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

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3900]

Hello Mae von H

You say - "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 there really a difference here? It sounds good and well done for writing it. Didn't you just 'shift the blame', and nothing else? It's like shuffling on a chair!

Look at this example!

The Rules of the Road are not perfect, but they are true.???

[otseng]

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.

It's not a straw man. What I'm showing is your logic has to be consistent. Otherwise you're just special pleading.

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.

More reassertions of claims without any supporting argumentation or evidence. Also, more moral claims while asserting you are not making any moral claims.

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.

Then likewise animals do not engage in gay sex.

[otseng]

[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?

By asking these questions, it implies you have no dispute with the reasons I've offered to why male on male sex should be considered immoral.

As far as I can find, there is no "official reason" why God prohibits it. However, there is also no official reasons for many commandments in the Bible. Find any document that has rules and commandments and rarely will it explain the why. Why does the Bible need to be any different?

[otseng]

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).

If males want to suck on another male nipple, then it can be argued there's no Bible commandment against it.

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.

I'm not delegitimizing anything except male on male sex. And I'm not sure what you're implying by emphasizing depicted. Are you disputing that is how it was commonly manifested in the past?

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

Any activity can be practiced unsafely, but some activities are inherently more unsafe than others.

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.

Note that I've not made any claim of anything outside of a specific sex act.

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

I'm not disputing a lot of things have changed. But I will dispute any notion that things always change for the better.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3900]

Hello Mae von H

You say - "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 there really a difference here? It sounds good and well done for writing it. Didn't you just 'shift the blame', and nothing else? It's like shuffling on a chair!

Look at this example!

The Rules of the Road are not perfect, but they are true.???

Fair enough question so let’s examine your point.

How are the rules of the road true? Do you know they are not even the same around the world? It’s that like saying an orange is true? There’s no standardized measure.

The Bible has explanatory power. That is, it explains why we are the way we are and that explanation matches real life. The rules of the road in England don’t explain how people drive in the US. So they aren’t “true” in the sense of explaining driving everywhere.

The Bible isn’t a set of rules. It does have wise suggestions for a better life and society. When it says, do xyz and abc will result, it works. Road rules will also make for a better society in general but these vary greatly and are limited in scope and of value. Road rules are of no value if there are no roads or vehicles, for example.

[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?

By asking these questions, it implies you have no dispute with the reasons I've offered to why male on male sex should be considered immoral.

As far as I can find, there is no "official reason" why God prohibits it. However, there is also no official reasons for many commandments in the Bible. Find any document that has rules and commandments and rarely will it explain the why. Why does the Bible need to be any different?

The answer to my first question takes me back to my prior point. Which is basically, "because he says so." How is this not (might makes right)?

[Masterblaster]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3900]

Hello Mae von H

You say - "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 there really a difference here? It sounds good and well done for writing it. Didn't you just 'shift the blame', and nothing else? It's like shuffling on a chair!

Look at this example!

The Rules of the Road are not perfect, but they are true.???

Fair enough question so let’s examine your point.

How are the rules of the road true? Do you know they are not even the same around the world? It’s that like saying an orange is true? There’s no standardized measure.

The Bible has explanatory power. That is, it explains why we are the way we are and that explanation matches real life. The rules of the road in England don’t explain how people drive in the US. So they aren’t “true” in the sense of explaining driving everywhere.

The Bible isn’t a set of rules. It does have wise suggestions for a better life and society. When it says, do xyz and abc will result, it works. Road rules will also make for a better society in general but these vary greatly and are limited in scope and of value. Road rules are of no value if there are no roads or vehicles, for example.

------
Hello Mae von H

Even on a simple level, with the analogous example, your steps do not work. The Bible is like The Rules of the Road, it has a myriad of variants. I use KJV, but apart from that OT Scripture is the bedrock for the Torah, the Koran, the Holy Bible, the....it is as proliferated as are travel brochures.
Try moving around anywhere without referencing its precepts and you will end up in A&E..

Let us dig slightly deeper and consider the element of trust that is half of the Opening Post's reference.
Do I trust The Rules of the Road and are they True? Yes, I do!

There are two junctions near my house where adherence to their maxims is impractically absurd. The bottom line here is that they generally work and are fit for purpose. They have stood the test of time
as they say. They allow for vehicle transport to exist in a modern world and they are intrinsic to our modern existence.
Consider further, Mae von H, would you trust a gun that misfires once every one thousand times. If it was for vermin control I might persist with it, but if i was volunteering as a mercenary in Ukraine's Armed Forces, I would dump it.

In the same way the Bible can be deemed trustworthy or not. There are many invaluable insights to be gleaned from this wonderful book. However, if you want to use it as a propaganda brief towards your own ends, it will backfire on you.

Just like The Rules of the Road, this Book's trustworthiness is contingent on the good will and considered consensus of it's users. There must be serious respect given to people who choose to move about in a less orthodox fashion. This road is public!

[Diogenes]

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.

Then likewise animals do not engage in gay sex.

I disagree with both these claims.

1st, animals, including homo sapiens have morality. They have a basic sense of reciprocity and fairness, at least within their clans/tribes. And they certainly have the 'tools' for homosexuality.

A 2019 paper states that same-sex sexual behavior has been observed in over 1,500 species.

Monk, Julia D.; Giglio, Erin; Kamath, Ambika; Lambert, Max R.; McDonough, Caitlin E. (December 2019). "An alternative hypothesis for the evolution of same-sex sexual behaviour in animals". Nature Ecology and Evolution, as referenced at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality.

What animals do not have are myths about certain behaviors being 'immoral' simply because of animal constructed 'morality' based on tradition or imagined gods.
Except for homo sapiens. These peculiar apes have invented many 'moral' prescriptions and proscriptions not based on kindness, or logic, but based on some 'god' telling them to do something just because the 'god' says so. There is a long list of this nonsense in Leviticus. Those 'moral laws' are rendered even sillier when suddenly they were claimed to not be binding at all because of the death of a certain homo sapien from Nazareth.

This kind of silly arbitrariness leads to all kinds of nonsense, including making exceptions for murder (Abraham binding Isaac for ritual murder), circumcision, special days for special foods, calling certain nutritious foods 'sinful to eat;' and even goofy non bible based claims like zygotes being persons.

[Diogenes]

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?

These claims are hopelessly confused and self contradictory and include the logical fallacy of equivocation. "Perfect" comes from the myth that a perfect 'god' is the genesis of the writing. A publisher's typo or a scrivener's error is a separate topic. It is Christians, not atheists who claim the Bible as intended by God, has no errors. You can't have it both ways and complain the Bible comes from God and also blame it's many HUGE CLAIMS THAT CONTRADICT FACT, are not from God. If MAN is responsible for such erroneous claims, or whichever ones you want to blame men for, the result is an untrustyworthy document.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3900

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?

A book which doesn't claim to be true has no grounds on which to denounce any other book as false.