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

[alexxcJRO]

OK, if God doesn't need to act any other way, then I pretty much rest my case.

It does not mean the concept though its not illogical. There are not exclusive.

If you're not arguing God should've acted any differently, then who cares who are punished?

Its logic:
A perfectly just being would not act unjustly.
But since we have a perfectly just being acting unjustly there is a contradiction.
The god concept is illogical.

Aren't you claiming here how God should act? I thought you said, "Sir I not saying how God should act."

The conclusion arises from using logic sir. Not what I want.

No, being gay does not necessarily mean engaging in sexual relations with males, just as being straight does not necessarily mean engaging in sexual relations with the opposite sex. It is possible to be gay or straight and also be celibate.
There are also many things God prohibits against heterosexuals (do not divorce, do not commit adultery), but that doesn't mean God is heterophobic.

Gay people are both those that are celibate and those that engage in sexual relations as heterosexuals are those that are celibate and those that engage in sexual relations.
We are not talking God being against sexual relations.
God is ok with humans engaging in sexual relations with the opposite sex but against humans engaging in sexual relations with the same sex.
Homosexuals are engaging in sexual relations with the same sex and heterosexuals are engaging in sexual relations with the opposite sex.
So God is homophobic. God has a dislike against gay people.

Aren't you claiming here how God should act and He should send everyone to heaven?

I am not saying how God should act. I am talking about the supposed actions of God and putting them against the supposed attributes of God.
It's logic: A perfectly just being would not punish moral agents with eternal punishment. It is unjust.

Could be.

This shows the dishonesty of the mechanism. When something does not make sense logically the metaphor card comes to the rescue. No explanation. Like just dropping that excuses helps anything.
Q: So are you saying all those stories(Balaam story, Jacob story, Sodom and Gomorrah story) are just stories that teach some truth and not actual stories? Did not happen?
Please explain.

Should God not get angry or jealous or be regretful?

Again trying to make me to say "how God should act".
I am not saying that. I am saying "how God is expected to act if certain attributes are attributed to it".

If someone is very fat, obese is expected to have problems going up the stairs.
Nobody is saying how the obese person should act but what is expected to happen.

Please answer:
Q: How can a perfect being be angry or jealous?
Q: How can an omniscient being be regretful?

I'm not asking about animals, but for humans. Is sex among humans purely animalistic instincts and require no cognitive decision making?

The reproductive drive and need for sex comes instinctively to humans too. Like the need to eat or sleep. Nobody is choosing to have a sex drive or eating appetite.
If something happens to the brain this instinctive, reproductive drive can be reduce to non-existence. The sex drive disappears or diminishes greatly to the point where one does not need sex anymore. Like with the need to eat. It can diminishes greatly to the point where one does not have an appetite at all and simply cannot eat.
You have nothing sir.
Reality goes against you.

[otseng]

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

I'm not sure that's a moral value either. The chimp wanted to get a grape instead of a cucumber. And then expressed anger because he didn't get a grape.

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?

Yes I saw that. I don't think it would've mattered what the task of the second monkey did (get a rock, ring a bell, solve a Rubik's cube). The fact the first monkey saw the second monkey get a grape revealed a better reward was available and wanted that instead.

This is proof monkeys have moral values and complain when they are violated.

Or it is proof monkeys would rather have a better reward when they see one is available.

As I wrote, it takes religion to make an arbitrary value judgment; to condemn a behavior that is not intrinsically harmful or abusive.

I would dispute male on male sex is not intrinsically harmful or abusive...

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

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality, whereas theft, assault, murder, unfairness and unequal treatment ARE intrinsically immoral.[/size]

Note that I've never claimed homosexuality in the modern sense is condemned by the Bible.

You have also not addressed my question...

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.

How would you distinguish between moral and amoral behavior among animals?

[otseng]

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.

Here's how I define authority...

"power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/authority

"the moral or legal right or ability to control"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... /authority

"the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine."
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/authority

"the power to give orders or make decisions : the power or right to direct or control someone or something"
https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/authority

What gives something authority?

Ultimately God gives something authority, but we can table that for now.

Authority exists within a group that operates within a certain domain. For example, the authority of this forum is the rules of the forum. By joining this forum, people agree to follow the rules. If people drive on the road, they must follow the rules of the road. If people work at a company, they must follow the rules of the company. If people are part of a country, they must follow the laws of the country.

How is authority different than might? Though authorities do carry the ability to enforce the rules, it is not might itself that makes things right. As with this forum, it is not the disciplinary actions that make things right, but the rules that decides what is right.

Or if a school bully forces a kid to give him his lunch money, it does not making stealing right. Or if the mafia forces a business to pay protection money, it doesn't make extortion right.

So, it is not might that makes something right, but authority.

[Diogenes]

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

I'm not sure that's a moral value either. The chimp wanted to get a grape instead of a cucumber. And then expressed anger because he didn't get a grape.

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?

Yes I saw that. I don't think it would've mattered what the task of the second monkey did (get a rock, ring a bell, solve a Rubik's cube). The fact the first monkey saw the second monkey get a grape revealed a better reward was available and wanted that instead.

This is proof monkeys have moral values and complain when they are violated.

Or it is proof monkeys would rather have a better reward when they see one is available.

What you are missing is that BOTH the advantaged monkey and the disadvantaged one AGREE about the moral code (unfairness) because when the disadvantaged one complains, the other (reluctantly) agrees and begins sharing his bounty.

Regarding male/male or female/female sex:
It is not INTRINSICALLY more dangerous or abusive as long as there is mutual consent. Sexual intercourse always carries the danger of transmission of disease, even between members of the opposite sex. It is PROMISCUITY that carries the greater risk of disease, plus whatever additional danger comes from anal sex due to the nature of the the body part involved.

The Bible's "morality" re: sex seems to be focused more on the crazy idea that sexual pleasure should only be enjoyed for the production of babies, not for self pleasure (where is the harm in that), AND only between "married" people.

[Diogenes]

How is authority different than might? Though authorities do carry the ability to enforce the rules, it is not might itself that makes things right. As with this forum, it is not the disciplinary actions that make things right, but the rules that decides what is right.

Or if a school bully forces a kid to give him his lunch money, it does not making stealing right. Or if the mafia forces a business to pay protection money, it doesn't make extortion right.

So, it is not might that makes something right, but authority.

[emphasis applied]


You buried the lead. ... but, you still haven't defined a difference between 'might' and 'authority.' What you are saying is ... well, what my conclusion is based on your reply is that, by definition 'authority' and 'might' are exactly the same EXCEPT if power is used consistent with MY morals, I call it "authority." If power is used in a way inconsistent those morals, it is mere 'might.'

And the problem with using morals as a way to distinguish between might and authority is that it begs the question. Having 'authority' grants you the power. Having 'might' grants exactly the same power. Then this comes full circle with the frequently voiced claim by many fundamentalists that, ultimately the 'God of Abraham' has authority to decide what is right, based on his might, his 'Almightiness'

[POI]

(U) 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?

POI In regard to human-placed law, the (why) does not equal, "because I say so.". Human laws have reason(s), and can be researched/investigated to obtain those reason(s) regardless of if the law itself states them or not. Many laws from the Bible cannot be investigated for actual reason(s) they are a "sin". All we instead get are (ad hoc and/or post hoc) apologetic speculation.

In regard to God, you have stated that the 'goodness' of an action is predicated upon "God's nature". Whatever God's nature should happen to be, is 'good'. If God's nature was to state that gay sex is good, then this act becomes good, because this would be in "God's nature". Frank T. points out this is arbitrary, as explained in the provided video. Hence, the reason he argues for a third option, besides (option 1. - might makes right and option 2. - reason(s) outside of might makes right).

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

POI I already explained:

"Might" means - All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates.

"Right" - Whatever God says is considered 'right', because he possesses the 'might'.

The Bible states gay sex is bad. God is leaving it up to you apologetics to answer for him. The "Euthyphro" still stands because it is either 1) because God says so, or 2) there exists reasons - which means we do not need God to tell is why gay sex is 'good' or 'bad' after all. Meaning, God is either arbitrary, or we do not need him at all. The third attempt at an option is merely circular. Another apologetic failure.....

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

POI Yes, there is a circular argument. The 2nd video explains why.

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

[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.

POI So, why would a 'loving' God state gay sex is an abomination?

(U) No idea what you are claiming. What are you claiming about homophobes?

POI I reckon the author of the verse "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination" is merely a homophobe. Many/most homophobes are also consistent in being continuously homophobic about the said gay sex acts they do not like.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3938

Please quote the scripture that says “all other gods are false?”

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
(Isaiah 44:6-8)

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:"
(Isaiah 45:5)

In addition, there really isn’t any connection to your position that therefore all other books are wrong.

I was pointing out the Bible's claim that all other holy books are wrong.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3938

Please quote the scripture that says “all other gods are false?”

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
(Isaiah 44:6-8)

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:"
(Isaiah 45:5)

In addition, there really isn’t any connection to your position that therefore all other books are wrong.

I was pointing out the Bible's claim that all other holy books are wrong.

Thank you for the quote. As you can see, nothing in those verses refer to books at all. The reason is obvious. Books can be mixed in terms of right and wrong. Some bits can be true and some untrue. So while there are false gods, the same cannot be said of “other” books and the Bible writers did not refer to their work as “Thee Book.” So your statement of other books being therefore false is false. The Bible never claims all other books are false. (Would be an absurd claim anyway as even a broken clock is right twice a day.)

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3938

Please quote the scripture that says “all other gods are false?”

"Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
(Isaiah 44:6-8)

"I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me:"
(Isaiah 45:5)

In addition, there really isn’t any connection to your position that therefore all other books are wrong.

I was pointing out the Bible's claim that all other holy books are wrong.

Thank you for the quote. As you can see, nothing in those verses refer to books at all. The reason is obvious. Books can be mixed in terms of right and wrong. Some bits can be true and some untrue. So while there are false gods, the same cannot be said of “other” books and the Bible writers did not refer to their work as “Thee Book.” So your statement of other books being therefore false is false. The Bible never claims all other books are false. (Would be an absurd claim anyway as even a broken clock is right twice a day.)

Isn't that just the cherry -picking that I just saw you say was not done by honest people? As well as the evasiveness I talked of in my response?

Because the Bible clearly says that other gods are false. They are idols of wood, stone or bronze and are not actual gos (is the implication).

It therefore follows that the Bible holds all the religions and their Holy Books as also false, even if (like a stopclock) they get something right occasionally.

Like the Bible, really by accident, gets it right that it's a good thing to be clean (because it prevents disease). That is a well worn apologetic for Bible truth, but is (arguably) right by accident. It does not mean that the Bible and its' god and religion are not just as false as those other gods, whether or not one executed graven images or painting on church ceilings of that god.

[otseng]

Its logic:
A perfectly just being would not act unjustly.
But since we have a perfectly just being acting unjustly there is a contradiction.
The god concept is illogical.

No, it's not just logic. Since you're claiming God is unjust, it is your moral judgment. Fundamentally, this is the flaw in your argument. Also, as I've argued, God was not unjust in his actions.

Gay people are both those that are celibate and those that engage in sexual relations as heterosexuals are those that are celibate and those that engage in sexual relations.
We are not talking God being against sexual relations.
God is ok with humans engaging in sexual relations with the opposite sex but against humans engaging in sexual relations with the same sex.
Homosexuals are engaging in sexual relations with the same sex and heterosexuals are engaging in sexual relations with the opposite sex.
So God is homophobic. God has a dislike against gay people.

As you acknowledged, a homosexual can be celibate, so God would have no problem with that person.

Also, heterosexuals can engage in male on male sex. As a matter of fact, this was probably the main case in ancient history.

I am not saying how God should act. I am talking about the supposed actions of God and putting them against the supposed attributes of God.

You're the one imputing these supposed attributes on God, not the Bible.

Could be.

This shows the dishonesty of the mechanism. When something does not make sense logically the metaphor card comes to the rescue. No explanation. Like just dropping that excuses helps anything.
Q: So are you saying all those stories(Balaam story, Jacob story, Sodom and Gomorrah story) are just stories that teach some truth and not actual stories? Did not happen?
Please explain.

You left out "But what's under discussion is ethics, not God's omniscience." Yes, I'm waving away your statements because it is a red herring. We're discussing the ethics of the Old Testament, not God's omniscience.

Again trying to make me to say "how God should act".
I am not saying that. I am saying "how God is expected to act if certain attributes are attributed to it".

And where does the Bible explicitly say God is unjust or unloving and not from your moral judgment?

Please answer:
Q: How can a perfect being be angry or jealous?
Q: How can an omniscient being be regretful?

There is nothing wrong per se with being angry or jealous or even regretful.

The reproductive drive and need for sex comes instinctively to humans too. Like the need to eat or sleep. Nobody is choosing to have a sex drive or eating appetite.

Of course humans have a sex drive and an eating appetite. But in both cases, there are cases where such activity can be harmful. These are a result of conscious choices and not purely instinctual actions.