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: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 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
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3629 times
Been thanked: 2175 times

Re: Chattel slavery

Post #3761

Post by Difflugia »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:14 amI've given definitions of chattel slavery, objective morality, and subjective morality, which you've agreed to. And I've given my argument why chattel slavery is subjective based on the agreed upon definitions.
And then you made statements that logically conflicted with your own definitions.


otseng wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:14 amIsn't this the argument skeptics make?

The Bible allows for slavery.
Chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore the Bible condones morally bad things.

The equivocation in the above is equating slavery with chattel slavery.
Maybe a skeptic has made that argument. We'll assume for a moment that one has. If so, there are two potential equivocations. One is, as you point out, conflating "slavery" and "chattel slavery." If I only prove that chattel slavery is bad and the Bible only condones other kinds of slavery, then it would be equivocal in a logically fallacious way. The second is conflating "allows" and "condones." Both are easy to fix. Here's one way:

The Bible condones chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible condones morally bad things.

Even if it's false, it's no longer logically fallacious. One common problem when dealing with apologists is that they try to broaden definitions in order to sneak another concept in that they can argue about, like saying that some kinds of chattel slavery are "voluntary."

The most straightforward way to deal with this is to narrow the scope of "chattel slavery," agreeing to a slightly different definition or by adding qualifiers. In order for the syllogism to remain valid, though, the new definition or qualifiers must be applied to all three uses.

The argument that you seem to be working toward is this:

The Bible condones chattel slavery.
Some kinds of chattel slavery aren't morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible doesn't condone morally bad kinds of chattel slavery.

The logical fallacy here is that the second premise is necessary for the conclusion, but not sufficient. In order for it to be both necessary and sufficient, the second premise must be inclusive, "all kinds of chattel slavery aren't morally bad," or the easier to understand, "no kinds of chattel slavery are morally bad."
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:14 amAnd here's the argument you are making:

The Bible allows for chattel slavery.
Involuntary chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore the Bible condones morally bad things.

The equivocation is saying chattel slavery is involuntary chattel slavery.
No. The argument I'm trying to make is this:

The Bible condones involuntary chattel slavery.
Involuntary chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible condones morally bad things.

Instead, you keep insisting that I broaden my premise to make it easier to attack.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1738 times
Been thanked: 1181 times

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

Post #3762

Post by POI »

I guess the Bible God is a-okay with both owning and breeding chattel slaves for their entire lives? Please see the OP here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40608)
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: Chattel slavery

Post #3763

Post by otseng »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 11:12 am
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 6:14 amI've given definitions of chattel slavery, objective morality, and subjective morality, which you've agreed to. And I've given my argument why chattel slavery is subjective based on the agreed upon definitions.
And then you made statements that logically conflicted with your own definitions.
Please elaborate. What is the conflict?
The Bible condones chattel slavery.
Chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible condones morally bad things.

Even if it's false, it's no longer logically fallacious.
Right, that's why we're debating the morality of chattel slavery now. If chattel slavery is not objective, then one cannot say it is objectively morally bad.
One common problem when dealing with apologists is that they try to broaden definitions in order to sneak another concept in that they can argue about, like saying that some kinds of chattel slavery are "voluntary."
I don't know how common apologists talk about involuntary vs voluntary chattel slavery. I've rarely come across this in any book or video on the subject.
The argument that you seem to be working toward is this:

The Bible condones chattel slavery.
Some kinds of chattel slavery aren't morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible doesn't condone morally bad kinds of chattel slavery.
No, I'm not making this argument. I'm not arguing about the morality of specific kinds of chattel slavery now.
The argument I'm trying to make is this:

The Bible condones involuntary chattel slavery.
Involuntary chattel slavery is morally bad.
Therefore, the Bible condones morally bad things.

Instead, you keep insisting that I broaden my premise to make it easier to attack.
Again, you were the one to bring up "chattel slavery". I'm not broadening anything, but precisely addressing what you brought up. What you are doing is narrowing it from your original accusations of the Bible.

So we have to ask why do you want to narrow on involuntary chattel slavery when we haven't resolved the morality of chattel slavery yet? The only reason I see is a tacit admission that chattel slavery would be subjective and there is no valid justification that you can present for it being objectively wrong.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Breeding slaves

Post #3764

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:01 pm I guess the Bible God is a-okay with both owning and breeding chattel slaves for their entire lives? Please see the OP here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40608)
Here's the passages:

[Exo 21:2-4 KJV] 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 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 21:5-6 KJV] 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

First off, skeptics have no rational justification to make any objective moral judgments. So making any claims about God or the Bible being morally bad is only a personal opinion.

Secondly, I argue Exodus 21 is case laws. These are addressing specific situations on how to handle things if they come up. There's no commandment like "thou shall breed chattel slaves".

I believe it was trying to address actual situations that came up. So we have to look at what are the possible outcomes. If a male slave did have a child by a female slave that the master owned, what should happen to the child? Who should take custody of the child? So, the ruling according to Ex 21 is the slave master would take custody.

Third, in both cases, people are free to decide their fate. There's no indication the debt slave must accept a wife that the master presents to him. And even if he does accept, there's no indication they must procreate. And if a servant loves his master and decides he wants to be a slave forever, what's wrong with that?

I guess one could argue the master could be a trickster and offer his servant a hot and sexy young lady that the slave would fall for and produce lots of permanent slaves. Or the master tricks the slave into believing the working conditions are favorable during the first six years and then work him to death after he becomes a permanent slave. But if the Bible were to try to cover every single possible case, then it'd be as big as the US tax code.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 581 times

Re: Breeding slaves

Post #3765

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am But if the Bible were to try to cover every single possible case, then it'd be as big as the US tax code.
It could have just said "No slavery."

A lot shorter than it's pro-slavery passages.
“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
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1738 times
Been thanked: 1181 times

Re: Breeding slaves

Post #3766

Post by POI »

Before I answer, seems you concede the Bible God is a-okay with both keeping and breeding lifetime chattel slaves. Interesting....
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am
POI wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2024 5:01 pm I guess the Bible God is a-okay with both owning and breeding chattel slaves for their entire lives? Please see the OP here (viewtopic.php?f=8&t=40608)
Here's the passages:

[Exo 21:2-4 KJV] 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. 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 21:5-6 KJV] 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

First off, skeptics have no rational justification to make any objective moral judgments. So making any claims about God or the Bible being morally bad is only a personal opinion.
1) Neither of us have any rationale justification to make any 'objective moral judgement.' The second you give reason(s) to justify any moral judgement, you no longer appeal to a God-given authority. Thus, in YOUR case, do 'objective morals' even exist? If you believe they do, you first need to demonstrate that this claimed objective moral law giver exists. And second, you then need to explain why this objective moral law giver's objective moral pronouncements are not merely appealing to "might makes right"?

2)

a) In regard to the passages you quoted above, passage 2-3 means: "if you are a purchased Hebrew, with a wife, you are both to go free in year 7." If you are not a Hebrew, then this rule does not apply.

b) Passage 4 means "if the male Hebrew slave is provided with a wife, and they have kids, the wife and kids are to stay with the slave master. They are not to go free."

c) Passage 5-6 means: "a special rule is made to trick the male Hebrew slave into remaining a slave for life." Sexual relation, outside of marriage, is prohibited. A man has needs. This passage provides a loophole for the slave owner(s) to breed lifetime chattel slaves. Once these initial slaves are accounted for, any offspring they provide, as well as successive generations, are free and clear to keep for life.
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am Secondly, I argue Exodus 21 is case laws. These are addressing specific situations on how to handle things if they come up. There's no commandment like "thou shall breed chattel slaves".
The case law stands as follows... If you are a male Hebrew, you are not to be a lifetime chattel slave, unless you are duped into it as well. If you are not a male Hebrew, tough luck.
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am I believe it was trying to address actual situations that came up. So we have to look at what are the possible outcomes. If a male slave did have a child by a female slave that the master owned, what should happen to the child? Who should take custody of the child? So, the ruling according to Ex 21 is the slave master would take custody.
The rule is hard and fast. If the male Hebrew slave is given a wife, and they have kids, the male Hebrew is NOT to take the children with him at year seven. No exception(s) are given. What did the child do to deserve this?
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am Third, in both cases, people are free to decide their fate. There's no indication the debt slave must accept a wife that the master presents to him. And even if he does accept, there's no indication they must procreate. And if a servant loves his master and decides he wants to be a slave forever, what's wrong with that?
Do you honestly think all volunteer slaves read all the fine print, or could even read the fine print? Most were illiterate. What about the ones who were unaware, either by ignorance or because the slave master did not properly disclose all rules? The best-case scenario would be that the slave was tricked or unaware. But regardless, there exists no exception given for his offspring to leave with him at year 7. So yes, you could blame the slave holder. But the slave is still bound by case law, whether he was aware or not. Just like you and I are bound by the case law of the country in which we reside, whether you and I are aware or not.
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am I guess one could argue the master could be a trickster and offer his servant a hot and sexy young lady that the slave would fall for and produce lots of permanent slaves. Or the master tricks the slave into believing the working conditions are favorable during the first six years and then work him to death after he becomes a permanent slave. But if the Bible were to try to cover every single possible case, then it'd be as big as the US tax code.
Not my problem, it's God's. And I suggest this is no arbitrary erroneous 'problem.' In this case, the Bible appears to be "sloppy and haphazard".
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

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: Breeding slaves

Post #3767

Post by alexxcJRO »

otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am First off, skeptics have no rational justification to make any objective moral judgments. So making any claims about God or the Bible being morally bad is only a personal opinion.
So Ultimate Might makes right. Ultimate Might makes objective morality.
Yet you don't believe in Ultimate Might.
So there could be out there the Ultimate Might that would trump the weaker being Yahweh's might. Therefore no longer objective.
That is your whole position.
Ridiculous. Laughable.
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 8:18 am
Secondly, I argue Exodus 21 is case laws. These are addressing specific situations on how to handle things if they come up. There's no commandment like "thou shall breed chattel slaves".

"13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

(Leviticus 20:13)
Q: "Though shall kill gays" is Objective Morality then?

Let's hope we don't get avoidance this time.
"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."

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3987 times

Re: Breeding slaves

Post #3768

Post by TRANSPONDER »

[Replying to POI in post #3766]

What is the problem here? We are for sure talking about particular treatment of Hebrew slaves. Obviously the OT rules are trying to make slavery of Hebrews as fair and decent as possible, and one can (of course) argue about whether providing a Hebrew flunkey with a wife and kids is entrapment into lifetime slavery (if it wasn't shouldn't he be allowed to leave after 7 years with a grubstake and his wife and kids?Sounds like a dirty trick to me) or some kind of investment plan that matures after 7 years.

But none of that applies to foreign slaves. You buy and sell them and they are property for life, and so are their kids and they can be willed to your family. There are no nice-guy rules for foreign slaves and if the Bible apologists don't know they, it is high time they learned.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

slavery

Post #3769

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:11 am It could have just said "No slavery."

A lot shorter than it's pro-slavery passages.
Are you claiming slavery is objectively wrong? If so, please justify that claim. If you cannot, then it is just your personal unsupported opinion.

TRANSPONDER
Banned
Banned
Posts: 9237
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 1080 times
Been thanked: 3987 times

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

Post #3770

Post by TRANSPONDER »

It's not often I'm shocked and stunned, but I am shocked and stunned.

Post Reply