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]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... en_(1).tif

Decalogue - Ten Commandments

The Old Testament places a special emphasis on the Decalogue (Ten Commandments). After the commandments were given in Deut 5:1-21, in verse 22 it says they were written on two stone tablets and no more were added.

[Deu 5:22 KJV] 22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

The Decalogue was the only laws that was attributed to be written by the finger of God.

[Exo 31:18 KJV] 18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.

[Deu 9:10-11 KJV] 10 And the LORD delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them [was written] according to all the words, which the LORD spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly. 11 And it came to pass at the end of forty days and forty nights, [that] the LORD gave me the two tables of stone, [even] the tables of the covenant.

"Finger of God" (Hebrew: אצבע אלהים ’etsba‘ ’Ĕlōhîm) is a phrase used in the Torah, translated into the Christian Bible. In Exodus 8:16–20 it is used during the plagues of Egypt by Pharaoh's magicians. In Exodus 31:18 and Deuteronomy 9:10 it refers to the method by which the Ten Commandments were written on tablets of stone that were brought down from Mount Sinai by Moses.

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

The tablets of the Ten Commandments were placed in the ark.

According to the Book of Exodus in the Hebrew Bible, the Ark contained the Tablets of the Law, by which God delivered the Ten Commandments to Moses at Mount Sinai. According to the Epistle to the Hebrews in the New Testament, it also contained Aaron's rod and a pot of manna.

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

[Exo 25:21 KJV] 21 And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.

[Deu 10:4-5 KJV] 4 And he wrote on the tables, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me. 5 And I turned myself and came down from the mount, and put the tables in the ark which I had made; and there they be, as the LORD commanded me.

The Ten Commandments have held a prominent position in the American government.

In this case we are faced with a display of the Ten Commandments on government property outside the Texas State Capitol. Such acknowledgments of the role played by the Ten Commandments in our Nation’s heritage are common throughout America. We need only look within our own Courtroom. Since 1935, Moses has stood, holding two tablets that reveal portions of the Ten Commandments written in Hebrew, among other lawgivers in the south frieze. Representations of the Ten Commandments adorn the metal gates lining the north and south sides of the Courtroom as well as the doors leading into the Courtroom. Moses also sits on the exterior east facade of the building holding the Ten Commandments tablets.

Similar acknowledgments can be seen throughout a visitor’s tour of our Nation’s Capital. For example, a large statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside a statue of the Apostle Paul, has overlooked the rotunda of the Library of Congress’ Jefferson Building since 1897. And the Jefferson Building’s Great Reading Room contains a sculpture of a woman beside the Ten Commandments with a quote above her from the Old Testament (Micah 6:8). A medallion with two tablets depicting the Ten Commandments decorates the floor of the National Archives. Inside the Department of Justice, a statue entitled “The Spirit of Law” has two tablets representing the Ten Commandments lying at its feet. In front of the Ronald Reagan Building is another sculpture that includes a depiction of the Ten Commandments. So too a 24-foot-tall sculpture, depicting, among other things, the Ten Commandments and a cross, stands outside the federal courthouse that houses both the Court of Appeals and the District Court for the District of Columbia. Moses is also prominently featured in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives.

Our opinions, like our building, have recognized the role the Decalogue plays in America’s heritage. See, e.g., McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S., at 442; id., at 462 (separate opinion of Frankfurter, J.).[Footnote 10] The Executive and Legislative Branches have also acknowledged the historical role of the Ten Commandments. See, e.g., Public Papers of the Presidents, Harry S. Truman, 1950, p. 157 (1965); S. Con. Res. 13, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997); H. Con. Res. 31, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (1997). These displays and recognitions of the Ten Commandments bespeak the rich American tradition of religious acknowledgments.

Of course, the Ten Commandments are religious—they were so viewed at their inception and so remain. The monument, therefore, has religious significance. According to Judeo-Christian belief, the Ten Commandments were given to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. But Moses was a lawgiver as well as a religious leader. And the Ten Commandments have an undeniable historical meaning, as the foregoing examples demonstrate. Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U. S., at 680, 687; Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U. S., at 792; McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at 437–440; Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 676–678 (1970).

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/677/

Case laws

Case laws are applications of the principles of the Ten Commandments in specific situations. We see such case applications after the giving of the Decalogue (Exodus 20) in Exodus 21. Many of these start with "If thou" or "If his" or "If a man". It is not necessarily they are "commanding" or even "sanctioning" these situations, but merely stating what should happen if these things do occur.

[Exo 21:2 KJV] 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.

[Exo 21:4 KJV] 4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.

[Exo 21:20 KJV] 20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

[Exo 21:26 KJV] 26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake.

A collection of case laws follows, flowing from the Ten Commandments. Instead of developing detailed principles, it gives examples of how to apply God’s law to the kinds of cases that commonly arose in the conduct of daily life. As cases, they are all embedded in the situations faced by the people of Israel.

https://www.theologyofwork.org/old-test ... -211-2333/

Case laws are not generally universally applicable for all time and all cultures.

As you read the case laws, don’t get lost in their seemingly random nature, as though the case laws are time-bound, culture-bound, generational minutiae. Yes, they apply the principles of God’s moral will to certain people at a certain time in a certain cultural context. All the details will not be the same for all people everywhere.

Since the case laws are applications of universal principles, they are not themselves universal principles. This means they may have limited application in their canonized form.

https://www.knowableword.com/2017/06/23 ... of-exodus/

[alexxcJRO]

Bible:
"13 If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense."(Leviticus 20:13)

Q: Is the above objective morality-a morally right act-what we ought to do all humans at all locations?

We'll get to homosexuality later. The current topic is slavery. Do you have anything to chime in on this topic before we explore all the other ethical areas?

The topic is objective morality which you were talking.
I put forward a question relevant to this topic and off course all I saw from the master of deflecting is avoidance.
Typical apologist behaviour: avoid, distract, deflect.

[boatsnguitars]

I've been very clear about my position and I wonder why you refuse to acknowledge or understand it.

I believe morals are subjective. I don't know it. I also know that there are ways that morals could be both Objective and no God exists. You seem to wave this possibility off, but it's the same thing to say that the Universe imposes objective morality, just as God was "born" with objective morality. Both could be explained by Brute Fact.

Contrary to being clear what is your position, I find it quite ambiguous. You believe morals are subjective, yet also don't know it. Also you know that objective morality could exist and you know no Gods exist simultaneously. How would you know that? If you believe morals are subjective, how could objective morals also exist? How do you even know no Gods exist? What is "Brute Fact"?

We both reject this, but you go one further and claim there are OMVs and that God imposes them upon us. You have yet to support this claim.

As for the existence of OMVs, that's why I presented a list earlier:

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

I fully acknowledge we don't know - we can't know - if morals are Objective.

Are the situations I posted above subjective or objective?

You suppose they are, but here is your flaw:

1. God exists
2. God does not exist

A. OMVs exist
B. OMVs do not exist.

The options are:
1A, 2A, 1B, or 2B.

You reject 2B and 2A.

Right, I reject 2, so logically I would also reject 2A and 2B.

Your argument, as far as I can tell, is an Argument from Ignorance. You seem to not be able to see how they could obtain. However, your ignorance is not evidence.

I've presented arguments for the existence of God in the cosmology section. Here's your turn to demonstrate that God does not exist. If you cannot do that, then that would be the one from the position of ignorance.

At this point I really have to wonder about you. You seem to be overly convinced by your own arguments, as if you've solved everything. There is no reason for me to continue to speak to someone who thinks they are the only person in the world who knows the truth about so much.

For everyone else reading:

1. Moral values are a topic of lengthy conversation among philosophers. Only Theists tend to claim they know all about them, as if they can read God's mind. Not only do I not believe they can read God's mind, but I don't believe there is a God, and they haven't shown that there is. Theists claim they've made the argument, as if making an argument makes it true. This is preposterous. Even if the only argument in the world, without rebuttal, was made by Otseng in favor of a God wouldn't mean a God exists. He thinks it does, or so it appears he is trying to convince people of something like this (claiming that if I don't rebut his argument for God means I lose the argument and he wins it.)
2. Moral values are shared among humanity, so when he asks if I agree with the moral values we've come to decide are common to us, he seems to think this is an argument for Objective Moral Values. It's not, he's simply cherry-picking moral values we tend to have in common. Let him ask, "Do you believe gay people should be killed, and slaves can be beaten?" and we will come to the opposite situation where he will have to defend the God of his moral values. There are many moral values, and just because he has chosen a few that we agree on doesn't make them Objective Moral Values. He seems to think they do, otherwise, why does he keep asking?
3. To continue from above, even if we agreed on some moral values, all I can honestly say is that we seem to be in agreement. He seems comfortable extrapolating and deciding that this must mean OMVs exist. However, again from above, if he asked me 2,000 years ago if slavery was good, we both might answer "yes." He's presume from that, that OMVs exist!
The fact is, he can't know OMVs exist anymore than he knows what caused the BB. He's arguing from ignorance. True ignorance.
4. He keeps claiming I have to prove God doesn't exist to argue about moral values. He has conceded that if Atheism is true, then Moral Values are subjective. If I wanted to argue what I believe, I've won. He can't prove a God exists, and he's the one making the claim. I only claim that humanity exists and we develop moral values. He's annoyed by this, but that's on him.
5. However, I don't feel a need to argue that I am right - like he feels the need to. I accept that there are things beyond my knowledge set. I accept that while I believe certain things (some with greater or lesser confidence), I still know a lot less. Moral values are tricky. They do seem to vary over time, they do seem to only exists in some species. (He'd argue that only humans have moral values, I imagine, whereas I don't think moral values are so precisely defined.) In some ways, I agree with the Noncognitivists. However, there are some that seem to be "objectively true" - given certain conditions (not Objective as he believes). Those certain conditions (rational actor, ability to undermine a creatures free will, cause pain, no rational reason for gain, etc.) make certain moral ideas appear to be true in any world that would have those precise conditions. For example, torturing babies for fun: one has to have babies and fun in that world in order for it to be morally bad (or good, depending on the world, or God...). Perhaps, in this world, torturing babies for fun is a practiced form of preparing them for the world? Like cutting off their foreskin... Imagine! Maybe in that world, only worshiping a Creator God is the only true joy allowed, and putting the baby through agonizing pain is a way to properly worship that God... see how moral values are slippery?
6. I've made many arguments, provided articles and videos for why people believe OMVs can obtain in an Atheistic world. I have gone into great depth. Otseng doesn't understand. I can't help that.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3668

It's not that there is no basis for objective morality, it's that skeptics have no justification for it.

If their morality has an objective basis, it doesn't matter whether they believe in such a basis or not. If they're objectively moral, they're objectively moral.

So here's your opportunity again to present your case for the justification of objective morality within your worldview.

"The Golden Rule is the cornerstone of religious understanding. It is the most complete expression of the Oneness of all people, serving as the foundation for peace and universal goodwill on earth."

https://religiousnaturalism.org/the-golden-rule/

[TRANSPONDER]

You are right, or it's the valid rejoinder on the morality argument.

It doesn't have to be objective any more than art,written language or music.Laws sports rules and currency are all human inventions, but we live with them and by them.

But if we want a basis for morality the Golden Rule is an advanced rule of reciprocity which is (the theory goes) something that came out of family and tribal dealings, when the communities became more complex, and that derives from pack co -operation. We see examples and evidence in everything from veloceraptors, diplodocus herds and Smilodon (1) to wolves, dolphins and hyenas. It is (arguably) an evolutionary survival instinct and we need really look no further for an objective basis - it helps us survive.

It isn't perfect, it keeps evolving (like slavery was once ok, now it isn't), it is necessary to enable us to live together, first as tribes and petty kingdoms, then as nations and empires, and now the need for us to want, devise and learn how to live together as a co - operative species is more important than ever.

It is no more to do with a god, and divine laws than it is to do with a cosmic law of good and bad. If the dictators did win and we blew ourselves away when they eventually fell out, the universe would not care. It is and always was in our hands.

(1) fossil evidence of a healed leg -bone. It implies the other sabretooths fed it until it had healed.

[Masterblaster]

You are right, or it's the valid rejoinder on the morality argument.

It doesn't have to be objective any more than art,written language or music.Laws sports rules and currency are all human inventions, but we live with them and by them.

But if we want a basis for morality the Golden Rule is an advanced rule of reciprocity which is (the theory goes) something that came out of family and tribal dealings, when the communities became more complex, and that derives from pack co -operation. We see examples and evidence in everything from veloceraptors, diplodocus herds and Smilodon (1) to wolves, dolphins and hyenas. It is (arguably) an evolutionary survival instinct and we need really look no further for an objective basis - it helps us survive.

It isn't perfect, it keeps evolving (like slavery was once ok, now it isn't), it is necessary to enable us to live together, first as tribes and petty kingdoms, then as nations and empires, and now the need for us to want, devise and learn how to live together as a co - operative species is more important than ever.

It is no more to do with a god, and divine laws than it is to do with a cosmic law of good and bad. If the dictators did win and we blew ourselves away when they eventually fell out, the universe would not care. It is and always was in our hands.

(1) fossil evidence of a healed leg -bone. It implies the other sabretooths fed it until it had healed.

Hello
I am supposed to be on holiday but this has called me back to the office. I cannot allow it to slide by.
The Golden Rule, I like the metal they choose.
" “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Apparently even cats can do it...

TRANSPONDER says" fossil evidence of a healed leg -bone. It implies the other sabretooths fed it until it had healed"

Fix our guy up so that we can hunt more effectively and then we can kill more and make food scarce. Let us then see where that takes us, maybe kill the guy with the gimpy leg.

This is indeed being subject to objective morality. This is what we are already using and have been using. How is that working,? To paraphrase this...

Get others before they get you, we expect them not to just lie down and die, we are going to reciprocate to the best of our ability, if you know what I mean (Houthies).

Belief in ourselves in God, ups the bar to a level we can aspire to reach and sustain, ...maybe even surpass, ie human subjective morality focused to elevate us from our primitive beginnings.
'Love God with all you have and your neighbour with same' My penny's worth.

[otseng]

We'll get to homosexuality later. The current topic is slavery. Do you have anything to chime in on this topic before we explore all the other ethical areas?

The topic is objective morality which you were talking.
I put forward a question relevant to this topic and off course all I saw from the master of deflecting is avoidance.
Typical apologist behaviour: avoid, distract, deflect.

Morality of the Bible is a huge topic and I'm systemically going through it. We are diving into the morality issue and now specifically talking about slavery.

I'll let the reader assess who's the one avoiding and deflecting and making the hypocritical accusations.

[alexxcJRO]

We'll get to homosexuality later. The current topic is slavery. Do you have anything to chime in on this topic before we explore all the other ethical areas?

The topic is objective morality which you were talking.
I put forward a question relevant to this topic and off course all I saw from the master of deflecting is avoidance.
Typical apologist behaviour: avoid, distract, deflect.

Morality of the Bible is a huge topic and I'm systemically going through it. We are diving into the morality issue and now specifically talking about slavery.

I'll let the reader assess who's the one avoiding and deflecting and making the hypocritical accusations.

This not true.
You are not talking with Athetotheist and boatsnguitars about slavery but objective morality.

Q: So why can't you talk with me about objective morality with me, huh?

[otseng]

At this point I really have to wonder about you. You seem to be overly convinced by your own arguments, as if you've solved everything. There is no reason for me to continue to speak to someone who thinks they are the only person in the world who knows the truth about so much.

Instead of answering any of my questions, you just make personal comments about me. This is an indication you have no rational response to the debate.

Only Theists tend to claim they know all about them, as if they can read God's mind. Not only do I not believe they can read God's mind, but I don't believe there is a God, and they haven't shown that there is.

Baseless accusation. No theist, including me, is claiming to know all about them or to read God's mind.

Do you have any justification for your belief there is no God? If you do, why are not willing to present it? Should we create a head-to-head debate for you to present your case?

Theists claim they've made the argument, as if making an argument makes it true. This is preposterous.

This is a debate forum. This is what we do here, to defend our position. Just because a person defends their position, it's not making the argument true.

Even if the only argument in the world, without rebuttal, was made by Otseng in favor of a God wouldn't mean a God exists. He thinks it does, or so it appears he is trying to convince people of something like this (claiming that if I don't rebut his argument for God means I lose the argument and he wins it.)

If there is no rational counter by the skeptics to my arguments, then it shows my position is more rational.

2. Moral values are shared among humanity, so when he asks if I agree with the moral values we've come to decide are common to us, he seems to think this is an argument for Objective Moral Values.

I'm simply providing examples of objective moral values. If you disagree with them, you are free to do so.

Let him ask, "Do you believe gay people should be killed, and slaves can be beaten?" and we will come to the opposite situation where he will have to defend the God of his moral values.

No, I do not believe gay people should be killed or slaves should be beaten. So, these are examples of subjective moral values. The question though it not subjective moral values, but do objective moral values exist?

There are many moral values, and just because he has chosen a few that we agree on doesn't make them Objective Moral Values.

Of course there are many moral values. At a minimum there are subjective moral values and objective moral values.

He seems to think they do, otherwise, why does he keep asking?

Have you even answered my questions? You can simply answer a yes or no to them. Then we can continue to discussion of why you think they should not be considered objective.

3. To continue from above, even if we agreed on some moral values, all I can honestly say is that we seem to be in agreement.

Why do you have to hypothetically answer the questions? Or are you hesitant to admit objective moral values exist?

He seems comfortable extrapolating and deciding that this must mean OMVs exist. However, again from above, if he asked me 2,000 years ago if slavery was good, we both might answer "yes." He's presume from that, that OMVs exist!

I'll clarify my position on slavery in a separate post.

The fact is, he can't know OMVs exist anymore than he knows what caused the BB. He's arguing from ignorance. True ignorance.

Ignorance is if someone does not offer a viable rational justification for something. In the case of the origin of the universe and objective moral values, I have offered them.

4. He keeps claiming I have to prove God doesn't exist to argue about moral values.

I've never claimed you have to prove anything. I'm asking you to present your arguments that no Gods exist. Why are you not willing to do this?

He has conceded that if Atheism is true, then Moral Values are subjective.

Yes, I concede to that. Are you also willing to concede if objective moral values exist, then God must exist?

"Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality

He can't prove a God exists, and he's the one making the claim.

Nobody can prove anything, whether it is God who exists or God does not exist. But, what we can do is present our arguments and evidence. And like I said, I've already done that in the topic of cosmology and now doing that with the topic of morality.

I only claim that humanity exists and we develop moral values. He's annoyed by this, but that's on him.

Who's the one being annoyed? But I will point out to readers that the issue is not moral values in general, but objective moral values. So it is simply a diversion to say humanity exists and we develop moral values.

5. However, I don't feel a need to argue that I am right - like he feels the need to.

This is a debating forum. If you make a claim, you need to back it up, otherwise it is just an unsupported opinion.

I accept that there are things beyond my knowledge set. I accept that while I believe certain things (some with greater or lesser confidence), I still know a lot less.

That's fine. But don't then go on accusing me of not knowing about morality when you are not willing to present your justifications while I've been presenting mine.

edit: I've said it before, and will continue to say until it isn't true: Theists don't understand morality.

Moral values are tricky. They do seem to vary over time, they do seem to only exists in some species. (He'd argue that only humans have moral values, I imagine, whereas I don't think moral values are so precisely defined.)

Of course, subjective morals do exist.

I grant animals might have subjective moral values, but they do not have objective moral values. Objective morality would only apply to people.

I've made many arguments, provided articles and videos for why people believe OMVs can obtain in an Atheistic world. I have gone into great depth. Otseng doesn't understand. I can't help that.

Yes, I don't understand your point, especially since you've stated, "if Atheism is true, then Moral Values are subjective." You can help by having a consistent position and argumentation.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3668

It's not that there is no basis for objective morality, it's that skeptics have no justification for it.

If their morality has an objective basis, it doesn't matter whether they believe in such a basis or not. If they're objectively moral, they're objectively moral.

Personally, it doesn't matter. But on this forum, this is what we're here for, to argue for justification of our beliefs.

So here's your opportunity again to present your case for the justification of objective morality within your worldview.

"The Golden Rule is the cornerstone of religious understanding. It is the most complete expression of the Oneness of all people, serving as the foundation for peace and universal goodwill on earth."

https://religiousnaturalism.org/the-golden-rule/

From what I can gather about religious naturalism, it does not posit any god exists. But you also said you are a theist:

And I've already clarified that I hold a theist worldview.

So, how do you reconcile that?