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

[Diogenes]

You left out "Where does the Bible say gay sex is right?" Only if you can demonstrate this would it affirm the position gay sex is right.

You've left out key factors. The Bible merely reflects the mores of the authors. It is abundantly clear that several Biblical authors, like Paul (who also advises against marriage and argues for a subordinate role for women) are substituting their personal moral beliefs for those of the God they claim exists. All religions do this. It is easy to see why there would be universal laws against murder and theft. But it takes a human to come up with a prohibition of something that is not inherently destructive, such as homosexuality, masturbation, and wearing blended fabrics. There may in fact be reasons for, in some circumstances, for all three examples being less than ideal, but an absolute prohibition is only seen with homo sapiens who invented religious myths as a justification.

[otseng]

The second video explains why. The theist's reason for using the OMV argument is to demonstrate the existence of a God. You cannot insert God into the argument to prove God in the same argument. That's circular.

POI The theist's position, (you), is to assert that you cannot have OMV's without God. My counter is presented in the 2nd video.

No, the moral argument doesn't assume does God exists, but it assumes God could exist. And since there is no viable alternative explanation other than God, therefore God is the best explanation for OMV.

The 1st video addresses the 2 horns in the perceived 'false dilemma'. Frank T. offers a 3rd horn? But to prove this, you not only need to demonstrate God's existence, but then explain why this conclusion is sound, outside of 'might makes right.' And you have failed. I have explained why.

As I've mentioned, I've offered many other arguments for God's existence in the cosmology topic.

I'll let readers assess who has failed.

Further, regardless of if one is able or not, to demonstrate OMV's, does not change the conclusion that the theist's reasoning for using the "moral argument" to prove God completely fails regardless of if morals are objective or not. Thus, please stop using the "moral argument" in an attempt to prove a God.

Don't see how it fails so the moral argument is still valid and will continue to be used.

POI The theist's version of the OMV argument, to prove God's existence, is circular. The 2nd video explains why.

Exactly what does the 2nd video state that I haven't already addressed?

(U) Cumulatively, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of God existing than not existing.

POI Therefore, the agnostic/atheist/other is:

a) uninformed
b) inept
c) in denial
d) other

Meaning, the theists have won. At this point, it's as futile as debating the shape of the earth with a flat earther. In this scenario, the doubter is the 'flat earther.' Is this how settled the topic is about God's existence? If I am as informed of the presented arguments as you are, I am options <b) thru d)>?

Who's claiming points a-d?

There's two claims: God exists or God does not exist. If you claim God does not exist, then we can have a debate on that topic after the conclusion on ethics. Then we can see which side is comparable to the flat earther position.

POI I'm not here to argue the ethics. I'm instead pointing out its lack in logic. Meaning, without completely changing the definition of the term 'love', some of God's given pronouncements do not look to be objectively compatible? This is not a "moral" observation, but instead a logical one. In part, this skeptic doubts the Bible because it lacks logic.

As I've been arguing with alexxcJRO, I dispute this claim. It is not merely based on logic, but at the foundation the skeptics are making ethical and moral judgments on the Bible and God. This is even revealed in your charge of love being redefined. The implication is you believe God acts in ways that is not loving. This is a moral judgment.

(U) As for "might makes right", we've covered this multiple times. It is not "might" that makes it right, but authority.

POI Then again, it's still the same old argument. Can I stop him? No. Why is God THE authority and why should anyone care?

What same old argument are you referring to? That nobody can stop him? How is that relevant?

The entire point is God is the only viable basis for OMV. Why should anyone care? Because we're debating ethics and morals and we're arguing for what is the truth.

POI You've missed my point. But you unknowingly completely demonstrated my point. If God says it, it becomes so. Gay sex is an abomination because it is in HIS nature to think so. No one has the power to stop him in enforcing his opinion/nature/conclusion. His nature is the only one which matters. This is 'might makes right.'

And as I've mentioned before, I agree "authority makes right". With "might makes right", that is not necessarily so.

[otseng]

The chimps are just like humans in their moral behavior; tho' they and we recognize moral behavior (cooperate for mutual benefit) they both remain selfish as individuals; both species exhibit morality AND both break the rules regularly.

If someone breaks a moral value, then another one would view wrong has been done and would react to it. There is no indication of that in this chimp experiment.

In several of the videos, the animal (chimp and elephant) elicit cooperation from a partner despite the partner not being as hungry or as eager for the 'reward.' These are examples of reciprocity (the partner will need help when he is hungry in the future).

Could be. But the fundamental question of ethics is Hume's is-ought problem. Just because something is does not mean something ought. Just because we see reciprocity in nature doesn't mean it's a normative value.

For me the most telling video is when one ape in a cage gets a better reward for the same behavior as the other. They both recognize the unfairness of this and the 'aggrieved' chimp complains. The other, albeit reluctantly [again we see the very human like interplay between self interest and moral responsibility], shares his reward. This is EXACTLY like human morality. We recognize in ourselves the tension between self interest and our duty to others.

Or it can be explained as survival instincts since it's reacting to getting less food compared to another. I think a more telling experiment would be they do different things and one works hard and another one doesn't work hard and they get the exact same reward.

The Bible merely reflects the mores of the authors.

Could be so. But in the context of our discussion, homosexuality, the Bible is consistent on the position.

[POI]

(U) No, the moral argument doesn't assume does God exists, but it assumes God could exist. And since there is no viable alternative explanation other than God, therefore God is the best explanation for OMV.

POI Do you reject premise 1 of Dr. Craig's moral argument, as presented in the 2nd video? (i.e.):

"If God does not exist then OMV's do not exist"

Dr, Craig is asserting, in P1, that you CANNOT have OMV's without God. Is this your position too? If so, it is YOUR burden to explain why this is so? If this is not your position too, then I would like to know what IS an OMV? Is it?

"Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad, and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in."

Please explain WHY the statement "gay sex is an abomination" IS an OMV? And please do so without stating something to the effect of... "because God says so.". So far, I'm saying that if God does exist, all theists have demonstrated is that "might makes right". This position fails as Frank T. also explained in the first video I offered. And this is why Frank T. tries to offer a third option, which is an option beyond what Frank labels the 'false dilemma'. Which then is refuted in the second video I offered, because Frank's attempt at a 3rd position is merely circular.

(U) As I've been arguing with alexxcJRO, I dispute this claim. It is not merely based on logic, but at the foundation the skeptics are making ethical and moral judgments on the Bible and God. This is even revealed in your charge of love being redefined. The implication is you believe God acts in ways that is not loving. This is a moral judgment.

POI Then you missed my point. What is God's defitnion of 'love'? Please tell me his defitnion? You may have already provided it in the past, but I do not recall? Once you provide it here, we can compare his position of 'love' to some of his given pronouncements. Maybe HIS defitnion of "love" does not resemble our definition? My position is that no viable defitnion of the term "love" is logically compatible with some of the Bible's given pronouncements. I'm not pointing out morality, but logic.

[POI]

Could be so. But in the context of our discussion, homosexuality, the Bible is consistent on the position.

And so are homophobes.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3912

Where does the Bible say all other books are false?

The Bible claims that all other gods are false, so by extension it claims that all the writings [books] of other religions are false.

[otseng]

(U) No, the moral argument doesn't assume does God exists, but it assumes God could exist. And since there is no viable alternative explanation other than God, therefore God is the best explanation for OMV.

POI Do you reject premise 1 of Dr. Craig's moral argument, as presented in the 2nd video? (i.e.):

Here's his argument:

P1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
P2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
C. Therefore God exists.

P1 does not assume God does exist, but God does not exist. An implied assumption in the moral argument is God could exist.

Dr, Craig is asserting, in P1, that you CANNOT have OMV's without God. Is this your position too?

Yes, I believe that, as well as several atheist philosophers.

If so, it is YOUR burden to explain why this is so?

I've summarized my arguments in atheism and morality.

"Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad, and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in."

Yes.

Please explain WHY the statement "gay sex is an abomination" IS an OMV? And please do so without stating something to the effect of... "because God says so.".

As I've mentioned before, there is no need to explain the why. Rarely do any rules or laws in society explain the why of those laws, so why should the Bible have to explain the why?

As for possible reasons why, I've offered several arguments.

So far, I'm saying that if God does exist, all theists have demonstrated is that "might makes right".

You've stated this multiple times, yet actually have yet to substantiate this claim.

How do you define "might"?
What is "right"?
Why does might make right?
How is the Bible using might to make right?

because Frank's attempt at a 3rd position is merely circular.

There is no circular argument. There is no assumption that God exists to prove that God exists.

POI Then you missed my point. What is God's defitnion of 'love'? Please tell me his defitnion? You may have already provided it in the past, but I do not recall?

Here is a quote from you on the definition that I provided:

(U) [1Co 13:4-7 NASB20] 4 Love is patient, love is kind, it is not jealous; love does not brag, it is not arrogant. 5 It does not act disgracefully, it does not seek its own [benefit;] it is not provoked, does not keep an account of a wrong [suffered,] 6 it does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 it keeps every confidence, it believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Could be so. But in the context of our discussion, homosexuality, the Bible is consistent on the position.

And so are homophobes.

No idea what you are claiming. What are you claiming about homophobes?

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3912

Where does the Bible say all other books are false?

The Bible claims that all other gods are false, so by extension it claims that all the writings [books] of other religions are false.

Please quote the scripture that says “all other gods are false?” Why did God tell Moses that they weren’t to have any other gods before Him? Why not say, “btw, I’m the only God?”

Its important we look at the passage you think is there and what it says before jumping to therefore conclusions.


In addition, there really isn’t any connection to your position that therefore all other books are wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day.

[Diogenes]

The chimps are just like humans in their moral behavior; tho' they and we recognize moral behavior (cooperate for mutual benefit) they both remain selfish as individuals; both species exhibit morality AND both break the rules regularly.

....
If someone breaks a moral value, then another one would view wrong has been done and would react to it. There is no indication of that in this chimp experiment.
....
Could be so. But in the context of our discussion, homosexuality, the Bible is consistent on the position.

Are we watching the same video? As you know, I have presented Franz de Waal's Ted Talk many times here. My favorite clip from it is not of chimps, but Capuchin monkeys. Here's an excerpt: https://tinyurl.com/2m3c89wj

It is clear (and amusing) that the monkey acts exactly like a human would when receiving inferior pay for the same task. A moral value (equality) is being broken by one monkey getting a grape while the other gets a slice of cucumber. The monkey receiving lower value "views this as wrong and reacts to [the unfairness of] it." This is exactly what you challenged when you wrote "there is no indication of that" (reaction to the moral value of expectation of equal treatment being violated). Do you see that?

As de Waal points out, this experiment was carried out with dogs, birds, and chimps, as well as Capuchin monkeys, all with the same result.

The monkey who only gets the cucumber sees the 'wrong' in his unequal compensation and his reaction is similar to what we'd expect from a human who was victimized by by unequal treatment. This is proof monkeys have moral values and complain when they are violated. No need to believe in a God who defines morality.

As for homosexuality in the Bible, yes, despite the fact Jesus makes no big deal about it, the rest of the Bible is consistent in condemning it. As I wrote, it takes religion to make an arbitrary value judgment; to condemn a behavior that is not intrinsically harmful or abusive. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, whereas theft, assault, murder, unfairness and unequal treatment ARE intrinsically immoral. We do not need the pronouncement of a 'God' to tell us so.

[Diogenes]

And as I've mentioned before, I agree "authority makes right". With "might makes right", that is not necessarily so.

This appears to be a distinction without a difference. What makes one (or an institution) an "authority?" How is this different than "might?" In both cases, with both 'might' and 'authority' a claim of a moral (or immoral) act achieving that status is based on power. If there is any distinction at all, it is merely that "authority" is conferred upon whomever has the power ('might') to enforce the rules.

Most would grant authority to lawgivers whose laws proscribe acts that are inherently harmful: murder, theft, assault. The same authority is denied to rulers and rules who proscribe conduct that is arbitrarily proscribed; e.g. blended fabrics, fish on Friday, trimming (or not trimming) the corners of one's beard, not allowing women to speak in church, working on a certain day of the week, having intercourse with one's hand or with some one or some thing other than a spouse of the opposite gender.

The cruelty of exclusion, ostracizing, condemnation, or relegation to inferior status to those who are in a committed relationship if they are the 'wrong sex' is an evil that only religion can produce. Common sense, logic, intrinsic kindness do not so proscribe. It takes a 'God' to enshrine acts of cruelty as 'good.'