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

[otseng]

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.'

Yes, I have a rational justification for objective moral values. Since you admit you don't have any justification for objective moral values, who cares what is your moral judgment on anything, including the Bible?

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.

Logically, no I do not have to first demonstrate God exists. If you believe this, then we should also reject evolutionary theory since nobody can explain how the first cell arose. We should also reject the Big Bang theory since it cannot explain the origin of the initial singularity.

But, practically, there are plenty of other arguments and evidence that points to the existence of God. And we've covered some of that already in the cosmology discussion.

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"?

It's not might makes right, but God's being and nature makes it right.

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.

I agree. Are there any explicit statements regarding non-Hebrew slaves and breeding?

Sexual relation, outside of marriage, is prohibited. A man has needs.

I wouldn't classify sex as a "need". Food, water, air, and shelter are needs. But it's possible to live without having sex with women.

This passage provides a loophole for the slave owner(s) to breed lifetime chattel slaves.

Sure. But if everyone knows this ahead of time and people willingly do it, then I don't see it as morally wrong.

Once these initial slaves are accounted for, any offspring they provide, as well as successive generations, are free and clear to keep for life.

Where does it say anything about successive generations?

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.

What does the Bible state regarding the breeding of non-Hebrew 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.

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?

What do children do to deserve anything? It's not even a relevant question.

What would be relevant are all the other possible scenarios. One possible scenario is the male slave takes the child when he is free after six years. However, how would the mother feel about being separated from her child?

Do you honestly think all volunteer slaves read all the fine print, or could even read the fine print? Most were illiterate.

The laws regarding slavery in the Bible is pretty much in line with all the other laws in the ANE. So your argument can also apply to everyone.

But the Jews were also commanded to keep the law, which meant the entire Torah. So, they all are expected to know what are the laws.

In this case, the Bible appears to be "sloppy and haphazard".

I guess you must be a lawyer then that needs every possible scenario accounted for.

As I've stated before, the laws regarding slavery in the Bible is not much different than the laws in the other cultures at that time. If others don't have massive volumes to handle every possible scenario, then why insist the Bible must?

[otseng]

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

What are you shocked and stunned about?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

What are you shocked and stunned about?

That you dare to talk to me after you attempted to Mod - bully me when I exposed your flawed thinking.

No, I do not talk to you anymore.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

My feelings are unimportant. This is about the OT. It's about what your God believed, which is that Slavery is not objectively wrong. (BTW, it is against the law. So, if you were to ask me if driving on the wrong side of the road was objectively wrong, it would be a similar answer. Do you wish slavery wasn't illegal?)

So, your response, and your attempt to derail it by asking unrelated questions, exposes the fact that your God doesn't think slavery is objectively wrong - which means you don't believe slavery is objectively wrong.

You need to stay focused, not try to deflect.

[POI]

(U) Yes, I have a rational justification for objective moral values.

(POI) Again, merely asserting "God" is not a rational justification. You first need to demonstrate this "God", as well as to then demonstrate why this "God's" opinions on any 'moral' matters are not correct due to 'might makes right' alone.

(U) Since you admit you don't have any justification for objective moral values, who cares what is your moral judgment on anything, including the Bible?

(POI) Then I guess "objective economics" exists too, huh? An <almighty objective economic arbitrator> also asserts who is "rich", who is 'meh", and who is "poor", just like you believe the same thing about "good", "meh", and "bad"? And in YOUR case, chattel slavery is more-so in the ("meh" to "good") column.

The God <you> believe in is a-okay with chattel slavery. And we all read as you now try to rationalize or spin it.

(U) It's not might makes right, but God's being and nature makes it right.

(POI) Yes, it is "might makes right". God has the power to setup all moral dictates. And he apparently does so, according to his nature. No one can stop him. In your case, chattel slavery is a-okay. Your rationale is as follows. God created everything. His nature is X. Therefore, X is good and correct. If you do not like it, you are wrong and may be punished accordingly, based upon God's choosing. This is an example of "might makes right".

(U) Are there any explicit statements regarding non-Hebrew slaves and breeding?

(POI) You are asking the wrong question here. The more pointed question becomes, can a Bible-God believer use the Bible to breed chattel slaves? The answer is yes. You agreed with me below in bold red. I also explained why here (viewtopic.php?t=40608).

(U) I wouldn't classify sex as a "need".

(POI) Without sex for reproduction, the human race ends. How else were these folks reproducing? What was required for them to have legal sex? That's right, marriage.

(U) Sure. But if everyone knows this ahead of time and people willingly do it, then I don't see it as morally wrong.

(POI) You think every Hebrew knew all the case laws? I'm sure every person who signs any contract for their work, house, car, etc., knows all of what is in that contract too. I'm sure all Christians know all of the Bible. My point being ignorance to the law does not absolve you from the law. It's logical and reasonable to assume some male Hebrews, who opted to be a slave for 7 years were not aware of all of the law. But even if they were, their decision(s) to breed then seals the fate of their offspring, who have no choice in the matter. They are to become chattel slaves.

(U) It's not even a relevant question.

(POI) It is so a relevant question. Did the offspring get to choose lifetime chattel slavery?

(U) One possible scenario is the male slave takes the child when he is free after six years. However, how would the mother feel about being separated from her child?

(POI) False. Exodus 21:4 states both the mother and the children remain with the slave master. Only the male Hebrew may go free.

(U) the laws regarding slavery in the Bible is not much different than the laws in the other cultures at that time. If others don't have massive volumes to handle every possible scenario, then why insist the Bible must?

(POI) It's good to know the Bible is no better than any other book of laws. I would agree. It's as unspecific, haphazard, and as sloppy as any other claimed authoritative ancient document of the time.

However, you would think a little more thought and care would be placed upon SOME topics, chattel slavery practices being one of them, IF this claimed almighty creator LOVES his creation?

**************************************

The above is really only pertaining to volunteered slavery. Many did not or do not get this luxury to begin with....

[otseng]

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

What are you shocked and stunned about?

That you dare to talk to me after you attempted to Mod - bully me when I exposed your flawed thinking.

No, I do not talk to you anymore.

You came here and made a vague statement with implications someone made a shocking statement and I'm simply asking you for clarification.

And no, I did not mod-bully you. And no, you did not expose my flawed thinking. I'll let readers assess it for themselves.

[otseng]

(POI) Again, merely asserting "God" is not a rational justification. You first need to demonstrate this "God", as well as to then demonstrate why this "God's" opinions on any 'moral' matters are not correct due to 'might makes right' alone.

You might not accept the justification, nonetheless, it's a rational justification.

As I've pointed out:
"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

The argument is not "might" makes it right, but "God" makes it right.

(U) Since you admit you don't have any justification for objective moral values, who cares what is your moral judgment on anything, including the Bible?

(POI) Then I guess "objective economics" exists too, huh? An <almighty objective economic arbitrator> also asserts who is "rich", who is 'meh", and who is "poor", just like you believe the same thing about "good", "meh", and "bad"? And in YOUR case, chattel slavery is more-so in the ("meh" to "good") column.

A diversionary tactic. Please address if you have any justification for making objective moral judgments.

The God <you> believe in is a-okay with chattel slavery. And we all read as you now try to rationalize or spin it.

What I believe is chattel slavery is subjective. As I've stated:

1. Subjective morality is morality that is different for different people, places, times, and situations.
2. Chattel slavery was morally accepted by societies in the past.
3. Chattel slavery is not morally accepted by societies today.
4. Voluntary chattel slavery is morally acceptable.
5. Therefore chattel slavery is subjective morality.

If you disagree, then present your argument that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.

In your case, chattel slavery is a-okay. Your rationale is as follows. God created everything. His nature is X. Therefore, X is good and correct. If you do not like it, you are wrong and may be punished accordingly, based upon God's choosing. This is an example of "might makes right".

Where have I ever stated that regarding chattel slavery? For my argument on chattel slavery, see above.

(U) Are there any explicit statements regarding non-Hebrew slaves and breeding?

(POI) You are asking the wrong question here.

You were the one who brought up breeding and non-Hebrew slaves, "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."

The more pointed question becomes, can a Bible-God believer use the Bible to breed chattel slaves? The answer is yes.

Yes, it could be possible. But again if people willingly do it, then I don't see it as morally wrong. How can it be morally wrong if people willingly do it and they knew the consequences?

(POI) Without sex for reproduction, the human race ends. How else were these folks reproducing? What was required for them to have legal sex? That's right, marriage.

We're talking about sex for an individual, not sex in general for humankind. An individual can live without having sex. Plus, at max it's only six years of being abstinent.

My point being ignorance to the law does not absolve you from the law. It's logical and reasonable to assume some male Hebrews, who opted to be a slave for 7 years were not aware of all of the law.

How did they know about being a slave for 7 years then if they did not not the laws? And it's not like there's a lot of case laws regarding slavery either, unlike buying a house or a car today.

(POI) It is so a relevant question. Did the offspring get to choose lifetime chattel slavery?

Offsprings don't get to choose anything, so it's irrelevant.

(U) One possible scenario is the male slave takes the child when he is free after six years. However, how would the mother feel about being separated from her child?

(POI) False. Exodus 21:4 states both the mother and the children remain with the slave master. Only the male Hebrew may go free.

Exactly. So there's two possible scenarios. One is where the child remains with the master and mother. The other scenario is the child leaves with the father and is thus separated from the mother. The Bible sides with the first scenario.

(POI) It's good to know the Bible is no better than any other book of laws. I would agree. It's as unspecific, haphazard, and as sloppy as any other claimed authoritative ancient document of the time.

Why should your view of laws be the objective standard of how all laws in the ANE should be?

[POI]

POI Unaddressed at the bottom of my last post... If a "loving" God exists, why sanction chattel slavery? Why not just condemn chattel slavery like God does for many other things "unliked"?

*************************************

(POI) Again, merely asserting "God" is not a rational justification. You first need to demonstrate this "God", as well as to then demonstrate why this "God's" opinions on any 'moral' matters are not correct due to 'might makes right' alone.

(U) You might not accept the justification, nonetheless, it's a rational justification.

As I've pointed out:
"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

The argument is not "might" makes it right, but "God" makes it right.

POI Your argument is that (God's nature) is what is deemed 'right'. And if you do not agree, you are deemed "wrong" and also may be punished by the same rule maker.

(U) A diversionary tactic. Please address if you have any justification for making objective moral judgments.

POI LOL! This from the one who opted to use evolution and the Big Bang I drew a direct parallel. Do you have the right to judge "economics"? Let me demonstrate how annoying Christians apologetic arguments are, when confronted with topics they do not like....

Otseng - "Wow, that guy is filthy rich."
POI - "Who are you to judge who is truly rich?"

Since there exists no economic standard, it's all subjective

Can we get back to the topic now? Why does a loving God sanction/allow lifetime chattel slavery if he truly loves his creation? Seems objectively illogical unless there exists some definition of God's love we need to vet out....

(U) What I believe is chattel slavery is subjective.

POI Then so is "economics" You have no grounds or basis to judge anything in "economics". Starting to annoy you yet????

If chattel slavery is subjective, then God's position of it being a-okay is also subjective?

(U) If you disagree, then present your argument that chattel slavery is objectively wrong.

POI See directly above....

(U) You were the one who brought up breeding and non-Hebrew slaves

POI Yes, the mother, children, and non-Hebrews are not free to go. They are not given a choice. Why not?

(U) Yes, it could be possible.

POI Then I rest my case. The Bible can objectively be used to keep lifetime chattel slaves, as well as breed them. Illogical!

(U) How did they know about being a slave for 7 years then if they did not not the laws? And it's not like there's a lot of case laws regarding slavery either, unlike buying a house or a car today.

POI I'm sure many don't know. They are asked if they want to be a servant for seven years and they say 'okay." Little did they know about the fine print. Same as the many who sign leases, work contracts, etc... It's a pretty common thing. But in this case, the chattel slave master can own slaves, free and clear, for life -- Using the Bible as their device to do so, again, free and clear.

(U) Exactly. So there's two possible scenarios. One is where the child remains with the master and mother. The other scenario is the child leaves with the father and is thus separated from the mother. The Bible sides with the first scenario.

POI Exactly. The mother and the children DON'T get a choice. They belong to the chattel slave master for life.

(U) Why should your view of laws be the objective standard of how all laws in the ANE should be?

POI It's not my view, it's THE view. The Bible is NO BETTER at explaining laws than any other ancient book of claims, which also uses 'God" as it's authority.

[otseng]

POI Unaddressed at the bottom of my last post... If a "loving" God exists, why sanction chattel slavery? Why not just condemn chattel slavery like God does for many other things "unliked"?

It is impossible to make any normative statement about anything that is subjective. So, there is no need for God to command, prohibit, sanction, or condemn chattel slavery.

What you are assuming is chattel slavery is objectively wrong. Then since God does not condemn it, then God is not loving.

POI Your argument is that (God's nature) is what is deemed 'right'. And if you do not agree, you are deemed "wrong" and also may be punished by the same rule maker.

I've never brought up punishment.

But yes, it's most likely if people violate objective morality, then there can be consequences, including punishment.

POI LOL! This from the one who opted to use evolution and the Big Bang

I brought it up to address your charge that we need to know the origin of God in order to accept God as a foundation for morality.

I drew a direct parallel. Do you have the right to judge "economics"?

What does economics have anything to do with morality? Rather, this seems just like more equivocation.

Let me demonstrate how annoying Christians apologetic arguments are, when confronted with topics they do not like....

Baseless accusation. Isn't slavery the topic that skeptics bring up? Isn't that what we're talking about now? What skeptics even bring up about economics in the Bible?

I'm not avoiding the hard topics, but avoiding the irrelevant ones that skeptics keep bringing up.

Otseng - "Wow, that guy is filthy rich."
POI - "Who are you to judge who is truly rich?"

Since there exists no economic standard, it's all subjective

I agree in your example that it is subjective. How is it relevant to morality?

POI Then so is "economics" You have no grounds or basis to judge anything in "economics". Starting to annoy you yet????

Yes, it is annoying since it's another diversionary tactic. We're talking about the morality of slavery, not economics (which is even doubtful your examples are even discussions on economics).

We have to ask the question why do you avoid answering the question about why chattel slavery should be considered objectively wrong? The only reasonable answer is you cannot, but instead deflect.

POI Then I rest my case. The Bible can objectively be used to keep lifetime chattel slaves, as well as breed them. Illogical!

I rest my case as well. As I've argued, chattel slavery falls under subjective morality and not objective morality. Since it is subjective, it doesn't matter how one views chattel slavery, because ultimately it is just one's personal opinions on the matter. And when skeptics continually say, "Chattel slavery is wrong", it has no normative value and we can dismiss it as personal opinion.

[POI]

(U) It is impossible to make any normative statement about anything that is subjective. So, there is no need for God to command, prohibit, sanction, or condemn chattel slavery.

What you are assuming is chattel slavery is objectively wrong. Then since God does not condemn it, then God is not loving.

(POI) If the God you believe in does not condemn chattel slavery, then the God you believe in's definition of loving his creation includes granting permission to instill "full slavery in its traditional form whereby slaves are the complete property of their master, can be bought and sold by him and treated in any way that he wishes, which may include torture and other brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation". I have already laid out my case here (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=40608).

I guess the above quoted conditions are a-okay?

(U) I've never brought up punishment.

POI I know. I did. It relates to "might makes right." If one violates God's nature, God may punish them. But why is God's nature "objective"? Kind of a rhetorical question here... In essence, God's personal opinion becomes the law. If a human disagrees, they are wrong and may be punished because this human violates this God's personal opinion. If other reason(s) exists, as to why such a violation is indeed an actual violation, aside from such action violating God's personal opinion, then you no longer need God, at all, to substantiate the action in question.

(U) But yes, it's most likely if people violate objective morality, then there can be consequences, including punishment.

POI If people violate God's opinion, they may be punished.

Torture, brutality, excessively bad working conditions, and sexual exploitation is all okay, according to the God you believe in. In your case, any chattel slave master, who performs the above acts to their deemed lifetime chattel slaves, is also exempt from punishment.

(U) I brought it up to address your charge that we need to know the origin of God in order to accept God as a foundation for morality.

POI Then we need to know if some invisible arbitrator actual exists for ALL SORTS of stuff in which does not have an invisible objective arbitrator in reality, such as:

high vs not high
tall vs not tall
tastes good vs doesn't taste good
overweight vs not overweight
rich vs not rich
etc etc etc etc.............

If a doctor told you that you needed to lose weight, would you give him/her the same type of nonsensical answer you give here? (i.e.) weight is subjective. I doubt it. It would not even likely cross your mind, even though weight IS subjective (under your rationale).

Christian apologists seem to use your argument as a go-to. Why? Because it becomes a technicality in wiggling themselves out of the facts about the God they believe in... The God they believe in sanctions/allows/permits actions in which they would never likely do themselves, rather than to just condemn it. So please, continue on with your charade. We will all read along as you continue to shoot yourself in the foot and hide behind the flimsy technicality you feel you have.

(U) Isn't slavery the topic that skeptics bring up?

POI Yes, we skeptics do from time to time.

(U) I'm not avoiding the hard topics, but avoiding the irrelevant ones that skeptics keep bringing up.

POI I, again, have to chuckle here... Your deflection is the avoidance. Stating "chattel slavery is subjective" is the deflection you have opted to run with... Well, according to the God you believe in, he is a-okay with treating many humans as lifetime property, beating them just short of death with complete impunity, breeding new chattel slaves, etc... If your God exists, and his opinion on these matters are indeed objective, then you should agree with him. That such acts are a-okay. Do you?

(U) I agree in your example that it is subjective. How is it relevant to morality?

POI As explained prior, I doubt there exists some invisible celestial economic arbitrator which gives objective laws about economics.

(U) We have to ask the question why do you avoid answering the question about why chattel slavery should be considered objectively wrong? The only reasonable answer is you cannot, but instead deflect.

POI Again, according to the God you believe in, God is a-okay with keeping humans as property for life, beating them with impunity, breeding new chattel slaves, etc. I guess this means you do to, right?

(U) chattel slavery falls under subjective morality and not objective morality. Since it is subjective, it doesn't matter how one views chattel slavery, because ultimately it is just one's personal opinions on the matter.

POI False. Under your rationale, being against chattel slavery is wrong. One should instead be perfectly a-okay with chattel slavery, which means many countries are now wrong. The Bible God thinks chattel slavery is a-okay. Do you think keeping chattel slaves (for life and sometime against their choice), beating them without just cause and with impunity, and breeding them, is perfectly a-okay?

*******************************************

Notables:

-- You assume all Israelites knew all of the Torah. You have much more faith than I do. This would be like assuming all Christians know the NT.

-- Ignorance to the law does not absolve one from the law. If a chattel slave master asked an Israelite if they wanted to work for 7 years to absolve all of their debt, and did so, but did not read the fine print, would that chattel slave then be absolved for not reading the fine print when later having children with their given wife? No. They have then been duped. This also assumes the slave could even read. The poor often could not.

-- Slave offspring, females, and non-Israelites, and maybe others, are not given the choice to leave otherwise lifetime chattel slavery. Why?

-- The Bible does an equally crappy job in explaining laws in which merit further clarification. One of them being chattel slavery, as evidence by the vast discussion needed here... Which begs the question of your topic, why trust the Bible? Maybe we shouldn't trust the Bible, if it does no better to explain things.