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: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 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
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Omniperfect

Post #3631

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:37 am Again, I agree God is perfect. But how are these things differentiating between perfect and omniperfect?
There could be logically a being that is perfect in all aspects but not omniscient.
That being is almost omniperfect.
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:37 am God most likely is omniscient since he knows all things. As for omnibenevolence, I'm not so sure.
Common man you said you agree God is omnibenevolent.
Q: Why would an benevolent omnipotent, omniscient being not be omnibenevolent unless it is a malevolent one?
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:37 am The Bible does not say this. Where does it say God is "perfect in every sense"?
Words like "his works are perfect", "his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless;", "all his ways are just","who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.

God being maximally omnipotent can do anything logically possible as long as it does not contradict its perfectly good-omnibenevolent side.
God being omniscient and omnibenevolent.
There is not a being that can be conceived that is more perfect.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

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

Post #3632

Post by otseng »

[Replying to William in post #3637]

[Replying to Muckman in post #3638]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #3639]

The flood is a very interesting and massive topic. In this thread, we've already devoted a large section to discussing it and we've moved past it a long time ago. After this thread is completed, we can explore more about the flood in other threads. For now, let's return to the current topic, which is slavery.
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Jan 07, 2024 4:56 pm [Replying to otseng in post #3627
This is just a diversionary tactic. You've never even answered the question I posed:
otseng wrote: ↑I don't even think you read what I wrote about the Scablands. What did Bertz and Pardee propose and why was the former rejected and the latter accepted?
otseng wrote:When Bertz theorized a cataclysmic flood to explain the Scablands, geologists automatically rejected it, even though he had plenty of evidence for it. No geologist was going to accept anything that would confirm the Bible. It was only until Pardee came along and proposed an ice dam as the cause did geologists accept a local flood explanation of the Scablands. However, Bertz had much more evidence for the flood than did Pardee for an ice dam. It was only until a non-Biblical explanation could be offered would it be accepted.
This is what you wrote. According to you, the flood narrative was rejected because of bias.
Yes, and I presented the evidence of Bertz and the Scablands as evidence of bias.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: Omniperfect

Post #3633

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 3:22 am
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 05, 2024 7:37 am Again, I agree God is perfect. But how are these things differentiating between perfect and omniperfect?
There could be logically a being that is perfect in all aspects but not omniscient.
That being is almost omniperfect.
And where in the Bible does it say God is "prefect in all aspects"? And why qualify it with "almost" omniperfect? What is the difference between omniperfect (which you've been claiming God is) and almost omniperfect?
Q: Why would an benevolent omnipotent, omniscient being not be omnibenevolent unless it is a malevolent one?
Again, I don't believe God is omnipotent. Also, your question is a false dichotomy.
There is not a being that can be conceived that is more perfect.
I don't really like arguments about what people can conceive. People can conceive anything they want. If skeptics accept arguments involving what we can conceive, then they must also accept Anselm's ontological argument that God exists.
The core of Anselm’s position is that God is “a being than which no greater can be conceived.” According to Anselm, existing is “greater than” not existing; therefore, God must exist as the “greatest” thing of which one can conceive.
https://www.gotquestions.org/ontological-argument.html

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

War slaves

Post #3634

Post by otseng »

Regarding taking war captives as slaves, this was the standard practice in the ANE.
Slavery in the ancient world, from the earliest known recorded evidence in Sumer to the pre-medieval Antiquity Mediterranean cultures, comprised a mixture of debt-slavery, slavery as a punishment for crime, and the enslavement of prisoners of war.

In Ancient Egypt, slaves were mainly obtained through prisoners of war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_antiquity
Slaves were generated in many ways. Probably the most frequent was capture in war, either by design, as a form of incentive to warriors, or as an accidental by-product, as a way of disposing of enemy troops or civilians.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/slavery-sociology
That prisoners of war, spared on the battle field, were reduced to slavery is amply attested in the annals of the long history of the Ancient Near East.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3209170
The economic advantages derived by the state from this practice were obvious enough to make all conquerors follow the example set at the dawn of history. The great projects of military fortifications, of road, irrigation, and temple construction, accomplished by the state would have been almost impossible without the help of the war prisoners, many of whom were skilled craftsman.
https://biblicalscholarship.wordpress.c ... endelsohn/
Throughout Egyptian history, the best-attested method of entry into enslaved status was through abduction as a prisoner of war.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... -13260-5_3

For the cities that God did not command to annihilate, they offered them surrender terms. If they accepted, they would become tributaries. If they did not accept, all the men would be killed and the women and children would be war captives.

[Deu 20:10-14 KJV] 10 When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11 And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, [that] all the people [that is] found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: Morality and Evolutionary Biology

Post #3635

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Tue Nov 28, 2023 6:40 am
At best, evolution can only account for subjective morality, but not objective morality.
The argument at least suggested by this passage is that our moral sense, which generates our moral beliefs, has the shape and content it has because of the contingencies of human ecology; had creatures with a very different ecology, such as bees, come to be rational, they would thus have developed a very different moral sense suitable to their ecology. But then which of these very different moral senses could be expected reliably to track moral truths (if they exist)? The answer seems to be: neither (unless we simply relativize moral truths to various possible ecologies, taking such truths to reduce to facts about effective genetic propagation—though as we saw in section 3, such a move has little moral plausibility). For moral senses are contingent products of particular ecologies in a way that cannot be expected to track independent and stable moral truths. We and the hypothetical rational bees will thus have very different moral outlooks, each of which is explicable in terms of our respective ecologies and will seem quite natural to those who occupy the relevant ecology (while the other’s outlook will seem bizarre), but neither of which seems to have any claim to be a reliable guide to moral truth (as usually conceived).
Evolution isn't the only extenal pressure that may determine if Objective Morals exist, sans God. I think it's incumbent on Theists to acknowledge that if their God can somehow exist fully formed with morals in place, then so too could a universe or the non-theistic cause of the universe. Otherwise, the Theist has to admit they intend to mean that "Objective Moral values reside in and are determined by the Subject, God, ie., Subjective."

It wouldn't be the first time Theists are contradictory, but one has to accept this.

Put another way, whatever imbedded God with specific moral values, could have imbedded them in the Universe.
Or, perhaps Moral values are simply tied to Reason - in which case, there are objective Ought's tied directly to a complete rational argument, given all the information. (The fact that we don't have all the information is irrelevant).

After all, if there is a God, and there are Objective moral values then they are somehow imbedded in Gods character, despite his efforts. If he thinks eating shellfish is bad - it's bad. Not for any reason except it was imbedded in his head.
However, if there is a reason for not eating shellfish (allergies?) then it's clearly an objective reason wher God likes it or not.

(For example, it is morally wrong to feed shellfish to someone who is allergic to them and doesn't want to die. However, if a person is not allergic, it isn't as morally wrong. Hence my mention of information.).

The point is, we will never know if OMVs exist so there is really no important discussion surrounding them, but if they are to be discussed, it must be acknowledged that OMVs can exist without a God. Whether via Evolution or not. (Evolution is a Red Herring).
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: Omniperfect

Post #3636

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 7:08 am And where in the Bible does it say God is "prefect in all aspects"?
Q: Do I need to spam again and again the same words? Are you trolling me?

"his works are perfect", "his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless;", "all his ways are just","who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.
Plus as your own admission God is also perfectly benevolent-perfectly good and has perfect knowledge.

otseng wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 7:08 am And why qualify it with "almost" omniperfect? What is the difference between omniperfect (which you've been claiming God is) and almost omniperfect?
Because his not knowledge is not perfect. Therefore is not perfect in all aspects. Ergo not omniperfect.
otseng wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 7:08 am
Again, I don't believe God is omnipotent. Also, your question is a false dichotomy.
You are seriously trolling me.
Omnipotence: Can do anything logically possible including Evil but choose not to because of his omnibenevolent-perfectly good side.

Q: You do not agree with the above?


otseng wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 7:08 am
I don't really like arguments about what people can conceive. People can conceive anything they want. If skeptics accept arguments involving what we can conceive, then they must also accept Anselm's ontological argument that God exists.
https://www.gotquestions.org/ontological-argument.html
This is beyond ridiculous. It is becoming sad.
Sir I am going with religious people logic and the Bible verses.
I was not using Anselms argument Dear Cthulhu.
If all attributes are in perfect-omnistate then we have omniperfect being.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: Morality and Evolutionary Biology

Post #3637

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 8:50 am The point is, we will never know if OMVs exist so there is really no important discussion surrounding them, but if they are to be discussed, it must be acknowledged that OMVs can exist without a God. Whether via Evolution or not. (Evolution is a Red Herring).
What are you claiming? Objective moral values do or do not exist? If you claim agnosticism, then you cannot claim to have any objective moral values.

As for evolution, it might be a red herring for you, but for atheists that believe objective morality exists, it's pretty much the only possible explanation they have.
Evolution isn't the only extenal pressure that may determine if Objective Morals exist, sans God. I think it's incumbent on Theists to acknowledge that if their God can somehow exist fully formed with morals in place, then so too could a universe or the non-theistic cause of the universe.
If there's something else besides evolution, the burden is on the atheist to provide what that is.

As for the universe coming prepackaged with morality built into it, I have not seen anyone propose this. Can you point to any philosopher that posits this?

Further, if you do propose this, it refutes naturalism and supports teleology.
It wouldn't be the first time Theists are contradictory, but one has to accept this.
Actually, I see your proposal of the universe having morality embedded in it as contradictory.
Or, perhaps Moral values are simply tied to Reason - in which case, there are objective Ought's tied directly to a complete rational argument, given all the information. (The fact that we don't have all the information is irrelevant).
Are you saying morality is simply a function of rationality? I think they are two separate things. We see this in philosophy where ethics is a separate branch from epistemology. Also we see a separation between the two in psychopaths. It is possible for a psychopath to be completely rational. Further, morality is impossible to reduce to a set of axioms and it is more of an intuitive knowledge.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: Omniperfect

Post #3638

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 9:11 am Q: Do I need to spam again and again the same words? Are you trolling me?

"his works are perfect", "his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless;", "all his ways are just","who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.
Who's the one trolling? Even the quotes you have from above only say "perfect" and does not have "omniperfect".
otseng wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 7:08 am And why qualify it with "almost" omniperfect? What is the difference between omniperfect (which you've been claiming God is) and almost omniperfect?
Because his not knowledge is not perfect. Therefore is not perfect in all aspects. Ergo not omniperfect.
If God is not omniperfect, then it supports my position that God is not omniperfect, not your position that God is omniperfect.
Omnipotence: Can do anything logically possible including Evil but choose not to because of his omnibenevolent-perfectly good side.
I can sort of agree God could do anything that is logically possible. But the problem is this is more of a philosophical argument than a Biblical argument.
otseng wrote: Mon Jan 08, 2024 7:08 am I don't really like arguments about what people can conceive. People can conceive anything they want. If skeptics accept arguments involving what we can conceive, then they must also accept Anselm's ontological argument that God exists.
https://www.gotquestions.org/ontological-argument.html
I was not using Anselms argument Dear Cthulhu.
If all attributes are in perfect-omnistate then we have omniperfect being.
I didn't state you are using the ontological argument. I said you are using what is conceivable as an argument, which is what the ontological argument also uses. You stated, "There is not a being that can be conceived that is more perfect." My point is if you are going to use this line of argumentation, then I'll use the ontological argument to prove God exists.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

God owns us

Post #3639

Post by otseng »

The Bible states God owns everything, including all people.

[Deu 10:14 KJV] 14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens [is] the LORD'S thy God, the earth [also], with all that therein [is].

[Psa 24:1 KJV] 1 [[A Psalm of David.]] The earth [is] the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

[Psa 50:12 NIV] 12 If I were hungry I would not tell you, for the world is mine, and all that is in it.

[Psa 89:11 KJV] 11 The heavens [are] thine, the earth also [is] thine: [as for] the world and the fulness thereof, thou hast founded them.

[Job 41:11 NIV] 11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.

"As the Creator of all things, God holds the certificate of ownership for all that is in the world, including the people in it."
https://iblp.org/what-principle-ownership/

Even further, Christians have been bought/redeemed and we are now servants/slaves of Christ.

[1Co 6:19-20 KJV] 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.

[1Co 7:23 KJV] 23 Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

[1Pe 1:18-19 KJV] 18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, [as] silver and gold, from your vain conversation [received] by tradition from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

"God doesn’t just own the universe. He owns you and me. We are twice his—first by creation, second by redemption." Randy Alcorn
https://www.epm.org/blog/2014/Feb/24/gods-ownership
Paul reminded the Corinthians that ownership of their bodies had been transferred to Christ. They no longer had the right or freedom to use their bodies any way they wished. Just as slaves were purchased in the ancient world, we were bought with the price of Christ’s blood on the cross. We now belong to Him (1 Corinthians 7:22). We don’t have the right to rebel against our Master by using our bodies in ways He forbids.
https://www.gotquestions.org/bought-with-a-price.html

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14114
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1640 times
Contact:

Re: Morality and Evolutionary Biology

Post #3640

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #3637]
What are you claiming? Objective moral values do or do not exist? If you claim agnosticism, then you cannot claim to have any objective moral values.
I have heard the idea of "OMV's" before but fail to understand what these are. Perhaps it is because I am an Agnostic...?

It seems a trivial statement to me, because as an Agnostic (someone who supports the position of Agnosticism/remaining Agnostic about claims which are made) I find the claim that objective morals exists, is unsupported.
Indeed, how can someone “have” objective morals? It’s like saying someone has thoughts and purely subjective for that. Morals are not like an object on can possess/own.

So the statement is correct, but also misleading, as it implies that Agnostics don’t have morals, in the same way as the homeless don’t have homes.
As for the universe coming prepackaged with morality built into it, I have not seen anyone propose this. Can you point to any philosopher that posits this?
You're in luck! I write about that fairly frequently (and a lot of other deep meaning/philosophical subjects) and have said in past posts how - if the Universe is Mindful, morality could indeed be said to be built into it.

It is certainly built into human beings/the human experience and in that, we speak of it as a real thing.
Where else does it "come" from, if not the mind of the matter?

If we are to objectify the mind in order to bring about the idea that morality is objective/that there exist OMV's, then okay - lets give the universe a mind.

Now where do we find within Nature outside of us, this stuff called "morals/morality"?

Do we see it in other animals - yes we do. But we find it most prevalently in/through out human experience.
And why are we humans so hung up on morality - even to the point of trying to objectify it?

Good folk know that the answer is simply so we can survive enough to be able to hang around and argue about it. So morals, whether they exist externally or not (currently unanswered) still exist within the human collective (humanity) and are objectivized outwards into the local environment - which may be where the idea morals are objective comes from, because we subjectively see each other objectifying them into the shared experience we are having.

But can we use that understanding on the rest of the universe? Can we see morality in the actions of the Sun, or Moon, or Earth?

And if so, are we "suffering" from pareidolia or simply acknowledging that there is some type of moral compass involved in its happenings.

Post Reply