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

[Athetotheist]

[1Co 6:9-10 KJV] 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators (G4205), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (G3120), nor abusers of themselves with mankind (G733), 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1co ... nc_1068009

fornicators (G4205) - pornos (10x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
fornicator, whoremonger, a male prostitute, a man who indulges in unlawful sexual intercourse

effeminate (G3120) - malakos (4x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
soft, effeminate, catamite, male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness, male prostitute

abusers of themselves with mankind (g733) - arsenokoitēs (2x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual
arrēn + koitē - "man" "bed"

arrēn (G730)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
male, man, man child

koitē (G2845)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
bed, conceive, chambering

Other translations:

[1Co 6:9 NLT] 9 Don't you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

[1Co 6:9 NIV] 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

[1Co 6:9 ESV] 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,

[1Co 6:9 NASB20] 9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals,

[1Co 6:9 NET] 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals,

[1Co 6:9 RSV] 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts,

[1Co 6:9 HNV] 9 Or don't you know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't be deceived. Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals,

From the guidelines for this subforum:

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.

In the context of this subforum, therefore, your lengthy posts of Bible passages attacking the morality of same-sex relations are meaningless. Here, you have to illustrate the alleged immorality of such relations, and since any activity----sexual or nonsexual----can carry a measure of risk if engaged in without proper precaution, risk factor does not determine the moral standing of same-sex relationships themselves.

[alexxcJRO]

And I'm arguing again you are not consistent in your argumentation.

Here's what you had stated:
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.
God could be malevolent and evil or indifferent or omnibenevolent or whatever.
The critique is on logic grounds not ethics like you said.
You cannot have both saying "skeptics do not say God is immoral or ought to behave in a certain manner" and "indirectly draw" God as being these things. What you are doing is making an ethical judgment to make these claims. So, you are basing your entire argument on ethical values.

Wrong.
Saying something is does not meant something ought to be.

I have to ask you the same question. It is not simply assuming God exists, but you also claiming God is "extremely malevolent, unkind, unwise, unjust, ignorant, not loving." This goes beyond assuming God exists, but imputing ethical characteristics to God that you claim God has.

I am using the Bible language. Bible says God is
-the pinnacle of love and kindness: loving and kind ->the antonym are malevolent and unkind
-the pinnacle of wisdom: wise ->the antonym is unwise
-the pinnacle of justice: just ->the antonym is unjust
-the pinnacle of knowledge: knowledgeable -> the antonym is ignorant
-the pinnacle of power: powerful -> the antonym is impotent

Some parts of the Bible portray God indirectly as being more in the line with "malevolent and unkind", "unwise", "unjust", "ignorant", "impotent" antonyms of loving and kind, wise, just, knowledgeable, powerful.

Doesn't make any sense. It doesn't work the other way around either. Just because humans engage in an immoral act does not mean animals would not engage in such an act. They could engage in such an act, but for animals it would not be considered immoral since they are not moral agents.

Yes it does make sense. You just in denial.
To engage in a immoral act one would need to be a moral agent. To have the metal faculties to discern between right and wrong. Since homosexual behaviour is a "sinful", "immoral" choice in your logic it follows non-moral agents would not engage in such actions.
But since they do homosexual behaviour is a feature of the universe and not a immoral choice of moral agents. Ergo an omniscient being creator of the cosmos and life would not condemn something that is a feature of the universe, something that he is responsible for. The God of the Bible does so. Ergo asta la vista bye bye.

More of skeptics providing faulty argumentation and then claiming victory.

But you are done. The fatal blow has been dealt. Your just squirming. Not accepting the inevitable.

[otseng]

[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 (G4205), for them that defile themselves with mankind (G733), for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

whoremongers (G4205) - pornos (10x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
fornicator, whoremonger, male prostitute

them that defile themselves with mankind (G733) - arsenokoitēs (2x)
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
abuser of (one's) self with mankind, defile (one's) self with mankind, sodomite, homosexual

Other translations:

[1Ti 1:10 NLT] 10 The law is for people who are sexually immoral, or who practice homosexuality, or are slave traders, liars, promise breakers, or who do anything else that contradicts the wholesome teaching

[1Ti 1:10 NIV] 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers--and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine

[1Ti 1:10 ESV] 10 the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

[1Ti 1:10 NASB20] 10 for the sexually immoral, homosexuals, slave traders, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

[1Ti 1:10 LSB] 10 for sexually immoral persons, for homosexuals, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching,

[1Ti 1:10 NET] 10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers - in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching.

[1Ti 1:10 RSV] 10 immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine,

[1Ti 1:10 WEB] 10 For lewd persons, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine,

[otseng]

POI Again, I have no opinion of gay sex. I'm agnostic. You then state this response shows weakness?

I will also add, for 'good' measure, my opinion does not matter, only Gods does. On the merits of gay sex alone, I find this action amoral. No more or less amoral than a blonde male having heterosexual sex with a brunette female. Now if you want to throw in 'rape', 'cheating', or any other facet(s), then there may exist other factors to warrant another position besides agnosticism. But consensual sex between two adults' alone merits agnosticism for me.

Noted.

POI Please do, I've asked many times now. My personal view does not matter. I would like to know THE answer. Please tell me why God hates gay sex and how you know this?

First off, there is no necessity to explain why God thinks male on male sex is immoral. The Bible doesn't need to provide justification for any command. However, given that, I still do believe there is justification for it.

1. It is against the original design.

The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.

2. It is against the original purpose.

One purpose of hetereosexual sex is the continuation of the human race. Male on male sex would not result in continuation of people.

3. It is linked to display of domination and control.

This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.

4. It is unsafe behavior.

And a case can be made where male-on-male sex carries significant potential to cause harm.

Men who have sex with men are at a higher risk of infection with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted infections.

Gay men and other men who have sex with men may be at an increased risk of depression, bipolar disorder and anxiety.

And research has shown that gay men and other men who have sex with men experience intimate partner violence at a higher rate than do other men.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-life ... t-20047107

That men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of HIV infection is well known

Men who have sex with men are at an increased risk of sexually transmitted infection with the viruses that cause the serious condition of the liver known as hepatitis.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) occur in sexually active gay men at a high rate.

Of all the sexually transmitted infections gay men are at risk for, human papilloma virus - which causes anal and genital warts - is often thought to be little more than an unsightly inconvenience. However, these infections may play a role in the increased rates of anal cancers in gay men.

https://www.health.ny.gov/community/lgb ... ncerns.htm

There are many reasons why gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men may have higher rates of HIV and STDs. Some of them are:
* Prevalence of HIV among sexual partners of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men is 40 times that of sexual partners of heterosexual men;
* Receptive anal sex is 18 times more risky for HIV acquisition than receptive vaginal sex;
* Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men on average have a greater number of lifetime sexual partners.

https://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/for-your-health.htm

5. Historically, male on male sex has been considered to be deviant behavior.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

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

[otseng]

If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.In the context of this subforum, therefore, your lengthy posts of Bible passages attacking the morality of same-sex relations are meaningless.

I'm exactly following the rules by providing evidence of what the Bible says on the topic of homosexuality. Note that I've only been providing what the Bible says and not yet stated my interpretation of what the text says. The pro-gay side interpret these passages differently than the traditional view, so feel free to present those interpretations and we can debate it.

Here, you have to illustrate the alleged immorality of such relations, and since any activity----sexual or nonsexual----can carry a measure of risk if engaged in without proper precaution, risk factor does not determine the moral standing of same-sex relationships themselves.

I've provided my arguments at Why is male on male sex immoral?

[otseng]

Saying something is does not meant something ought to be.

Exactly. And because animals exhibit homosexuality does not mean homosexual behavior is morally acceptable.

Some parts of the Bible portray God indirectly as being more in the line with "malevolent and unkind", "unwise", "unjust", "ignorant", "impotent" antonyms of loving and kind, wise, just, knowledgeable, powerful.

Yes, you've stated that many times. But we've already covered genocide and slavery and shown your assertions to be false.

You just in denial.
To engage in a immoral act one would need to be a moral agent. To have the metal faculties to discern between right and wrong. Since homosexual behaviour is a "sinful", "immoral" choice in your logic it follows non-moral agents would not engage in such actions.

I'll let readers judge who is the one in denial.

Non-moral agents can do whatever they want. They are not bound to not do anything that is considered to be immoral by humans. Animals still eat their young, eat others alive, engage in rape, torture their victims, etc.

More of skeptics providing faulty argumentation and then claiming victory.

But you are done. The fatal blow has been dealt. Your just squirming. Not accepting the inevitable.

More continuation of the same.

[alexxcJRO]

Exactly. And because animals exhibit homosexuality does not mean homosexual behavior is morally acceptable.

Careful now I am only arguing from one side. Not both. Please don't straw-man.

Yes, you've stated that many times. But we've already covered genocide and slavery and shown your assertions to be false.

Delusions.
God the ultimate being is punishing moral agents together with moral agents countless times in the Bible.
God the ultimate being punishes some for the sins of others.
God the ultimate being has favorites and commands some to inflict suffering and commit genocides on others.
God the ultimate being is homophobic.
God the ultimate being punishes moral agents with infinite punishment in Hell for finite sins.
God the ultimate being is inflicting countless suffering to the innocent countless times.
God the ultimate being does not know multiple times in the Bible about several things where the verses clearly say he tests things, check things, is ignorant of ridiculous things.
God the ultimate being is jealous, angry, capricious and regretful.
The contradiction is apparent and clear as day.

Non-moral agents can do whatever they want. They are not bound to not do anything that is considered to be immoral by humans. Animals still eat their young, eat others alive, engage in rape, torture their victims, etc.

In order to torture, murder, rape one has to have the capability
-to discern right from wrong;
-have self awareness, awareness of other's consciousness existence, others selves;
-higher form of consciousness;
-some form of empathy: cognitive and/or affective;

Animals who are non-moral agents do not actually "murder", "torture" or "rape" or be "immoral" although they may be killing in horrific ways their prey or have aggressive mating behavior.
They lack the necessary tools mentioned above.

Some animals maybe could be consider moral agents: dolphin, great primates, elephants because they have self awareness(mirror test), have some form of empathy, some higher form of consciousness.
But the rest who engage in homosexual behaviour prove my point.

That's why if homosexual behaviour is like murder and torture then non-moral agents non-human animals(except dolphins, great primates, elephants and so on) would not engage in homosexual behaviour just like they do not murder or torture.

[POI]

[Replying to otseng in post #3894]

1) Why do we not need to know why God hates gay sex?

2) Does God even furnish <official reason(s)> as to why He hates gay sex? if so, what are they?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3894

The male and female sexual organs are designed to be used together. Male on male sex is contrary to the original design.

Considering that male nipples don't seem to have much of a purpose, an argument from specific design doesn't seem quite that strong (it's also been speculated that same-sex attraction may be one of nature's population control mechanisms).

This is historically how male on male sex primarily manifested. Male on male sex was primarily not because of sexual attraction, but because of display of power of the dominating male. We even see this in prisons today.

It may be how male-on-male sex has been historically depicted, but you can't delegitimize genuine attraction between members of the same gender by broad-brushing such attraction as a power trip.

It is unsafe behavior.

Any sexual contact between individuals can be unsafe if practiced unsafely.

And you're still pushing the erroneous notion that there is only one way for males to have intimate contact, again reducing an entire sexual orientation to a specific sex act.

Homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) beginning with the first edition, published in 1952 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

"In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed the diagnosis of “homosexuality” from the second edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). This resulted after comparing competing theories, those that pathologized homosexuality and those that viewed it as normal."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4695779/

A lot has changed since good old 1952, when smoking was harmless.

[Mae von H]

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

This question poses a dilemma for the "Bible based" Christian. If one believes the Bible is the "Word of God" or at least is inspired by God, does it not have to be perfect? Yet if the Christian admits the Bible is written by men who only thought they were inspired by God, then indeed it loses its authority.

I do not see a way out of this dilemma, for the believer. Unless I am mistaken, the classic Jewish belief is that the Torah is from God, but it must be interpreted by an ongoing oral tradition. This leaves much "wiggle room" and thus the axiom that there is a different, though correct, interpretation of the Torah for every Jew.

First, the men who wrote the Bible did not claim they were inspired by and large. Now and again a prophet spoke from God to the people who were usually in deep sin and needed correction. That necessitated authority although it is easy for a reader to see that what they were saying was vital to avoid disaster. The decision that the pieces were inspired was made by the READER, not the writer.

Does a word from God need to be perfect? Does this mean there can be no spelling errors? What about grammar and punctuation? A friend of mine bought a Bible and it has two books of Proverbs and no Psalms. How can this be in a perfect book? Was the donkey perfect when God spoke through him? Believers at the least can usually recall messages they heard from a speaker that spoke so strongly to them, it was God speaking through the person. Were they then expected to be perfect? Did everything that proceeded from the speaker show itself to be perfect?

So the way out is to drop the man made measure of "perfect in every way"...(sounds like Mary Poppins) and accept that the Word of God is true. What is the difference? Perfect puts a requirement on the piece whereas as "true" puts a requirement on the person accepting it. Is it not easy to see why men prefer to put the high requirement on the book instead of themselves? Atheists like that inerrancy doctrine because it is easy to superficially shoot it down. (Real scholarship shows these not to be errors but that takes some learning.) Believers like that doctrine because it takes the heat off of them actually DOING what the book says. They just need to believe that leather-bound book on the shelf is perfect and defend it vigorously, but they don't themselves need to restrict their choices in accordance with what it says. See why that is preferable?