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]

Another hot topic regarding the morality of the Bible is homosexuality. What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality morally wrong? How should we treat homosexuals?

There are six primary passages that deal with homosexuality in the Bible.

1. Lev 18:22

[Lev 18:22 KJV] 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.

2. Lev 20:13

[Lev 20:13 KJV] 13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

3. Gen 19 - Sodom

[Gen 19:4-5 KJV] 4 But before they lay down, the men of the city, [even] the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter: 5 And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where [are] the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.

4. Rom 1

[Rom 1:26-27 KJV] 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

5. 1 Cor 6

[1Co 6:9-10 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

6. 1 Tim 1

[1Ti 1:9-10 KJV] 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

[POI]

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

It's wrong?

Is homosexuality morally wrong?

Well, if one is to trust the Bible, it is wrong. But why should we trust what the Bible tells us about gay practices anyways?

How should we treat homosexuals?

The Bible states if they are caught engaging accordingly, kill them or they should/will die?

[otseng]

What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

It's wrong?

Like the moral issues we've covered so far (genocide, slavery), it requires deeper digging to understand it.

Is homosexuality morally wrong?

Well, if one is to trust the Bible, it is wrong. But why should we trust what the Bible tells us about gay practices anyways?

On what justification do you say the Bible is wrong? Again, who cares what you morally think if you have no basis for objective morality? Everything would just be your subjective opinion and you cannot claim the Bible is objectively wrong.

We can trust the Bible because of all the evidence I've been presenting in this thread on why it is reliable and trustworthy.

The question is what does the Bible really say about homosexuality? I've presented all the major verses on it and what is required is to deep dive into what those really mean.

How should we treat homosexuals?

The Bible states if they are caught engaging accordingly, kill them or they should/will die?

Yes, in the Old Testament it says this. I'll be arguing later homosexuals should not be killed when looking at the New Testament.

[Masterblaster]

Hello

otseng -" Yes, in the Old Testament it says this. I'll be arguing later homosexuals should not be killed when looking at the New Testament"

Phew!, that is a great relief to many poor souls. This level of investigative journalism can only be awed at. Well done!

[otseng]

The modern definition of homosexuality is same sex attraction.

Homosexuality is a sexual attraction, romantic attraction, or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

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

of, relating to, or characterized by sexual or romantic attraction to people of one's same sex

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

Homosexuality refers to attraction between people who are the same sex. It comes from the Greek word homos, meaning “the same.”

It is a sexual orientation, as opposed to a gender identity such as male, female, and non-binary. People who are homosexual could refer to themselves as gay, lesbian, LGBTQ, queer, or a number of other terms.

https://www.webmd.com/sex/what-is-homosexuality

homosexuality, sexual interest in and attraction to members of one’s own sex. The term gay is frequently used as a synonym for homosexual; female homosexuality is often referred to as lesbianism.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/homosexuality

However, this view of homosexuality is a modern concept and it has not always been this way.

The widespread concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation and sexual identity is a relatively recent development, with the word itself being coined in the 19th century.

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

There are not even words in the ancient languages which translate to the modern-day "homosexual" and "heterosexual" which were only coined in 1869 CE.

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/17 ... ent-world/

Like the issue with slavery, a major problem with the issue of homosexuality is our modern terms do not correlate with how people in ancient society viewed homosexuality.

The modern conception of sexuality relies on a strict categorisation of sexual appetites and personal desires – heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, pansexuality, etc. In the ancient world, however, these words did not exist and the concepts they represent were not necessarily analogous to our modern understanding of sexuality.

In truth, the projection of utopian ideals of sexual acceptance – particularly in the case of same-sex relationships – onto ancient cultures does not truly capture the complexity and social nuance that surrounded the complex issues of sexuality and desire in the past, and continues to cause controversy in the modern day. The application of modern labels onto sexual attitudes in the past – labels still hotly contested by scholars today – creates the issue of forcing a modern understanding of sexuality onto people who did not necessarily conceptualise sexual identity in the same way we do.

https://garstangmuseum.wordpress.com/20 ... ent-world/

Sexual orientation is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the New Testament or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world. The usual supposition of writers during the Hellenistic period were that homosexual behavior was the result of insatiable lust seeking novel and more challenging forms of self-gratification.

[alexxcJRO]

The entire point of skeptics bringing up slavery, genocide, rape, homosexuality, etc is charging God and the Old Testament is immoral. So it is on ethical grounds, not logical grounds that these are brought up.

Is all about logic. The concept of God presented in the Bible is contradictory.

The ultimate good, benevolent, wise, just, intelligent, knowledgeable, powerful being-GOD is
-punishing moral agents together with non-moral agents -> shows no care or empathy for the one that are objectively innocent: unborn babies, babies-infants, animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth;
-commands that gays should be killed; orders some humans to commit genocides against other humans;
-threatens humans with everlasting punishment and torment in other dimension: Hell;
-is jealous, petty, malevolent-evil, vindictive, unjust, unkind, homophobic and so on.

This is just repeating assertions without any justification.

Q: So a contradiction is not a logic thing? Is an ethic thing?

[POI]

(U) Like the moral issues we've covered so far (genocide, slavery), it requires deeper digging to understand it.

POI Cutting to the chase... Some type(s) of situational gay sex is okay with God, or not?

(U) On what justification do you say the Bible is wrong?

POI That is not what I said. I said the Bible thinks gay sex is wrong. But, why should we trust what the Bible claims about gay sex?

(U) Again, who cares what you morally think if you have no basis for objective morality? Everything would just be your subjective opinion and you cannot claim the Bible is objectively wrong.

POI And around and around we go.... (Paraphrased) "Human 'moral compasses' are God-given.". "Hence, we inherently know right from wrong because God gives us his own 'nature' to know what is right/wrong." (End paraphrase).

However, all this means is that we adopt "God's nature". Why is God's nature objectively right? You have yet to establish why it is so, outside of the conclusion of 'might makes right', or simply put, because the all-creating and all-powerful God says so.

And again, as mentioned in the last topic, I doubt you would resort to this type of defense if we were speaking about "economics". We already know no 'absolute' objective standard exists there. But you never hear economists argue in such a way. And if you again state this is not relevant here, then I guess we can ignore anything Jesus said about the topic of "rich and poor", since there exists no standard to distinguish the two.

(U) We can trust the Bible because of all the evidence I've been presenting in this thread on why it is reliable and trustworthy.

POI Giving haphazard and incomplete instruction on complex moral topics is reliable? If we agree, from the last topic, that the Bible is no better at the clarification of tuff topics than any other ancient book, which also claims to be from a god(s), then I beg to differ. As stated prior, if the "bad" outweighs the "good", just abolish it, like he did so with cursing your parents. Just don't do it, even if you can rationalize some reason(s) to do it.

(U) The question is what does the Bible really say about homosexuality? I've presented all the major verses on it and what is required is to deep dive into what those really mean.

POI I'd gather God is not a fan of gay sex. Likely because the writer(s) of the Bible were not fans of gay sex.

(U) Yes, in the Old Testament it says this. I'll be arguing later homosexuals should not be killed when looking at the New Testament.

POI I'll get my popcorn ready.

[otseng]

POI Cutting to the chase... Some type(s) of situational gay sex is okay with God, or not?

I said the Bible thinks gay sex is wrong. But, why should we trust what the Bible claims about gay sex?

Actually, it doesn't say "gay sex". And as I've pointed out, the Bible has no equivalent concept to the modern definition of homosexuality.

What I'm doing is first presenting what the text actually says and then going from the bottom up to interpret it rather jumping directly to conclusions.

Hence, we inherently know right from wrong because God gives us his own 'nature' to know what is right/wrong. (End paraphrase).

However, all this means is that we adopt "God's nature". Why is God's nature objectively right? You have yet to establish why it is so, outside of the conclusion of 'might makes right', or simply put, because the all-creating and all-powerful God says so.

Yes, we've gone over this many times. I'll let readers read through the posts and see if there is any other viable basis for objective morality other than God.

And again, as mentioned in the last topic, I doubt you would resort to this type of defense if we were speaking about "economics". We already know no 'absolute' objective standard exists there.

We've covered this as well.

POI Giving haphazard and incomplete instruction on complex moral topics is reliable?

I'll let readers assess my summary arguments for the failure of atheists to account for objective morality, God being the basis for objective morality, genocide accusations, and slavery.

POI I'd gather God is not a fan of gay sex. Likely because the writer(s) of the Bible were not fans of gay sex.

Maybe, maybe not.

[otseng]

Q: So a contradiction is not a logic thing? Is an ethic thing?

What logic have you used? I've presented my arguments to address genocide and slavery and now discussing homosexuality. Please present your summary arguments for your claims.

[alexxcJRO]

Q: So a contradiction is not a logic thing? Is an ethic thing?

What logic have you used? I've presented my arguments to address genocide and slavery and now discussing homosexuality. Please present your summary arguments for your claims.

1.
Careful now with your favorite habit: moving the goal post and obfuscate from the talking point.
My response was to this:
"The entire point of skeptics bringing up slavery, genocide, rape, homosexuality, etc is charging God and the Old Testament is immoral. So it is on ethical grounds, not logical grounds that these are brought up."

What I said is that skeptics do not say God is immoral or ought to behave in a certain manner but that the concept presented is illogical-contradictory.
God could be malevolent and evil or indifferent or omnibenevolent or whatever.
The critique is on logic grounds not ethics like you said. So stop with the obvious straw-man you propagate ad nauseam over and over again.

2.
On the homosexuality front God is presented in the Bible as homophobic, commanding humans to kill males that engage in homosexual relations.
It is contradictory for God(the ultimate being) to have a thing against homosexuals.
Their occurrence is a natural thing as part of the natural world. Many other non-human animals engage in homosexual behaviour: giraffes, dolphins, bonobos, lions, walrus, sheep, elephant, chimpanzee, horse, dog, king penguin and so on.
An omniscient being would not have a problem against something that appears naturally for it would know this.


"Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman. It is a detestable sin."
(Leviticus 18:22)

"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)