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: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 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
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4389
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1809 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3841

Post by POI »

(U) I said the Bible thinks gay sex is wrong. But, why should we trust what the Bible claims about gay sex?[/quote]

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.

POI And as I've already said, I'd rather cut to the chase. We've both read the Bible. Some types, (if any), of situational gay sex are okay with God, or not?

(U) I'll let readers read through the posts and see if there is any other viable basis for objective morality other than God.

POI I'll save readers the time in vast exploration. You have presented no case, above and beyond, the conclusion of "might makes right".

(U) We've covered this as well.

POI Yes, and I'll again, save readers much time in trying to find needles in haystacks... Your pushback is an apologist's way to avoid actually answering what you perceive as uncomfortable questions. Again, likely no one will use such tactics if one states one is "rich or poor".

(U) 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'll save the readers much time here again. You agreed the Bible does no better job in elaborating on complex topics, verses any other ancient document. Which then begs the question, why use the Bible, verses any other ancient document?

(U) Maybe, maybe not.

POI So the Bibe is not clear on this topic? You cannot answer a simple binary question in which God has decided to weigh in upon?
Last edited by POI on Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4389
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1809 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: chattel slavery

Post #3842

Post by POI »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:50 am 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.
Exactly. Here is what we skeptics are instead saying...(i.e.)

God says ham is good. Hence, the objective conclusion is that God likes ham. What some of us are pointing out is that God instructs some verse(s) which demonstrate opposition to ham, which then brings confusion? It is not questioning God's love of ham, but instead asking why some verse(s) instruct the opposite to his love of ham? This is about logic, not 'morals'.
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: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: chattel slavery

Post #3843

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:50 am Careful now with your favorite habit: moving the goal post and obfuscate from the talking point.

So stop with the obvious straw-man you propagate ad nauseam over and over again.
More ad homs.
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.
It is not simply on logical grounds, but also on ethical grounds. Skeptics point out the "evil" things God does, but in fact they are not objectively evil. So, skeptics need to first demonstrate God's actions are actually evil before they can claim God is illogical.

With your argument, if God is not immoral, then what is illogical or contradictory? If God ought not to behave in a different way, then what is wrong or logically contradictory with the way he has behaved?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: homosexuality

Post #3844

Post by otseng »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 8:50 am 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.
Contradictory to what? Your personal opinion? The opinions of homosexuals? Why should your opinion or the opinion of homosexuals be the normative stance?
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.
Animals also eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other's holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak. With your argument, all of these things also appear naturally, so are these all morally acceptable and people should engage in them?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3845

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Sun Feb 18, 2024 7:19 pm POI And as I've already said, I'd rather cut to the chase.
As in all my debates, I want to proceed logically. Jumping to the conclusions is not proceeding logically.
POI I'll save readers the time in vast exploration. You have presented no case, above and beyond, the conclusion of "might makes right".
More repeating of assertions. I'll also let readers assess how many times you've engaged in this tactic.
POI Yes, and I'll again, save readers much time in trying to find needles in haystacks...
That's why I give summaries of all my arguments. Do skeptics give summaries of their arguments in this thread? Rarely. So it is the skeptics' arguments that is the one trying to find needles.
You agreed the Bible does no better job in elaborating on complex topics, verses any other ancient document. Which then begs the question, why use the Bible, verses any other ancient document?
False attribution fallacy. Where did I say this?
POI So the Bibe is not clear on this topic? You cannot answer a simple binary question in which God has decided to weigh in upon?
I believe the Bible is clear. What makes it difficult is untangling the fallacious arguments from the skeptics.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Levitical passages on homosexuality

Post #3846

Post by otseng »

I'll now start to deep dive into the relevant passages...

1. Lev 18:22

[Lev 18:22 KJV] 22 Thou shalt not lie (H7901) with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination (H8441).

2. Lev 20:13

[Lev 20:13 KJV] 13 If a man also lie (H7901) with mankind, as he lieth (H7904) with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination (H8441): they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.

Lie (H7901) is shakab. Literally it means to lie down with, but is a euphemism for sexual relations.

Lieth (H7904) is miskab. It is the noun form and is a bed. It is also a euphemism for sexual relations.

Abomination is toeba. It is something disgusting, an abhorrence, unclean ritually, ethically wicked.

These passages are in the context of the Holiness code.
The Holiness code is used in biblical criticism to refer to Leviticus chapters 17–26, and sometimes passages in other books of the Pentateuch, especially Numbers and Exodus. It is so called due to its highly repeated use of the word holy (Hebrew: קדוש qəḏōš or kadash[1]). Kadash is usually translated as "holy", but originally meant "set apart", with "special", "clean/pure", "whole" and "perfect" as associated meanings.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiness_code
Code of Holiness, collection of secular, ritualistic, moral, and festival regulations in the Old Testament Book of Leviticus, chapters 17–26. The code stresses that the people of Israel are separated from the rest of the world because Yahweh (God) has chosen them. They are to demonstrate their unique election by disassociating themselves from profane worldliness and by retaining their ritualistic and moral purity.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Code-of-Holiness

The Holiness code, in particular chapters 18 and 20, addresses sexual practices the Canaanites were doing that were an abomination.

[Lev 18:3 KJV] 3 After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye walk in their ordinances.

List of sexual sins:
- Sex with neighbor's wife
- Child sacrifice to Molech
- Men having sex with other men
- Beastiality
- Sex with a near relative

The Canaanite nations would be judged for these and the Israelites were likewise to not practice them.

[Lev 18:24-25 KJV] 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you: 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.

Other translations of Lev 18:22:

(ESV)
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

(NET)
You must not have sexual relations with a male as one has sexual relations with a woman; it is a detestable act.

(NIV)
Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

Some translations that use the term homosexuality:

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

(TLB)
"Homosexuality is absolutely forbidden, for it is an enormous sin.

Other translations of Lev 20:13:

(ESV)
If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.

(NET)
If a man goes to bed with a male as one goes to bed with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.

(NIV)
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.

(NLT)
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.

(TLB)
The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have brought it upon themselves.

Some sexual relations that are not mentioned in the Holiness code:
- Female having sex with a female
- Sex between unmarried couple
- Sex with prostitutes
- Male having sex with multiple women

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2876
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 525 times

Re: homosexuality

Post #3847

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #3844
Animals also eat their young, behead their mates, kill other animals, engage in incest and rape, eat their own vomit and feces, smell each other's holes, walk around naked, eat other animals alive, and kill the weak. With your argument, all of these things also appear naturally, so are these all morally acceptable and people should engage in them?
This has come up before. In another discussion, another poster wrote:
A great many animals, including a large number of primates, kill their young. Would you say that makes it acceptable for humans to do the same? Where do you draw the line re: using animals as an example of "natural" behaviour which, therefore, makes such behaviour acceptable in humans?
I responded:

Are you comparing same-sex relationships to killing?

One might as easily ask where YOU draw the line. Are the patriarchs of certain organized religions who called for the slaughter of whole populations INCLUDING the young to be held up as examples of "righteous" behavior acceptable in the human community?
"There is more room for a god in science than there is for no god in religious faith."
--Phil Plate

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 4389
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1809 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3848

Post by POI »

(U) As in all my debates, I want to proceed logically. Jumping to the conclusions is not proceeding logically.

POI There exists more than one method to being logical. Many debates, and/or court cases, and/or papers, etc., start with presenting a position, and then providing the evidence(s) to substantiate the position. However, you already provided a glimpse into your conclusion. Which is that God's position is not clear? (post 3838):

I stated - "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."
You stated - "Maybe, maybe not"

(U) More repeating of assertions.

POI Correction. It's repeating the justified conclusion, when necessary.

(U) That's why I give summaries of all my arguments. Do skeptics give summaries of their arguments in this thread? Rarely. So it is the skeptics' arguments that is the one trying to find needles.

POI I do not believe posters have the ability to later add summaries to the OP, like you do.

The point being, following logic and not "morals", a claimed loving being would abolish lifetime chattel slavery practices, by definition of the term "love".

(U) False attribution fallacy. Where did I say this?

POI Applying rubberstamps and hoping for no rebuttal is not an effective way to win a debate. In post 3771, you stated:

"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?"

Hence, the Bible is no better in vetting out complex topics than any other ancient book. And yet, your argument is to trust the Bible anyways?

(U) I believe the Bible is clear. What makes it difficult is untangling the fallacious arguments from the skeptics.

POI My conclusion, after reading the Bible, is that God is not a fan of gay sex. Likely because the writer(s) of the Bible were not fans of gay sex. This conclusion is fallacious? Meaning, maybe God is a fan of gay sex? Is his position clear, or not?

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: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: homosexuality

Post #3849

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 9:16 am Are you comparing same-sex relationships to killing?
No. I'm simply showing just because we see something done by animals does not mean it is morally acceptable behavior for humans.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20705
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 205 times
Been thanked: 349 times
Contact:

Re: Homosexuality

Post #3850

Post by otseng »

POI wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:06 am POI I do not believe posters have the ability to later add summaries to the OP, like you do.
Not being able to edit the OP does not preclude skeptics from posting their own summary of their arguments.
The point being, following logic and not "morals", a claimed loving being would abolish lifetime chattel slavery practices, by definition of the term "love".
And I addressed this in my summary.
(U) False attribution fallacy. Where did I say this?

POI Applying rubberstamps and hoping for no rebuttal is not an effective way to win a debate. In post 3771, you stated:

"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?"
Which is different from "You agreed the Bible does no better job in elaborating on complex topics, verses any other ancient document."

I've never claimed who is doing a better job or a worse job on complex topics compared to the ANE cultures.
POI My conclusion, after reading the Bible, is that God is not a fan of gay sex. Likely because the writer(s) of the Bible were not fans of gay sex. This conclusion is fallacious? Meaning, maybe God is a fan of gay sex? Is his position clear, or not?
Yes, it's fallacious because the modern concept of gay is not found in ancient cultures:
otseng wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2024 6:57 am 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.

Post Reply