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

[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.

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.

You dont get to decide when to move on sir.

I have arguments but you have simply ignore them over and over again. Therefore it follows I will post them over and over again till u address them.
Here:




You yourself admitted punishing non-moral agents is illogical.
I have provided instances where the omni-perfect Yahweh has punished non-moral agents.

You have defeated yourself without knowing it. So funny.

[otseng]

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

Again, yes, I agree it's tragic that babies die, in whatever circumstance.

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

The reverse I think is more apropos. Skeptics think up anything to condemn the morality of the Bible, yet they can't even explain why their morality is nothing more than their opinion.

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 did not quote where I said it had a supernatural cause. As a matter of fact, I've never invoked a supernatural explanation for anything that I've posted about the flood in this thread (or in any thread that I can recall). As for waters covering the top of the mountains, I've also presented the flood model which would explain it.

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

Not sure what evidence you are talking about. What verse are you referring to?

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.

It does matter. In the flood, there was a specific time that people were warned the flood would come. As for Jesus's return, nobody knows when that will happen.

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 issue is not can supernatural things happen. Of course they can. The issue is specifically about the flood.

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

The issue is not God being powerful, but being so all-powerful that he must be able to do anything we can imagine. What I claim is God is the most powerful, not all powerful.

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.

According to me, all people have objective morality because all people are created in the image of God.

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?

You haven't even demonstrated there were babies during the flood. And even if there were, since the people were warned, why should God be culpable? Further, there's no possible method to even save them. And when the babies did die, since they were not sinful, they'd go to heaven.

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".

Yes, the Assyrians and Babylonians did not attack Israel because they were sinful, but simply because they wanted to conquer them for political gain. But God indirectly used them to judge Israel because of their sins.

[Isa 10:5-6 KJV] 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.

There is a consistent message that God will judge sin. And it doesn't matter who sins, even if it's God's chosen people. This is a repeated pattern throughout the Bible.

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

Who's the one spinning the story? You're the one who stated:

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?

Do any Jews hold to the position you're suggesting?

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.

I've never claimed you or anybody else does not have objective morality. What I've asked for is justification of it. As you've stated:

Suffice it to say that I don't pretend to fully understand the nature of the Ultimate Source of Existence.

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?

There are many cultures that have a flood story.


http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html

[otseng]

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.

You dont get to decide when to move on sir.

I have arguments but you have simply ignore them over and over again. Therefore it follows I will post them over and over again till u address them.

Here are the posts where I've addressed your arguments:

viewtopic.php?p=1136640#p1136640
viewtopic.php?p=1136887#p1136887
viewtopic.php?p=1137509#p1137509
viewtopic.php?p=1137588#p1137588
viewtopic.php?p=1137637#p1137637
viewtopic.php?p=1137869#p1137869
viewtopic.php?p=1138010#p1138010

Again, readers can go through those and judge for themselves if your argument has any weight.

You have defeated yourself without knowing it. So funny.

More ad hom comments.

[otseng]

You accuse me of rambling,that is rich when you consider your innumerable contributions here.

As the owner of this forum and operating it for close to 20 years, I should recognize what is rambling.

As for my participation in this thread, I've presented many arguments with accompanying evidence. This is how debates should work here, not just spouting unsubstantiated opinions.

Otseng attempts to apply human logic and modus and morality to God based on a throw-away Eden reference

I use the Bible to support Christian beliefs. This is entirely reasonable and expected.

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.

I don't think you've ever answered any of the questions I've posted to you...

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?

If people are going to make any claims about what Yahweh is like, the Bible is the only authoritative source, no matter how people would like for God to be like. On what basis do you support your beliefs about Yahweh?

I also asked you if I can't use the Bible, then what can I use?

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

You are kidding nobody.

More ad hom comments.

I'm not even sure why you're participating in this thread. What is your position on the reliability and authority of the Bible?

[Masterblaster]

Hello Otseng

Lots of questions.

otseng wrote: ↑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?

A: Not well.

otseng wrote: ↑If people are going to make any claims about what Yahweh is like, the Bible is the only authoritative source, no matter how people would like for God to be like. On what basis do you support your beliefs about Yahweh?

A: Yahweh is the Judaic God of the OT and of Jesus.

otseng wrote: ↑I also asked you if I can't use the Bible, then what can I use?

A: Use your instincts, use your judgement use common sense.

otseng wrote: ↑Do you believe objective morality exists? On what basis do you justify that?

A: I explained objective morality, it is what goes down all the time, it is why a rock slides down a hill.



I'm not even sure why you're participating in this thread. What is your position on the reliability and authority of the Bible?

A: At the moment ,I am on this thread because I fundamentally disagree with you. I think that your words are without sense. I have attempted to display the Bible's truth and everyday relevance on this thread despite all else. The Bible has it's own authority as a Vessel of Enlightenment to us all. The credits go to those who honestly participate in it's study and that includes you, Otseng.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3532

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

Again, yes, I agree it's tragic that babies die, in whatever circumstance.

If the deaths of babies are collateral damage from "punishing the wicked", it isn't just tragic; it's unjust.


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

The reverse I think is more apropos. Skeptics think up anything to condemn the morality of the Bible, yet they can't even explain why their morality is nothing more than their opinion.

Again, this has nothing to do with my morality since you've already classified it as objective.

As for waters covering the top of the mountains, I've also presented the flood model which would explain it.

How does your flood model match up with earth science?


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

Not sure what evidence you are talking about. What verse are you referring to?

Matthew 24:38-39.

In the flood, there was a specific time that people were warned the flood would come.

Again, the babies aren't warned.

As for Jesus's return, nobody knows when that will happen.

Again, it wouldn't matter since it's supposed to be the same at that time as in the days of Noah.


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

The issue is not God being powerful, but being so all-powerful that he must be able to do anything we can imagine. What I claim is God is the most powerful, not all powerful.

Are you conceding that the type of deity you're describing couldn't create the universe? If so, how is he the god of it?

According to me, all people have objective morality because all people are created in the image of God.

Then you invalidate your own argument for the morality of skeptics being "just their opinion".

You haven't even demonstrated there were babies during the flood.

I've provided scriptural evidence that there would have been.

And even if there were, since the people were warned, why should God be culpable?

Even if all the adults had been warned, what would the warning have been? "If you don't stop sinning, I'm going to unjustly kill all your children along with you"?

Further, there's no possible method to even save them.

If that's the case, it's just part of the problem. How could a perfectly just deity punish the wicked in a way which couldn't be prevented from harming the non-wicked along with them?

And when the babies did die, since they were not sinful, they'd go to heaven.

Then what room do you leave yourself to condemn the sacrifice of any child to any god by any means?

Can any perfectly just god do something thoroughly unjust and then buy his way off the hook by offering some eternal reward as a bribe?

Yes, the Assyrians and Babylonians did not attack Israel because they were sinful, but simply because they wanted to conquer them for political gain. But God indirectly used them to judge Israel because of their sins.

The narrative of the priesthhood.


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

Who's the one spinning the story?You're the one who stated:

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?

Do any Jews hold to the position you're suggesting?

They put a Judaism-friendly spin on the story.

I've never claimed you or anybody else does not have objective morality. What I've asked for is justification of it.

You've stated that all of us being made in God's image gives us an objective sense of morality. I, like "skeptics", have been relating what our objective morality tells us about the flood story, even if you find that inconvenient.


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?

There are many cultures that have a flood story.

And since the one in Genesis isn't the oldest of them, wouldn't it be less likely to be the true one?

"But there’s another reason why the angry religious crowd ought to check their outrage. The story of Noah may be part of the Abrahamic canon, but the legend of the Great Flood almost certainly has prebiblical origins, rooted in the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia. The Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh dates back nearly 5,000 years and is thought to be perhaps the oldest written tale on the planet. In it, there is an account of the great sage Utnapishtim, who is warned of an imminent flood to be unleashed by wrathful gods. He builds a vast circular-shaped boat, reinforced with tar and pitch, that carries his relatives, grains and animals. After enduring days of storms, Utnapishtim, like Noah in Genesis, releases a bird in search of dry land."

https://time.com/44631/noah-christians-flood-aronofsky/

[alexxcJRO]

Here are the posts where I've addressed your arguments:

viewtopic.php?p=1136640#p1136640
viewtopic.php?p=1136887#p1136887
viewtopic.php?p=1137509#p1137509
viewtopic.php?p=1137588#p1137588
viewtopic.php?p=1137637#p1137637
viewtopic.php?p=1137869#p1137869
viewtopic.php?p=1138010#p1138010

A.
Your argument:"
You stating it is objective does not provide justification for it being objective. Plus, what you stated is not logical. There is no such thing as "punishing" a non-moral agent. Non-moral agents are also neither innocent or guilty."
You said infants are non-moral agents. You also said it is objectively wrong to impose a death penalty on non-moral agents. So asking if it's wrong to perform an abortion is entirely relevant.
...
Were the people who lived before the flood innocent? No. Sin had permeated everyone."


innocent
/ˈɪnəsnt/
adjective
1.
not guilty of a crime or offence
https://www.google.com/search?client=op ... 8&oe=UTF-8

"(1)
Agency condition: To be morally innocent, one needs to be an agent. Plants and lifeless objects, for example, cannot be innocent unless we assume they can act.Footnote9
(2)
No-culpability condition: To be morally innocent, one must not be morally culpable for any wrong.
This conception of moral innocence allows a clarification of who counts as morally innocent. They belong to one of two categories:

I.
The contingently innocent: These are agents who can do wrong and bear moral responsibility, but are not actually culpable of any wrongs. This would be a moral saint, or a child right before becoming culpable for the first wrong of its life.

II.
The necessarily innocent: These are agents who can do no wrong, in the sense of being incapable of committing wrongs or bearing responsibility for wrongs. Animals – those that act, anyway – belong in this group. Angels and gods would also belong here, assuming that they always want the good and are thus incapable of doing wrong. Animals and non-culpable human beings (like small children) are however the only innocent beings whose existence is uncontroversial.Footnote10"
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-09926-1

Its clear as day that non-human animals and babies are innocent.
Any respectable logician or philosopher knows this.

B.
Your argument: "Is it wrong to perform an abortion?
Is it wrong to kill and eat animals?"

Whataboutism as a response to my justification:

"Justification: Non-moral agents are blameless for they are incapable to discern right from wrong.
Therefore punishing non-moral agents with a death penalty is objectively wrong. Therefore it is objectively immoral."

Those questions bare no relevancy to my justification which was requested by you.
"whataboutism
/ˌwɒtəˈbaʊtɪz(ə)m/
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."
https://www.google.com/search?q=whatabo ... s-wiz-serp


It's like this:
Group of persons X have punished and killed non-moral agents for religious reasons. They do not deemed it wrong.
Person 1 say it is wrong to do so.
Person 2 does not agree. Comes and says "but what about another group of persons Y who do have punished and killed non-moral agents for another reason. Are they wrong?".


C.
Your argument: "Even this statement makes no sense. When you say "death penalty", that means the person has been judged guilty of a crime and the punishment is death. Can you give any example of any non-moral agent being judged for a crime?

What I believe you are getting at is killing a non-moral agent, not punishing a non-moral agent.
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."

I clearly gave examples where Yahweh punished the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.

Yahweh clearly makes judgements-talks of guilt and then orders Israelites or angels or acts himself to punish the humans: Amalek, Egyptians, people of Samaria and all humans except Noah and his family in the Flood story.

Yahweh punishes the Amalek including the non-moral agents for attacking the Israelites and /or because of " all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods".
Yahweh punishes the non-moral agents together with the moral agents in the Flood story because " for the earth is filled with violence because of them".
Yahweh punishes the non-moral agents together with the moral agents from Samaria because they " have rebelled against their God".
Yahweh punishes the non-moral agents together with the moral agents in the Exodus story because the Egyptians did not let the Israelites go and because "against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments".

"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)

"For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and fatally strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the human firstborn to animals; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am Yahweh.""(Exodus 12:12)

More ad hom comments.

Wrong again.
There is no ad hominem here.
Ad hominem requires to ignore ones argument and go to personal attacks.
You really defeated your self by your own logic at least 2 times.

[otseng]

otseng wrote: ↑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?

A: Not well.

Right. Intuitively, we believe sin should not just be passed off and ignored, but some sort of justice should happen to address immoral acts.

otseng wrote: ↑If people are going to make any claims about what Yahweh is like, the Bible is the only authoritative source, no matter how people would like for God to be like. On what basis do you support your beliefs about Yahweh?

A: Yahweh is the Judaic God of the OT and of Jesus.

Not sure what you mean except to somehow directly hear from God.

otseng wrote: ↑I also asked you if I can't use the Bible, then what can I use?

A: Use your instincts, use your judgement use common sense.

Without the Bible, we would have a generic sense of God, but we would have no specific knowledge of God. It could be the gods of the Hindus, or the god of the Muslims, or the gods of the African tribes, or any myriad of gods.

Also, on this forum, we use empirical evidence to support our arguments per the rules. Anything else is merely opinions and have no weight.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.
viewtopic.php?t=6

otseng wrote: ↑Do you believe objective morality exists? On what basis do you justify that?

A: I explained objective morality, it is what goes down all the time, it is why a rock slides down a hill.

That is not a justification for the belief.

I'm not even sure why you're participating in this thread. What is your position on the reliability and authority of the Bible?

A: At the moment ,I am on this thread because I fundamentally disagree with you. I think that your words are without sense. I have attempted to display the Bible's truth and everyday relevance on this thread despite all else. The Bible has it's own authority as a Vessel of Enlightenment to us all. The credits go to those who honestly participate in it's study and that includes you, Otseng.

How can you display the Bible's truth if you're just using your instincts and not offer any evidence? Why should your opinion of what Yahweh is like trump what the Bible says?

[otseng]

If the deaths of babies are collateral damage from "punishing the wicked", it isn't just tragic; it's unjust.

Not really sure it can be classified as "unjust" either. Unjust implies the concept of fairness. Exactly what is fair? Is it fair for parents to have children to be killed by the flood when they knew the flood was going to happen within a few years?

How does your flood model match up with earth science?

I've already spent a long time talking about the flood and presented the flood model at:
viewtopic.php?p=1055177#p1055177

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

Not sure what evidence you are talking about. What verse are you referring to?

Matthew 24:38-39.

That passage says nothing about babies.

Again, the babies aren't warned.

How can babies be warned? If babies are "warned", can they understand it?

As for Jesus's return, nobody knows when that will happen.

Again, it wouldn't matter since it's supposed to be the same at that time as in the days of Noah.

The difference is we don't know exactly when Jesus will return.

[Mat 24:42 KJV] 42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

If we knew Jesus will return in, let's say, one year, then it would most likely drastically change how we live for the remaining months.

Like in the Netflix movie, Don't Look Up, impending doom was going to happen to the Earth. It drastically changed how the protagonists lived. Though the movie was meant to allude to climate change, I'm sure the skeptical and mocking attitude was also the sentiment during the time of the flood.

Are you conceding that the type of deity you're describing couldn't create the universe? If so, how is he the god of it?

Of course God created the universe. I discussed this in the cosmology subtopic.

According to me, all people have objective morality because all people are created in the image of God.

Then you invalidate your own argument for the morality of skeptics being "just their opinion".

I also claim all people are made in the image of God. Do atheists believe this? No.

If skeptics have a rational justification for their morality being objective, then it's not just their opinion. However, they have none as I've demonstrated earlier, so all moral statements by skeptics are just their opinion.

Everybody holds to a particular worldview and that worldview has to be consistent. An atheist cannot claim at the same time God does not exist and then borrow Christian ethical justifications to then believe objective morality exists. If they claim they do have objective morality, then it counters their belief God does not exist. That is why unbelievers who truly understand this do not claim objective morality exists, like atheist philosopher Joel Marks.

Even if all the adults had been warned, what would the warning have been? "If you don't stop sinning, I'm going to unjustly kill all your children along with you"?

The warning is there will be a judgment coming soon. And there will be a way to escape the judgment through the ark.

Further, there's no possible method to even save them.

If that's the case, it's just part of the problem. How could a perfectly just deity punish the wicked in a way which couldn't be prevented from harming the non-wicked along with them?

This is the omnipotent God argument again.

Then what room do you leave yourself to condemn the sacrifice of any child to any god by any means?

Because it is tragic for babies to die.

Can any perfectly just god do something thoroughly unjust and then buy his way off the hook by offering some eternal reward as a bribe?

What bribe are you talking about? Where was it stated a bribe was offered by God?

Do any Jews hold to the position you're suggesting?

They put a Judaism-friendly spin on the story.

Please cite a Jewish source that holds to the position that you're claiming.

You've stated that all of us being made in God's image gives us an objective sense of morality. I, like "skeptics", have been relating what our objective morality tells us about the flood story, even if you find that inconvenient.

Your worldview has to be consistent and cannot just borrow my beliefs when it is convenient. I have justifications for objective morality. Whereas you have admitted you have no justification for you having objective morality. If you want to be consistent as well, my position is the God of the Old Testament has not acted immorally. So, if you are borrowing my objective morality, then it pretty much ends the discussion.

And since the one in Genesis isn't the oldest of them, wouldn't it be less likely to be the true one?

In written form, the Genesis account is not the oldest, but it must've been in an oral form earlier. The question though is not what is the oldest, but did a global flood occur. And as I've shown, there are many extra-Biblical accounts that attests to this.

[otseng]

Its clear as day that non-human animals and babies are innocent.

I've already argued babies are neither innocent nor guilty. You might not accept my argument, but I've already addressed this many times.

Your argument: "Is it wrong to perform an abortion?
Is it wrong to kill and eat animals?"

I asked these to discuss the morality of these situations.

With abortions, I've already brought up the case of choosing the life of the mother or the child. There is no win-win situation in this case. So it is also with the flood.

With eating animals, from your position, you seem to also agree this is not a win-win situation. With my position, I do not believe it is wrong to kill and eat animals. They are not created in the image of God, so it is not immoral to be a carnivore.

I clearly gave examples where Yahweh punished the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.

I take it you mean the babies killed in wars. As I've posted before, this was standard warfare practice in the ANE. None of the cultures at that time thought this was abnormal or unusual.

Could God have ordered not to kill the babies? Perhaps. There are some possible explanations for this. One is the babies would eventually lead them astray and lead them to the Canaanite practices. Another is a demonstration of the total depravity of the Canaanites and it required their total annihilation.

Is it tragic babies are killed in wars? Yes. But it is not tragic in the sense that I don't believe the babies are going to hell when they die.

"For I will go through the land of Egypt on that night, and fatally strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the human firstborn to animals; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments—I am Yahweh.""(Exodus 12:12)

Theoretically, if the Egyptians as well put the blood over their doorposts, their first born would not have died.

There is no ad hominem here.

Making statements such as "You have defeated yourself without knowing it. So funny." is a personal comment.

Additional ad hom and uncivil comments you've made:
"Never have I ever seen one to avoid so much.
The desperate straw-man continues.
The concept of Yawheh is illogical and stupid.
It was you logic sir. You were finished by your own logic. So funny. "