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]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3976

I asked for example of these “ancient accounts.” If you insist there are ancient accounts, you must have read them.

If you've read ancient creation accounts, as you say you have, then you're asking for examples of what you've already read.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3967

I’ve read ancient creation accounts and can answer your question but these weren’t religious pieces.

The gods who appear in ancient creation accounts were believed in by ancient peoples.

I asked for example of these “ancient accounts.” If you insist there are ancient accounts, you must have read them. I’m asking for this info so I can read them.

If you are just imaging this whole explanation with zero evidence, then we can conclude that your method of researching these matters is to imagine how it was. I’m afraid that fiction is only useful to you.

This isn't difficult.

I'll find at least the Mesopotamian one from which the Abrahamic ones (evidence and epigraphy indicating a composite creation of Genesis and Exodus origin -stories in Babylon c 600 BC) derived. In the meantime, Wiki gives a handy list.

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

I also quickly found this:

A Dictionary of Creation Myths
https://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr= ... &q&f=false

Asking others to find what you can find in 10 seconds on google while at the same time lambasting others research skills is the height of irony.

To tie this back in at least loosely with the OP: Even if the Bible was 'coherent' (i.e. not filled with contradiction and things we know now to be false), why choose it over all the other religious texts? I don't think we can trust something we have to make so many excuses for when it's pretty clear it's just like all the other examples from other religions and cultures.

[POI]

(U) Yes, our definitions of might are the similar. Now what about authority?

POI My definition of might is the same as your definition of authority. Hence, the term 'might makes right' still stands.

(U) Why do I need to respond to a response I never stated?

POI I already told you why, multiple times now. Hiding behind a rubberstamp does not award you a debate victory.

(U) As for my position, I've given it multiple times.

POI You have stated 'morals' cannot be objective w/o God. And yet, you give reasons in this thread, outside of God's say-so, to substantiate why male-on-male action is 'bad'. So, which one is it? God's say-so, which is arbitrary, <or>, reasons outside God's stated necessity?

(U) Right, it's the highest authority. It's not described as the highest might.

POI You are missing my point. Since the supreme court is the highest authority in the courts, the supreme court IS right, when rendering all verdicts? What makes the highest almighty authority right?

(U) Irrelevant as I've pointed out. Simply saying someone is rich or poor has no normative claim.

POI Even when Jesus states someone is rich or poor? This is my point. Whatever the 'almighty authority' asserts, is no longer a 'normative' statement. But this is still arbitrary, while observing the "almighty authority's" conclusion (i.e.):

Bob has 5 million dollars. Tom has 5 dollars. (Bob is rich, Tom is poor).

Bob has anal sex with Tom. (This action is an abomination).

(U) More false attributions.

POI Another assigned rubberstamp to avoid addressing my response. My two given videos, along with my repeated explanations, reveal the failure of the theist's position regarding morals.

(U) Yes, this is what the Bible is talking about, but you haven't, since you have repeatedly been talking about "gay sex".

POI All I read here is stalling. I'm speaking about physical male-on-male relations. Does "gay sex" typically include anal sex, or not? Or maybe God is okay with a male merely giving another male sexual gratification orally or with their hands maybe?

The Bible states males lying with other males is an abomination. We are both already speaking about the same stuff.

(U) Who's claiming anything is "icky"? Is stealing icky? Is breaking the Sabbath icky? Is eating pork icky?

POI I'm stating a homophobe thinks gay sex is icky. Why? Because the thought of two males having intercourse is not appealing to them. Hence, since God thinks it's disgusting, is why many of us humans think it is disgusting. You never addressed my last response here:

- God has a nature
- God's nature is that he does not like male-on-male action
- God gives humans his nature
- Therefore, we do not like male-on-male action either.

Anyone who does not think male-on-male action is wrong, is themselves wrong. Why? Please look to the second video to see why the theist's position fails.

[otseng]

(U) Yes, our definitions of might are the similar. Now what about authority?

POI My definition of might is the same as your definition of authority. Hence, the term 'might makes right' still stands.

Here's the definitions I posted and also why it's different from "might"...

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.

POI You have stated 'morals' cannot be objective w/o God. And yet, you give reasons in this thread, outside of God's say-so, to substantiate why male-on-male action is 'bad'. So, which one is it? God's say-so, which is arbitrary, <or>, reasons outside God's stated necessity?

It's neither because it's arbitrary nor outside of God's stated necessity.

What makes the highest almighty authority right?

Authorities define what is right in their area of jurisdiction.

What gives authorities the right to exercise authority? From a Christian perspective, all authority is delegated from God.

[Jhn 19:11a ESV] Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.

[Rom 13:1 ESV] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

(U) Irrelevant as I've pointed out. Simply saying someone is rich or poor has no normative claim.

POI Even when Jesus states someone is rich or poor? This is my point. Whatever the 'almighty authority' asserts, is no longer a 'normative' statement. But this is still arbitrary, while observing the "almighty authority's" conclusion (i.e.):

Bob has 5 million dollars. Tom has 5 dollars. (Bob is rich, Tom is poor).

Bob has anal sex with Tom. (This action is an abomination).

A normative claim is how people should or should not act. Where does Jesus say people should be either rich or poor? Whereas with male on male sex, the Bible says men should not engage in it.

(U) More false attributions.

POI Another assigned rubberstamp to avoid addressing my response.

Pointing out your fallacious arguments is not "rubberstamping". To effectively counter my charge of a false attribution, you would need to show where I have actually stated those things.

My two given videos, along with my repeated explanations, reveal the failure of the theist's position regarding morals.

I'll let readers judge based on our past discussions.

(U) Yes, this is what the Bible is talking about, but you haven't, since you have repeatedly been talking about "gay sex".

POI All I read here is stalling. I'm speaking about physical male-on-male relations. Does "gay sex" typically include anal sex, or not?

Don't see how I'm stalling if I've consistently been saying male on male sex is prohibited in Leviticus. If any male (including homosexuals) engage in male on male sex, then that act is considered wrong according to the Bible.

Or maybe God is okay with a male merely giving another male sexual gratification orally or with their hands maybe?

There is no direct command in the Bible against those.

POI I'm stating a homophobe thinks gay sex is icky. Why?Because the thought of two males having intercourse is not appealing to them. Hence, since God thinks it's disgusting, is why many of us humans think it is disgusting.

Non sequitur. Why should God have to think how some people might think?

You never addressed my last response here:

- God has a nature
- God's nature is that he does not like male-on-male action
- God gives humans his nature
- Therefore, we do not like male-on-male action either.

Disagree with your conclusion. People might like to engage in it, but the normative course is they should not engage in it.

Anyone who does not think male-on-male action is wrong, is themselves wrong. Why? Please look to the second video to see why the theist's position fails.

Please state exactly what you are referring to in the second video that I have not already addressed.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3976

I asked for example of these “ancient accounts.” If you insist there are ancient accounts, you must have read them.

If you've read ancient creation accounts, as you say you have, then you're asking for examples of what you've already read.

None of what I read were holy books. You claimed there are some. I’m asking what. Obviously I’ve called your bluff.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3976

I asked for example of these “ancient accounts.” If you insist there are ancient accounts, you must have read them.

If you've read ancient creation accounts, as you say you have, then you're asking for examples of what you've already read.

None of what I read were holy books. You claimed there are some. I’m asking what. Obviously I’ve called your bluff.

One google search with "ancient holy books" solves your problem.

My top result (there are many results to choose from)
https://www.oldest.org/religion/religious-texts/

Let me guess, now you are going to nit pick these aren't 'books'? Or perhaps you don't deem them 'holy'? Hey, at least we are getting a chance to show readers a few simple searches can start you on your journey to reading outside of the 'Christian bubble' of the Bible.

[POI]

(U) Here's the definitions I posted and also why it's different from "might"...

POI My given definition of 'might' encompasses your given definitions of authority. (i.e.) All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates. Video 1 also goes on to explain further. (i.e.) "the buck has to stop somewhere."

(U) What gives something authority? Ultimately God gives something authority, but we can table that for now.

POI No need to table it... It is because "might makes right". As I explained, many responses ago, 'might makes right' merely rolls off the tongue more poetically than 'authority makes right.' Changing the word does not absolve my conclusion. I'll explain more below.

(U) 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..

POI But WHY are the rules actually right? Is it because:

1) you say so?
2) because of other reasons?
3) other?

Please explain your selected answer.

(U) 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.

POI In your set of beliefs, God is both the rule maker, as well as the rule enforcer. Nothing has been demonstrated, outside of my already given definition of "might" supports this conclusion -> "All powerful, cannot be overridden, creates". "The buck stops with him."

(U) 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.

POI Your believed upon God offers 'free will', or lack there-of. Just like a bully or a mafia boss. Bully - "Give me your lunch money or else." Mafia boss - "Pay us the money to protect you or else." Meaning, God's ruleset is instead compulsory. It does not encompass the classic defitnion of free will (i.e.) "the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.". If one does not follow God's given rule in sexual practices, regarding male-on-male intercourse, you are breaking God's law. You are to be punished. We already know WHY the bully is enforcing the rules, the bully wants money. The mafia boss also wants money. But WHY does God not want male-on-male sex? And what is he going to do to the ones who disobey?

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

POI Sorry, "might makes right" still stands unattested.

(U) It's neither because it's arbitrary nor outside of God's stated necessity.

POI I already presented option 3, given by Frank Turek, which is a circular option. Do you actually have a fourth reason, which does not already encompass the three? If so, I would love to hear it....

(U) What gives authorities the right to exercise authority? From a Christian perspective, all authority is delegated from God.

[Jhn 19:11a ESV] Jesus answered him, "You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above.

[Rom 13:1 ESV] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

POI Yes, it's a nice blank assertion. backed by 'might makes right."

(U) A normative claim is how people should or should not act. Where does Jesus say people should be either rich or poor? Whereas with male on male sex, the Bible says men should not engage in it.

POI Jesus tells the "rich" to do X. Jesus states the "rich" will X. Is "rich" a clearly objective term? If so, why? Is it because Jesus says so? How do you know if you are actually 'rich' or not?

(U) Pointing out your fallacious arguments is not "rubberstamping". To effectively counter my charge of a false attribution, you would need to show where I have actually stated those things.

POI No. You need to address my given response(s), rather than to merely instead offer a rubberstamp. I already explained the difference in my given response(s), in which you opted to ignore.

(U) There is no direct command in the Bible against those.

POI Are you actually going on record to state that God is okay with a male giving another male a 'hand job' or oral gratification, because he does not get specific enough in the Torah? Wouldn't it instead be common sense to conclude God means all sexual activity, not just anal? You are reminding me of Bill Clinton, when he initially stated he "did not have <sexual relations> with that woman." Technically, he didn't

(U) Non sequitur. Why should God have to think how some people might think?

POI Do your "morals" come from God or not?

(U) Disagree with your conclusion. People might like to engage in it, but the normative course is they should not engage in it.

POI Christian moral realism 101 -- If your morals agree with God, then God gave them to you. If they do not, then they are being intercepted by evil/other.

(U) Please state exactly what you are referring to in the second video that I have not already addressed.

POI So far, "might makes right" still stands unattested.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3976

I asked for example of these “ancient accounts.” If you insist there are ancient accounts, you must have read them.

If you've read ancient creation accounts, as you say you have, then you're asking for examples of what you've already read.

None of what I read were holy books. You claimed there are some. I’m asking what. Obviously I’ve called your bluff.

One google search with "ancient holy books" solves your problem.

My top result (there are many results to choose from)
https://www.oldest.org/religion/religious-texts/

Let me guess, now you are going to nit pick these aren't 'books'? Or perhaps you don't deem them 'holy'? Hey, at least we are getting a chance to show readers a few simple searches can start you on your journey to reading outside of the 'Christian bubble' of the Bible.

There’s no evidence that all of these were held to be holy. One is called “sacred” in this. There are still today an endless number of religious books that no one deems holy. I have read more than you of these kinds.


The problem in this interaction is a number of your side make up how the other side thinks. For example, because it’s an ancient book on religious subjects you wrongly assume those people thought the piece holy. We’ve no idea if any even believed it but you just assume they did.

You probably don’t know that some of ancient Greek philosophers didn’t believe the religious thought of their day and wrote so. They thought the gods worse morally than most people.

I already I’ve read some of these accounts and wanted to know what you’ve read. Obviously none since you had to google what’s out there and couldn’t name any you’ve actually read.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3988

There’s no evidence that all of these were held to be holy. One is called “sacred” in this.

holy

adjective as in religious, sacred
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/holy

I already I’ve read some of these accounts and wanted to know what you’ve read. Obviously none since you had to google what’s out there and couldn’t name any you’ve actually read.

Have you read the Egyptian Book of the Dead [the papyrus of Ani]? It's full of prayers. The prayers are addressed to gods. People apparently believed in them.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #3988

There’s no evidence that all of these were held to be holy. One is called “sacred” in this.

holy

adjective as in religious, sacred
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/holy

The dictionary cannot tell you
if the people who had these works considered them holy. A definition of a word is not evidence.

I already I’ve read some of these accounts and wanted to know what you’ve read. Obviously none since you had to google what’s out there and couldn’t name any you’ve actually read.

Have you read the Egyptian Book of the Dead [the papyrus of Ani]? It's full of prayers. The prayers are addressed to gods. People apparently believed in them.

The westminster prayer book is full of prayers and no believer considers it holy. Examples of books considered holy by those believers are the Bible and the Koran. There’s a difference (huge) between books considered holy and books enjoyed or considered helpful. Books of prayers are helpful.