, and their lies caused them to err, after the which their fathers have walked: 5 But I will send a fire upon Judah, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem. 6 Thus saith the LORD; For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not turn away [the punishment] thereof; because they sold the righteous for silver, and the poor for a pair of shoes; 7 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the [same] maid, to profane my holy name:

[Isa 10:1-2, 5-6 KJV] 1 Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness [which] they have prescribed; 2 To turn aside the needy from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, that widows may be their prey, and [that] they may rob the fatherless! ... 5 O Assyrian, the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation. 6 I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3521

I have my own opinion, but it's irrelevant why God chose to do it that way. Throughout the Bible, that's how God has acted.

MATTHEW BRADY: "The Bible satisfies me. It is enough."

HENRY DRUMMOND: "It frightens me to think of the state of learning in the world if everybody had your driving curiosity."
----"Inherit the Wind"


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.

Then we'll go on and assume you believe that God is the creator of all and is above time and the source of morality and goodness and created all of us as image bearers of God.

You think I fear the idea of being made in the image of God/Goddess/the gods/theTao/the Force/the Great Whatever-There-Is?

My argument is addressing the morality of babies, not the death of babies. Babies dying is still tragic, but labeling them as innocent or guilty would not be relevant.

You labeled them amoral. You also stated that God punishes specifically for sin and not for amoral reasons.

If babies are amoral, then they're not immoral. If they're not immoral, they have no sin for which to be punished. There are myriad ways to punish the guilty, which must include ways unknown to our mortal minds. A deity who is both perfectly just and anywhere near intelligent will be willing and able to punish without collateral damage.

Again, for the death of babies, it is still tragic. I'm not saying it's fine to kill a baby at any time. In the case of the flood, I've argued there was no way to save them (without a supernatural cause).

But you believe that there was a flood which itself had a supernatural cause. Why shouldn't supernatural causes be expected to happen consistently enough to hold the narrative together?


Children born just before the flood are not warned.

Yes, but their parents were.

The parents aren't the children.

Also how do you know there were any babies born just before the flood?

Is there any indication that there wouldn't have been?

"For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man."
(Matthew 24:38-39)

Do you expect people to stop having babies before the coming of the Son of Man?


How about causing masses of trees or reeds to come together and form rafts for children to ride on?

And exactly how would those trees come together to form a ship that can withstand a massive flood?

If I said that it could happen supernaturally, like the flood itself, would you consider that a weak and convenient argument?


Feeding them with manna from heaven until the waters receded and then setting them down right around the ark on Ararrat?

How can babies feed themselves?

The manna could drop straight into their mouths.

See how easy it is to come up with whatever convenience you need?

Really----two of every kind of animal could live for a year on an ark without the lions eating the zebras, and you're questioning my problematic points?

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.

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"?

Never said God said that.

That's the point. The Canaanites aren't given any time to "change their ways", and there's no indication that they're even warned to do so.


In the case of Jehovah, where else would the Israelites get the idea for that course of action?

What course of action are you talking about? The conquest of Canaan? It was commanded by God as a judgment for the Canaanite's sins.

Oh, it had nothing to do with that "Promised Land" business? The Israelites are commanded to stop off and slaughter some wretched sinners while they're on their way to some "Promised Land" somewhere else?

[Masterblaster]

Hello
I feel like John the Baptist on this thead, isolated and hostile to the perceived flow of things. This thread is definitely desert-like with now 3500+ cacti posts, most indistinguishable from each other. Please do not disengage with this barreness. There is a dance of deception taking place under the droning humdrum of repetition.

The contributors embrace in the logic that god is human like. Their rational logic for gods actions require that God is humanly logical and moral. Otseng meticulously reinforces this farce whenever the opportunity appears. Look at this, this is this persons sincerely held opinion, I just fundamentally disagree with it.

Otseng -
Post 3521 -"Then we'll go on and assume you believe that God is the creator of all and is above time and the source of morality and goodness and created all of us as image bearers"
Post 3492 - "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.

Otseng attempts to apply human logic and modus and morality to God based on a throw-away Eden reference. His sidekick theorizes on nuance after that. Most people wait for this to end sometime soon.

Why would God behave in an exclusively human way except for the fact that it makes men look learned talking about him/it?
How would this human biased God produce objective morality,through human logic, i doubt it.

[alexxcJRO]

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.

Nonsense upon more nonsense.
These statements are simply not factual and logical.

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.

There is no justification in punishing non-moral agents together with moral agents.
There is no justification for the explicit command to inflict suffering, pain and death to non-moral agents: "Don’t let anything live. Put to death men and women, children and small babies. Kill the cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

Imagine those poor non-human animals after countless years of suffering of being enslaved by humans to do their bidding now they have to suffer more and die because of some humans have done against other humans. For no logical or apparent reason.

And this is happening by the explicit command of an omni-perfect being. That is so powerful, wise, intelligent, loving, just and benevolent, beyond any imagination. The ultimate wise being, the ultimate benevolent being, the ultimate loving being, the ultimate just being, the ultimate intelligent being, the ultimate powerful being.

Surely no rational person can believe such stupid thing.

[otseng]

If they're not immoral, they have no sin for which to be punished.

I'm not the one saying babies are "punished". Yes, if babies die, in whatever circumstance, it is tragic, but in no case can they be "punished" since they are amoral.

A deity who is both perfectly just and anywhere near intelligent will be willing and able to punish without collateral damage.

This is the omnipotent God argument. Skeptics think of a hypothetical scenario that God must do according to their own imagination and then since God does not do it that way, therefore they claim they've proved their point.

But you believe that there was a flood which itself had a supernatural cause. Why shouldn't supernatural causes be expected to happen consistently enough to hold the narrative together?

Where have I said the flood had a supernatural cause? Please quote the post.

Also how do you know there were any babies born just before the flood?

Is there any indication that there wouldn't have been?

You're the one claiming there were babies born before the flood, so it's your burden to demonstrate it.

Do you expect people to stop having babies before the coming of the Son of Man?

And when will that happen?

And exactly how would those trees come together to form a ship that can withstand a massive flood?

If I said that it could happen supernaturally, like the flood itself, would you consider that a weak and convenient argument?

If the ark was not built supernaturally, why should God intervene supernaturally for others?

How can babies feed themselves?

The manna could drop straight into their mouths.

And from the hand of an omnipotent God?

See how easy it is to come up with whatever convenience you need?

Yes, because it's consistently falling back to the omnipotent God argument.

Really----two of every kind of animal could live for a year on an ark without the lions eating the zebras, and you're questioning my problematic points?

Yes, because we're talking about Old Testament morality, not how animals survived on the ark or any other irrelevant topics, like the morality of other gods.

The Canaanites aren't given any time to "change their ways", and there's no indication that they're even warned to do so.

Did they have any objective morality? Would it be considered moral for them to sacrifice babies?

Oh, it had nothing to do with that "Promised Land" business? The Israelites are commanded to stop off and slaughter some wretched sinners while they're on their way to some "Promised Land" somewhere else?

It could be a possibility the Israelites just made up the excuse the Canaanites were sinners in order to justify their conquest of Canaan. However, it is refuted by the fact that the Israelites were also wiped out when they sinned. Also, that narrative is not how Christians read the Old Testament, but only how non-Christians could interpret it. And as I've argued, the entire issue of morality of the Old Testament is for theists, so anything unbelievers would claim about objective morality (like how God should act) can be dismissed.

[otseng]

I feel like John the Baptist on this thead, isolated and hostile to the perceived flow of things.

And I feel like I'm the only one presenting logical arguments with evidence and references. If you have anything to contribute to the current topic of Old Testament ethics, please do, but otherwise it's just rambling.

How would this human biased God produce objective morality,through human logic, i doubt it.

Do you believe objective morality exists? On what basis do you justify that?

[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.

Nonsense upon more nonsense.
These statements are simply not factual and logical.

That's what you claim, but of course I disagree. And you consistently making the same claims over and over does not give your arguments any greater weight.

So that we can move on, readers can go through my summary post on genocide and they can determine for themselves the strength of my arguments.

Next, I'll be dealing with the issue of slavery.

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to otseng in post #3527]

Hello Otseng

You accuse me of rambling,that is rich when you consider your innumerable contributions here. I called your attention to this

Otseng -
Post 3521 -"Then we'll go on and assume you believe that God is the creator of all and is above time and the source of morality and goodness and created all of us as image bearers"
Post 3492 - "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.

Otseng attempts to apply human logic and modus and morality to God based on a throw-away Eden reference
-------
No answer! Now you want to ramble off to eulogize on the theology of slavery,...what follows that, polygamy , maybe fratricide, maybe...there are no shortage of eulogizing opportunities in your Bible. You are kidding nobody.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3526

I'm not the one saying babies are "punished". Yes, if babies die, in whatever circumstance, it is tragic, but in no case can they be "punished" since they are amoral.

It isn't about babies being punished. It's about babies dying for the sins of others, which isn't supposed to happen.

This is the omnipotent God argument. Skeptics think of a hypothetical scenario that God must do according to their own imagination and then since God does not do it that way, therefore they claim they've proved their point.

Bible apologists think up any excuse they can for Jehovah to exhibit behavior which they would condemn in any other god.

Where have I said the flood had a supernatural cause?

It would have to have had a supernatural cause. A flood covering the tops of even the tallest mountains could not happen naturally.

You're the one claiming there were babies born before the flood, so it's your burden to demonstrate it.

I'm not claiming that there were babies born "before" the flood, because I'm not claiming that there was a flood.

I have provided evidence from the Christian Bible itself that there would have been babies born just before the flood.


Do you expect people to stop having babies before the coming of the Son of Man?

And when will that happen?

It wouldn't matter, and it doesn't answer the question.

If the ark was not built supernaturally, why should God intervene supernaturally for others?

If the Nile turning to blood was supernatural, if the parting of the Red Sea was supernatural, if a column of fire going before the Israelites was supernatural, how would it matter if building the ark wasn't supernatural?


The manna could drop straight into their mouths.

And from the hand of an omnipotent God?

If Jehovah isn't omnipotent, why should anyone assume that he created the universe? That would take omnipotence.


The Canaanites aren't given any time to "change their ways", and there's no indication that they're even warned to do so.

Did they have any objective morality?

They were theists, so according to you they did.

Would it be considered moral for them to sacrifice babies?

If sacrificing amoral babies is immoral, how is it moral to drown amoral babies with a flood?

It could be a possibility the Israelites just made up the excuse the Canaanites were sinners in order to justify their conquest of Canaan. However, it is refuted by the fact that the Israelites were also wiped out when they sinned.

The latter does not refute the former. An attacker can in turn be attacked, and it doesn't have to have anything to do with "sin".

Also, that narrative is not how Christians read the Old Testament, but only how non-Christians could interpret it.

So non-Christians don't put a Christianity-friendly spin on the story.

And as I've argued, the entire issue of morality of the Old Testament is for theists, so anything unbelievers would claim about objective morality (like how God should act) can be dismissed.

And since I've pointed out that I hold a theistic position, you can't dismiss what I claim about objective morality.

Your repeated efforts to conflate me with "unbelievers" suggests that you take ONLY Bible-believers to be objectively moral.


And if you're going to insist that there was a great flood, how do you know that it wasn't the flood in the Epic of Gilgamesh in which Utnapishtim preserves humankind?