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

[TRANSPONDER]

What do we mean by slavery? There is not a definitive definition for it, but there are several definitions.

In modern usage, slavery is often defined as ownership of a person as property.

Why not use this one? The Bible includes support for chattel slavery in which people are bought and sold by other people. Whether or not one can find biblical support for other forms of exploitation that might also, though arguably, be considered slavery, we don't need those.

So, there are many ways to define slavery.

That's fine. Are you trying to address ambiguity or equivocation in somebody's actual argument? If not, how about we just stipulate that we mean explicit ownership of another human being, even if that's artificially narrow in a way that gives the Bible the benefit of the doubt? We'll say that biblical wives aren't slaves, even if they are de facto such by modern lights. We'll say that paid servants, if you can find examples of any, aren't slaves, even if they are exploited or subjugated in a financial sense.

What would help your argument the most? Is your claim that by some proper definition, the Bible doesn't actually condone slavery? Is it that the Bible only supports moral forms of slavery?

That is exactly what is going on. And it looks like the tatty old excuse that 'Slavery' can take various forms inside or outside the Bible. Outside, going to work and earning a living, or being subject to taxation can be and has been called 'slavery'. One might as well call it slavery that we are tied down by gravity or are forced to exist when we are born. None of that alters the fact that ownership of people as property (without an eventual guaranteed get out,in particular) is chattel slavery and not indentured servitude or one of the other forms of servitude Bible apologists try to pretend Slavery in the Bible is.

[alexxcJRO]

I will also let readers judge who is deflecting, avoiding, and addressing the issue.

When you have been defeated by logic you refrain to avoidance tactic: "I will also let readers judge who ..."

Don't understand what you're trying to say. What are to referring to with A and non-A? Again, why should God need to make any objective moral statement about chattel slavery when it is a subjective moral value?

Sir the suppossd "Objective Morality from God" was useless and irrelevant in both condemning chattel slaves(A) or keep it(non-A).
This points to subjectivity:
At one point in time it was not to wrong condemning chattel slaves.
At another point it was wrong to not condemn chattel slaves.
So much for "Objective Morality from God".

How exactly do you define objective and subjective morality? Again, I do not define objective or subjective morality based on what one says, but based on if the moral value applies universally or only to a specific time or place.

I already did:
Subjective morality: "X is wrong because I say so".
Objective morality: "X is wrong no matter what anybody says about X".

Please address my point: "Now you say what you deem subjective morality is objective morality cuz' God. Special pleading."

Another omniperfect straw man invocation.

It's not. The Bible portrays God as omniperfect as it does as omniscient.
I have showed this:
"Omnibenevolence and omniscience:
You agreed God is omnibenevolent and omniscient.

God is perfectly good: "who does no wrong", “is righteous in all his ways”, “God is light; in him there is no darkness at all”.
God is perfect in his works: "his works are perfect".
God is perfect in his speech and his words: "his way is perfect: The Lord’s word is flawless;"
God is perfect in his justice: "all his ways are just"

“He is the Rock, his works are perfect,
and all his ways are just.
A faithful God who does no wrong,
upright and just is he.”
“31 “As for God, his way is perfect:
The Lord’s word is flawless;
he shields all who take refuge in him.”
“48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
“For the Lord is good and his love endures forever;
his faithfulness continues through all generations.”
“17 The Lord is righteous in all his ways
and faithful in all he does.”
“16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.
God is love. “
“5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.”
“8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
"8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love."

Omnipotence:
The modern Christian logic is the below verses are saying God is doing anything-"all things" that are logically possible. The verses prompted ideas of omnipotence.

"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”"
"For nothing will be impossible with God.”
"I can do all things through him who strengthens me."
"Jesus looked at them and said, “With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God.”"

In case of negating omnibenevolence:
1.A benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient Being cannot but love all, show benevolence to all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too. Ergo it is omnibenevolent too.
Doing otherwise will make the being not only not be omniscient, but severely ignorant.
2.You cannot have a being that is perfect in its works("his works are perfect") and the same time does imperfect things like not loving all equally or be benevolence to all equally."

[otseng]

I'm glad you read it, but you need to read it completely, not cherry pick the part you like.

I read the entire section that you posted.

Now, you might argue that a complete theory - even if speculative - is far better than saying "I don't know", especially if you don't know - but I'd disagree.

No, I do know the theist justification for objective morality.

Like I said, read through completely. It's not for nothing that people don't consider morals to be as Moore suggests.

Feel free to quote from it on what I've not already discussed and we can debate it more.

Euthyphro proved this wrong thousands of years ago.

I've already addressed the Euthyphro dilemma at:
viewtopic.php?p=1137116#p1137116

It applies to God, too? Thou Shall not Kill? I think you have a tough row to hoe on that position.

A better translation is "shall not murder" instead of "not kill".

[Exo 20:13 NASB95] 13 "You shall not murder.

If killing people is unethical, capital punishment itself would be a crime.

Also, you claim the source is God - not that God embodies them, or some other claim. I'd certainly like to know why you think he is the source, since you have no way of knowing.

I've seen this argument from skeptics many times about debating what does it mean to "know" something. And this is just a rabbit trail and another diversionary tactic.

Moore's non-natural morals doesn't mean they must come from God, as many philosophers who picked up from him were not Theists.

If it's non-natural and not from God, then where did it come from?

Moore himself became an agnostic, despite growing up in a highly religious environment. I point this out because I've been getting guff for saying that some people claim that OMVs can exist without a God.

I'll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

[otseng]

Why not use this one? The Bible includes support for chattel slavery in which people are bought and sold by other people.

Yes, I grant the Bible allowed for chattel slavery and the Israelites even owned slaves as property. My argument regarding chattel slavery is it does not fall into objective morality, but subjective morality.

My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.

From both an atheistic and theistic point of view, I argue chattel slavery is subjective.

From an atheistic point of view, the dominant position is all morality is subjective. Yes, there are a few people who claims morality can be objective in a naturalistic world, like Sam Harris, but he is in the extreme minority. So, fundamentally, making any type of objective moral judgment would not be compatible with an atheistic position.

From a secular point of view, chattel slavery was practiced and accepted by most of human history. Since it was accepted in the past, then it was not considered immoral in the past. Therefore it is a subjective.

From a theist point of view, the Bible allowed for ownership of people. People could voluntarily be a slave for a master for life. Would this be morally wrong? I don't think so. Since it's not morally wrong, then it would make chattel slavery subjective.

As Christians, we are also slaves of Christ, even to the point of being a chattel slave. Since this is not morally wrong, it also points to chattel slavery being subjective.

In the above examples, the commonality is people choose to be a slave, so that is what would make it morally acceptable. So, the only case left is involuntary chattel slavery. We can debate more on this, but as for chattel slavery itself, it is not objectively wrong because there are cases where it would be morally acceptable from any worldview perspective.

[boatsnguitars]

A better translation is "shall not murder" instead of "not kill".

[Exo 20:13 NASB95] 13 "You shall not murder.

If killing people is unethical, capital punishment itself would be a crime.

I've addressed this. Murder is a legal term. It causes you problems: which country's laws are the right ones? It's legal to kill gay people, babies, commit honor killing, in some countries.

So, you'll have to retreat to: It's not up to Man's law, it's up to God's Law. And round and round we go - since God clearly calls for the killing of many things, and it's not clear what isn't legal or illegal according to God's Law.

Again, you have a severe problem. God could consider all forms of killing "Good", he could relish in it. You only presume your God is Good because you don't want to worship a monster, but you can't know if God is a monster.
God may consider Ice Cream bad, rape as good.
God says "kill witches, "kill gays" - is that murder or killing?

If it's non-natural and not from God, then where did it come from?

Somewhere else? That's not my fight. I disagree with this direction since there is nothing to anchor it in the world we know.
Moore is simply presupposing that morals are objective - as the article points out, as I'm sure you saw.

I'll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

Can it?

[otseng]

Murder is a legal term. It causes you problems: which country's laws are the right ones? It's legal to kill gay people, babies, commit honor killing, in some countries.

You were referring to God and the Bible, not the laws of a country. "It applies to God, too? Thou Shall not Kill? I think you have a tough row to hoe on that position. "

The difference between murder and kill is murder is a subset of killing. There is justifiable killing (such as capital punishment) and unjustifiable killing (such as premeditated murder).

So, you'll have to retreat to: It's not up to Man's law, it's up to God's Law. And round and round we go - since God clearly calls for the killing of many things, and it's not clear what isn't legal or illegal according to God's Law.

The Torah was given to the Israelites as their set of laws. So, it didn't matter what the laws of the other nations were.

As for the Decalogue, I've argued for its importance in Ten Commandments and case law.

God could consider all forms of killing "Good", he could relish in it.

No, God does not "relish" in the death of anyone.

[2Pe 3:9 ESV] 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

You only presume your God is Good because you don't want to worship a monster, but you can't know if God is a monster.

This is what this entire topic is addressing. And so far, I've failed to see any argument from skeptics that hold up to scrutiny.

If it's non-natural and not from God, then where did it come from?

Somewhere else? That's not my fight. I disagree with this direction since there is nothing to anchor it in the world we know.
Moore is simply presupposing that morals are objective - as the article points out, as I'm sure you saw.

You were the one that brought up the article so why is it not your fight?

I'll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

Can it?

Are you disagreeing with Moore?

[boatsnguitars]

Murder is a legal term. It causes you problems: which country's laws are the right ones? It's legal to kill gay people, babies, commit honor killing, in some countries.

You were referring to God and the Bible, not the laws of a country. "It applies to God, too? Thou Shall not Kill? I think you have a tough row to hoe on that position. "

The difference between murder and kill is murder is a subset of killing. There is justifiable killing (such as capital punishment) and unjustifiable killing (such as premeditated murder).

I understand that, otseng. I am pointing out that different States have different laws.
In some States, capital punishment is illegal. Why won't you address this problem?

So, you'll have to retreat to: It's not up to Man's law, it's up to God's Law. And round and round we go - since God clearly calls for the killing of many things, and it's not clear what isn't legal or illegal according to God's Law.

The Torah was given to the Israelites as their set of laws. So, it didn't matter what the laws of the other nations were.

Right, you retreat to "It's God's Law." Which means killing gay people, witches, workers on the Sabbath are all legal; aka Good.

As for the Decalogue, I've argued for its importance in Ten Commandments and case law.

I'm sure you've argued for everything. I doubt effectively. Especially considering how you haven't addressed the main problem I posed above, or, you seem to avoid the hard questions posed to your moral position.

God could consider all forms of killing "Good", he could relish in it.

No, God does not "relish" in the death of anyone.

[2Pe 3:9 ESV] 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

That's what a book says about God, have you verified it with God?
He may relish in killing - after all, everything living dies in his Creation. You quoting a book doesn't give me much confidence that you know how to debate.
What next, will you quote some religious book that talks about Reincarnation? Is that the level of debate you think is persuasive?

"The Bhagavad Gita says....!"
"Dianetics says....!"

Come on, man, that's not a debate.

You only presume your God is Good because you don't want to worship a monster, but you can't know if God is a monster.

This is what this entire topic is addressing. And so far, I've failed to see any argument from skeptics that hold up to scrutiny.

Not sure what to call a thing that calls for the killing of men, women, livestock and children other than a Monster. Wouldn't you agree?

Or, was it Good?

If it's non-natural and not from God, then where did it come from?

Somewhere else? That's not my fight. I disagree with this direction since there is nothing to anchor it in the world we know.
Moore is simply presupposing that morals are objective - as the article points out, as I'm sure you saw.

You were the one that brought up the article so why is it not your fight? [/quote]
It's not my fight to make the case for the non-natural. You are welcome to make the case, as you seem to be the one who believes in it.

Do you believe in it for no reason?

I'll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

Can it?

Are you disagreeing with Moore?

Do you agree with Moore? (Note that I asked you a direct question, and you answered with an answer after you made the direct claim I was questioning. I take this as avoidance on your part.)

[Difflugia]

Why not use this one? The Bible includes support for chattel slavery in which people are bought and sold by other people.

Yes, I grant the Bible allowed for chattel slavery and the Israelites even owned slaves as property.

Are we agreeing to use the first definition of slavery that you mentioned, then? Your comment was specifically concerned with which definition to use.

My argument regarding chattel slavery is it does not fall into objective morality, but subjective morality.

My definition of objective morality is morality that would apply universally at all places at all times. Subjective morality would be morality that does not apply universally, but can differ according to places, times, and situations.

This definition will end up making the distinction between subjective and objective meaningless, leading to arguments based entirely on equivocation. You've already done multiple ways, probably unintentionally, in this post.

From an atheistic point of view, the dominant position is all morality is subjective. Yes, there are a few people who claims morality can be objective in a naturalistic world, like Sam Harris, but he is in the extreme minority. So, fundamentally, making any type of objective moral judgment would not be compatible with an atheistic position.

This is the setup for equivocation. It's similar to the many discussions that misuse the word "possible." It can mean multiple things to multiple people.

The "atheistic point of view" that renders morality as always subjective is the recognition that morality is a human construct rather than a divine one baked into the universe. That doesn't, however, mean that morality would necessarily be different for different humans at different times. There are atheists (I'm one of them) that would regard morality as subjective from a universal point of view, but objective from a human point of view, in the sense that we could define a morality that applies to all humans, past, present, or future. If you are trying to make the argument that there is some human perspective under which chattel slavery would be moral, this doesn't support your point because you're switching from subjective in a universal sense to subjective in a human sense and expecting them to be equivalent. They're not. It's exactly the switch commonly made where "possible" goes from "not impossible" to "plausible" in apologetic arguments.

From a secular point of view, chattel slavery was practiced and accepted by most of human history. Since it was accepted in the past, then it was not considered immoral in the past. Therefore it is a subjective.

That's a much, much narrower definition that your earlier one. Even if morality is binding on all humans in the past, it can still be subjective. Whether humans in the past believed in the morality of their actions, morality could still be objective, either universally or from the point of view of humanity as a whole.

If you want your argument to be meaningful, you're going to have to decide what subjectivity actually means to your argument and adjust your definition to suit. As it is, "the morality of slavery is subjective" as you first defined it is absolutely compatible with "slavery is now and always has been immoral in every situation that it has been practiced." Trying to get to the latter by proving the former, let alone simply asserting it, is invalid and meaningless.

From a theist point of view, the Bible allowed for ownership of people. People could voluntarily be a slave for a master for life. Would this be morally wrong? I don't think so. Since it's not morally wrong, then it would make chattel slavery subjective.

Then let's eliminate any sort of voluntary slavery, whatever that means, from our definition of slavery. Is such a voluntary slave allowed to change their mind? Is it still voluntary if they do and are forced to remain a slave? Were they ever a slave for the purposes of this discussion if they're voluntarily able to leave?

Let's just remove those that were voluntarily serving another from our definition. If there are no cases of slavery left in the Bible, then we can start splitting hairs over just how voluntary the slavery was. I don't think we'll need to, though.

As Christians, we are also slaves of Christ, even to the point of being a chattel slave. Since this is not morally wrong, it also points to chattel slavery being subjective.

I use similar metaphors for my performance at my at-will job ("slaving away" and such). If my employers beat me until I couldn't stand up for a full day, though, I wouldn't accept my use of the metaphor as a valid excuse for them to escape moral accountability.

In the above examples, the commonality is people choose to be a slave, so that is what would make it morally acceptable. So, the only case left is involuntary chattel slavery. We can debate more on this, but as for chattel slavery itself, it is not objectively wrong because there are cases where it would be morally acceptable from any worldview perspective.

This is the same equivocation we see when apologists argue that forced marriage isn't rape. It's an equally facile argument, but I think we can narrow our definition enough to eliminate that kind of equivocation and find that the Bible still condones slavery that was immoral then and is immoral now.

[otseng]

I am pointing out that different States have different laws.
In some States, capital punishment is illegal. Why won't you address this problem?

I don't see this as a problem or even relevant. What is your line of logic?

Right, you retreat to "It's God's Law." Which means killing gay people, witches, workers on the Sabbath are all legal; aka Good.

I'm not claiming those instances are objectively good, but they would be subjective. During the time of the OT, it was how it was laid down for the Israelites. Not everything that was laid down applies universally.

Especially considering how you haven't addressed the main problem I posed above, or, you seem to avoid the hard questions posed to your moral position.

Throwing out irrelevant questions and saying I'm not addressing them does nothing to challenge my position.

That's what a book says about God, have you verified it with God?
He may relish in killing - after all, everything living dies in his Creation. You quoting a book doesn't give me much confidence that you know how to debate.

You made an unsupported assertion and I challenged it and backed it up with the evidence of the Bible. How exactly can one know about the characteristics of the Christian God apart from the Bible? You might not believe the Bible, but you have to at least accept that is how God is portrayed in the Bible.

So, if you claim God "relishes" killing people, you'll need to back it up with evidence otherwise it's just more unsupported opinions.

"The Bhagavad Gita says....!"
"Dianetics says....!"

Come on, man, that's not a debate.

If we're debating Hinduism or Scientology, then those would be relevant. Otherwise, they are not.

Not sure what to call a thing that calls for the killing of men, women, livestock and children other than a Monster. Wouldn't you agree?

I've already addressed it in Genocide summary argument.

It's not my fight to make the case for the non-natural. You are welcome to make the case, as you seem to be the one who believes in it.

I've been making a case for it with morality. Here even your source admits the non-natural is the only coherent explanation for morality.

What we see with naturalism and morality is incoherency. We see this across the board with skeptics trying to believe in both morality and naturalism. This means it is not a rational position to hold both morality and naturalism.

Do you believe in it for no reason?

Who's the one believing in something for no reason? What's your reason for believing in naturalism?

I'll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

Can it?

Are you disagreeing with Moore?

Do you agree with Moore? (Note that I asked you a direct question, and you answered with an answer after you made the direct claim I was questioning. I take this as avoidance on your part.)

Of course I believe the non-natural world exists and I agree with Moore a non-natural explanation best accounts for morality. Now your turn. Do you disagree with Moore?

[Masterblaster]

Hello otseng

You say - "Of course I believe the non-natural world exists and I agree with Moore a non-natural explanation best accounts for morality. Now your turn. "

Previously

Post 3717:"Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
-------
My life expectancy is 90 yrs.(optimistically)
I only check this thread occasionally. Last time I was here you were using another secular source to suggest that supernatural reasons were behind Godly morality.

Why the shape-shifting from supernatural to non-natural...I explained the term supernatural, now what on earth is non-natural. Is there nothing natural in God. Is it like non-meat?
Do you consider these to be identical terms or are we, now, considering two nuances of the subject? Only you can tell us?