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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3554

I presented multiple additional translations to also support it. And how would they know how catastrophic the flood would be? Even we don't fully know after the fact.

You presented multiple translations which say the same thing: they don't know. And the context makes clear that what they don't know is that anything at all is going to happen. It isn't saying that they don't know how catastrophic it will be, when it will start or what they will have for lunch tomorrow. It says that they don't expect anything.

No. It's because of the bias against anything that remotely comes close to the Bible.

I can't get the link to your source to work, so I don't have a way to examine your charge of bias. In lieu of that:

"In 1961, Henry Morris and John Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood, which laid out a radical rejection of modern geology and instead gave the biblical flood credit for almost all geological features and fossils in the world. The Grand Canyon emerged as “exhibit A” in their creation science apologetics. And, why not? Some five million tourists visit the national park every year! Continuing to this day, advocates of flood geology sell attractive books and offer bus, hiking, and raft tours to convince (or reassure) visitors that the Grand Canyon indeed provides breathtaking evidence of Noah’s flood and its aftermath. They invite seminary professors on free raft trips to ensure that the young earth view and flood geology is propagated to future pastors. However, the overwhelming majority of geologists, including Christian geologists who affirm the authority of the Bible, reject the flood geology narrative.

In a new book, The Grand Canyon, Monument to an Ancient Earth, eleven authors describe the geology of the canyon rocks and landforms and focus on the claims of flood geologists. The authors are a mix of Christian and non-Christian professional earth scientists who are concerned about the impact of flood geology on public science literacy and, especially for the Christian authors, the negative impact of a gospel message associated with faulty scientific explanations."

https://biologos.org/articles/flood-geo ... really-say

Yes, they didn't believe in the warning.

Then you concede that they wouldn't have considered warning their children necessary.


Would anyone with that attitude be able to warn their week-old baby of anything just before it happened?

I thought we just agreed babies cannot be "warned".

We did, and that's still the point.

Muslims can claim whatever they want. But this thread is not to discuss Islam or any other religion.

That's a tricky thing you do. I counter your claim with an analogy and you dismiss it by rejecting the specifics of the analogy.

If anybody claims they have objective morality and they have no viable justification for it, then it's a faith claim. How is it any different than a Christian claiming the Bible is the word of God and then fail to provide any justification for it?

If you're going to state that being made in God's image instills everyone with objective morality, then you have provided justification for everyone's claim to objective morality and you have to accept that justification as valid because it came from you.

Though I claim all people have objective morality, it does not mean everyone's morals are fully identical.

And here's where you claim that your morals are better than those of everyone who doesn't believe as you do?

Any religion that believes in a creator God that instills in humans the image of God has a rational basis for objective morality. Other than that, no other viable justification has been offered. To be rationally consistent, if one claims to have objective morality, then one should believe in a God as described in the Bible.

The Golden Rule, which appears in biblical and nonbiblical belief systems, is the core foundation of all morality, but you claim that only the Bible teaches it? That every nonbiblical religion is immoral?


You're going to have to paint a picture for me as to how a global deluge would be necessary for the advent of our modern appliances.

I'd be glad to sometime, but we are getting really off track from the discussion on morality.

If you can't substantiate it now, why bring it up now?

I'm talking about the "14 million+ people" figure.

That didn't come from Ussher. That came from historians.

But again, it's irrelevant since it doesn't matter if it was 14 thousand or 14 billion people.

That's right. Such a tiny ark wouldn't have been able to carry anywhere near all of them even if they had been given a fair chance to repent.

As I've argued, I believe they were warned. Though an argument can be made if they were sufficiently warned.

I've argued that they aren't sufficiently warned in the story.

I did not state it was a "bribe".

You didn't have to. I was identifying what you were describing.

A major theme of the Bible is sin and judgment. So, the narrative of the Canaanite conquest is consistent with this.

"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."
---Mark Twain

I don't claim anyone's morality is more objective than another's.

What I am pointing out is whatever worldview you have, it has less explanatory power than mine in regards to morality.

What more "explanatory power" is needed than belief in an underlying Intelligence which wants us to treat others the way we want them to treat us? Does morality require belief in a cosmic patriarch who demands worship?


Can you then turn around and say that atheists don't have souls because they have no "justification" for having souls?

Do atheists claim they have souls?

It isn't about what they claim. It's about what you claim about them.

[alexxcJRO]

No, logic says it's wrong. But I've covered this many times and I'll let readers assess my arguments.

Bad logic maybe. Desperation to save what cannot be saved maybe.

Anyhow its somehow irrelevant what we label the non-moral agents. They have done nothing wrong. They deserve nothing wrong to happening to them.
Ultimately the gratuitous suffering caused or ordered by this omni-perfect being Yahweh poses still a big issue.

We have Yahweh himself ordering this or doing it himself: punishing the non-moral agents together with the moral agents. Clearly giving commands for the inflicting of suffering, pain and death to non-moral agents or doing the deeds himself according to the stories. Having no regard or care for those that clearly are not guilty of any wrongdoing: infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired from birth, unborn babies.

That has been your only response to my arguments that they are stupid, but you have not provided any substantive reasoning. Again, we're just rehashing things over and over and I'll be continuing on to the next area of debate.

Common sir how it is not stupid to say it required the total annihilation of non-moral agents when we have an omni-perfect being that is able to conjures universes using only words.
Common sir how it is not stupid to say it required the total annihilation of non-human animals.
Off course it did not required the total annihilation of non-human animals.
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.

Who's claiming God is "omni-perfect"? This is just another of the "omni" arguments that skeptics use to paint an imaginary straw man God.

Real comedy.
You did sir.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

Here evidence:
post #3420

viewtopic.php?p=1137637#p1137637

The definition you provided supports that your all your comments are personal and not related to the argument.

Everything you say its wrong.
You have to avoid the argument.
Not avoidance plus personal remarks does not equal add hominem.

[otseng]

It isn't saying that they don't know how catastrophic it will be, when it will start or what they will have for lunch tomorrow. It says that they don't expect anything.

They didn't expect anything because they didn't believe the warning. Do you agree at a minimum people saw the ark that was being built in his backyard?

However, the overwhelming majority of geologists, including Christian geologists who affirm the authority of the Bible, reject the flood geology narrative

This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

It uses an appeal to the beliefs, tastes, or values of a group of people, stating that because a certain opinion or attitude is held by a majority, it is therefore correct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Then you concede that they wouldn't have considered warning their children necessary.

I thought we just agreed babies cannot be "warned".

We did, and that's still the point.

So there's nothing to concede on my part.

Muslims can claim whatever they want. But this thread is not to discuss Islam or any other religion.

That's a tricky thing you do. I counter your claim with an analogy and you dismiss it by rejecting the specifics of the analogy.

Sticking to the topic is not a tricky thing to do.

If you're going to state that being made in God's image instills everyone with objective morality, then you have provided justification for everyone's claim to objective morality and you have to accept that justification as valid because it came from you.

In a general sense, yes. In argumentation, no. We are all arguing from our own position and each side's position has to be consistent. And if there is a contradiction in one side's position, then it weakens their case.

Do I walk around in everyday life treating others as if they have subjective morality? No. But, on this forum, I'm defending my position and attacking the opposing position.

And here's where you claim that your morals are better than those of everyone who doesn't believe as you do?

No, I do not claim my morals are better than anyone else's. I still sin and fall short of the glory of God.

The Golden Rule, which appears in biblical and nonbiblical belief systems, is the core foundation of all morality, but you claim that only the Bible teaches it? That every nonbiblical religion is immoral?

Never stated that. What I have stated is all people are created in the image of God and are instilled with objective morality. They can intuitively know things such as the Golden Rule.

I'd be glad to sometime, but we are getting really off track from the discussion on morality.

If you can't substantiate it now, why bring it up now?

Because you mentioned about other things that should have happened besides the flood:

You keep saying that there wasn't any way so save them, but logically they wouldn't have to be put in such danger. Instead of a flood, how about a crop failure? How about an outbreak of leprosy which affects only the guilty adults? There would be who-knows-how-many ways to get such a message across, none of which would involve wiping out innocent children.

Does morality require belief in a cosmic patriarch who demands worship?

I don't believe God demands worship. Worship is freely decided upon by people. If people don't want to worship God, it's their prerogative. Just like the flood, if people want to go on with their lives without accepting the ark for their salvation, nobody is forcing them to believe.

It's about what you claim about them.

And what I've claimed is atheists have no justification for objective morality, which I've demonstrated in multiple posts.

[otseng]

Who's claiming God is "omni-perfect"? This is just another of the "omni" arguments that skeptics use to paint an imaginary straw man God.

You did sir.
You said this yourself: "I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.", "I do not dispute God is omni-perfect."

Then I'll dispute it now. How do you define what it means that God is omniperfect?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3563

They didn't expect anything because they didn't believe the warning. Do you agree at a minimum people saw the ark that was being built in his backyard?

If they didn't believe it, they wouldn't have passed it on even to children who were old enough to understand it. Thus, children who have done nothing wrong are wiped out without even a warning.


"However, the overwhelming majority of geologists, including Christian geologists who affirm the authority of the Bible, reject the flood geology narrative"

This is the argumentum ad populum fallacy.

No, it isn't. It's scientific consensus on peer-reviewed evidence.

Saying, "Scientists deny a global flood because they're biased" is ad hominem.


Then you concede that they wouldn't have considered warning their children necessary.

I thought we just agreed babies cannot be "warned".

We did, and that's still the point.

So there's nothing to concede on my part.

It isn't just the babies. Again, if they didn't believe the warning then they wouldn't have bothered with warning older children.


The Golden Rule, which appears in biblical and nonbiblical belief systems, is the core foundation of all morality, but you claim that only the Bible teaches it? That every nonbiblical religion is immoral?

Never stated that. What I have stated is all people are created in the image of God and are instilled with objective morality. They can intuitively know things such as the Golden Rule.

Then they can intuitively know that babies who've done nothing wrong shouldn't be wiped out by judgements sent to punish the guilty.

I don't believe God demands worship.

You don't believe which god demands worship? What does the 1st commandment of the Decalogue mean?

Worship is freely decided upon by people. If people don't want to worship God, it's their prerogative.

And what if they don't? Deuteronomy 28:15-68?


It's about what you claim about them.

And what I've claimed is atheists have no justification for objective morality, which I've demonstrated in multiple posts.

But I've pointed out the weakness in what you've "demonstrated".

[otseng]

Saying, "Scientists deny a global flood because they're biased" is ad hominem.

I've already presented the evidence of bias regarding the Scablands explanation.

Everyone is biased. Bottom line, it doesn't matter how many people believe something or if people are biased, what is important is the evidence and logical arguments.

Then you concede that they wouldn't have considered warning their children necessary.

I thought we just agreed babies cannot be "warned".

We did, and that's still the point.

Then I don't understand your point. If children can't be warned, then why is warning children necessary or not necessary?

Again, if they didn't believe the warning then they wouldn't have bothered with warning older children.

At a minimum, older children most likely would have also heard the story of the crazy family with the large boat in their backyard. To give you a scale of the size of the ark, here is a photo of a replica of it:

Then they can intuitively know that babies who've done nothing wrong shouldn't be wiped out by judgements sent to punish the guilty.

Sure, I agree babies dying is a tragic situation. We've both fully explained our stance on this multiple times.

I don't believe God demands worship.

You don't believe which god demands worship? What does the 1st commandment of the Decalogue mean?

[Exo 20:3 KJV] 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

It doesn't say anything about demanding worship. It says don't worship other gods. Sure, by implication it means we're to only worship Yahweh, but is there a command that says "Thou must worship God"? If there is, I'll retract my statement that God doesn't demand worship.

Worship is freely decided upon by people. If people don't want to worship God, it's their prerogative.

And what if they don't? Deuteronomy 28:15-68?

And if they serve other gods, then it'll be disastrous.

And what I've claimed is atheists have no justification for objective morality, which I've demonstrated in multiple posts.

But I've pointed out the weakness in what you've "demonstrated".

What weakness are you referring to? All I recall is you mentioning from my viewpoint I see all people having objective morality.

[otseng]

There is not an equivalent word in Hebrew or Greek for the English word "slave".

In the Hebrew, the word used is eḇeḏ. It means:
servant (744x), manservant (23x), bondman (21x), bondage (10x), bondservant (1x), on all sides (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

It is used 800 times in the Old Testament.

Some examples:

[Gen 24:34 KJV] 34 And he said, I [am] Abraham's servant.[H5650]

[Gen 42:13 KJV] 13 And they said, Thy servants[H5650] [are] twelve brethren, the sons of one man in the land of Canaan; and, behold, the youngest [is] this day with our father, and one [is] not.

[Num 12:7 KJV] 7 My servant[H5650] Moses [is] not so, who [is] faithful in all mine house.

[Jos 9:8 KJV] 8 And they said unto Joshua, We [are] thy servants.[H5650] And Joshua said unto them, Who [are] ye? and from whence come ye?

[1Sa 17:32 KJV] 32 And David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; thy servant[H5650] will go and fight with this Philistine.

[2Sa 7:5 KJV] 5 Go and tell my servant[H5650] David, Thus saith the LORD, Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in?

[1Ki 3:7 KJV] 7 And now, O LORD my God, thou hast made thy servant[H5650] king instead of David my father: and I [am but] a little child: I know not [how] to go out or come in.

[Psa 34:22 KJV] 22 The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants:[H5650] and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate.

[Isa 20:3 KJV] 3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant[H5650] Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years [for] a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;

[Jer 46:27 KJV] 27 But fear not thou, O my servant[H5650] Jacob, and be not dismayed, O Israel: for, behold, I will save thee from afar off, and thy seed from the land of their captivity; and Jacob shall return, and be in rest and at ease, and none shall make [him] afraid.

[Dan 9:17 KJV] 17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant,[H5650] and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake.

In the Greek, the word is doulos. It means:
servant (120x), bond (6x), bondman (1x).
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

Is is used 127 times in the New Testament.

Some examples:

[Mat 20:27 KJV] 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:[G1401]

[Mat 25:21 KJV] 21 His lord said unto him, Well done, [thou] good and faithful servant:[G1401] thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

[Act 16:17 KJV] 17 The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants[G1401] of the most high God, which shew unto us the way of salvation.

[Rom 1:1 KJV] 1 Paul, a servant[G1401] of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

[2Co 4:5 KJV] 5 For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants[G1401] for Jesus' sake.

[Gal 1:10 KJV] 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant[G1401] of Christ.

[Phl 2:7 KJV] 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,[G1401] and was made in the likeness of men:

[Jas 1:1 KJV] 1 James, a servant[G1401] of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

[2Pe 1:1 KJV] 1 Simon Peter, a servant[G1401] and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:

[Jde 1:1 KJV] 1 Jude, the servant[G1401] of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, [and] called:

[Rev 1:1 KJV] 1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants[G1401] things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant[G1401] John:

[Rev 22:6 KJV] 6 And he said unto me, These sayings [are] faithful and true: and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to shew unto his servants[G1401] the things which must shortly be done.

[boatsnguitars]

The Bible is also a human book, and so it's subject to human errors.

I'm curious about this statement. What, other than a human book, is it?

It appears you are starting with the premise that the Bible is special, and therefore, any errors might only be "alleged errors" - which is simply wrong to start with.

One has to presume that all books are human books - until we have a reason to believe otherwise.

To suggest that you can presume the Bible is special in some regard, and therefore you must give it extra leeway when it has errors, is simply circular reasoning. At that point, stop the farce and just say what you mean: You believe the Bible to be of a kind of divine origin, and therefore, it's always trustworthy. Why the debate if you can simply use Faith as a trump card?

[Data]

The Bible is also a human book, and so it's subject to human errors.

I'm curious about this statement. What, other than a human book, is it?

It appears you are starting with the premise that the Bible is special, and therefore, any errors might only be "alleged errors" - which is simply wrong to start with.

One has to presume that all books are human books - until we have a reason to believe otherwise.

To suggest that you can presume the Bible is special in some regard, and therefore you must give it extra leeway when it has errors, is simply circular reasoning. At that point, stop the farce and just say what you mean: You believe the Bible to be of a kind of divine origin, and therefore, it's always trustworthy. Why the debate if you can simply use Faith as a trump card?

Since the premise was that the book is subject to human errors then your alleged trump card wasn't played. The simple claim of divine origin makes it "special," unique. It having divine origin is ultimately a matter of faith, but that has nothing to do with its translation having errors.

[boatsnguitars]

The Bible is also a human book, and so it's subject to human errors.

I'm curious about this statement. What, other than a human book, is it?

It appears you are starting with the premise that the Bible is special, and therefore, any errors might only be "alleged errors" - which is simply wrong to start with.

One has to presume that all books are human books - until we have a reason to believe otherwise.

To suggest that you can presume the Bible is special in some regard, and therefore you must give it extra leeway when it has errors, is simply circular reasoning. At that point, stop the farce and just say what you mean: You believe the Bible to be of a kind of divine origin, and therefore, it's always trustworthy. Why the debate if you can simply use Faith as a trump card?

Since the premise was that the book is subject to human errors then your alleged trump card wasn't played. The simple claim of divine origin makes it "special," unique. It having divine origin is ultimately a matter of faith, but that has nothing to do with its translation having errors.

It's about being trustworthy. If God had some hand in its preservation, it could full of "errors" - alleged flaws that don't change the trustworthiness of the message - but you'd still be right to call it trustworthy because your faith tells you it is trustworthy in whatever manner supports your faith.

Errors are expected. What isn't expected is a book to somehow retain its trustworthiness despite errors.
And were not talking a few misspellings, or a wrong name.
For example, if the Bible was found to have a story inserted long after the original story, like the Pericope Adulterae, you can say : " She, we can't know if the Bible can be trusted."

They pull the Faith Card and say, " God allowed that interpolation, so it's either historically accurate, or theologically accurate- you can still trust the Bible to be true, even when lying."