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

[POI]

(U) What is the authoritative source that is being discussed? The Bible of course.

POI Yes.

(U) It's obvious? No, it was not designed for that. How was it designed for that?

POI Like the vagina, the anus also offers to the perfect parking place for the male penis.

(U) For you to claim it's a very clumsy design, you'll need to offer a viable design that is much better.

POI The vagina and the urinary tract system would not share the exact same path. Prior to a few decades ago, countless women died from UTI's, which are now treated/cured with antibiotics. I doubt prayer did the trick to cure these women before this recent discovery. It's obvious it was God's purposeful design to create this easy death-trap setup.

(U) Yes, male on male sex would be objectively wrong.

POI If an of age and legal union exists between two loving males, why is consensual, non-violent, and monogamous anal sex still an abomination?

(U) Where did I say homosexuality is a sin? All I'm claiming is male on male sex is a sin. It is entirely possible to be a homosexual and not engage in male on male sex. It's also possible to be a hetereosexual and engage in male on male sex.

POI You already know exactly what I mean. I realize there exists countless gay priests, who opt not to actually engage in their desires. So, let's stop with the games. Countless Christian families deny their sons, when they tell them they are gay. Are these Christian families objectively wrong to shun their own child for being attracted to the same sex? Reading the Bible, in context, what-say-you, as to the conclusion here? Meaning, if the Bible does not come right out and say every single thing, does this mean it is okay? Or, are we expected to understand context? I'd say I do understand the context here and think the writers of the Bible would frown upon anyone who announced they were 'homosexual'. They would be deemed a sinner, and the Christian parents would pray for their son to no longer like other men in that way. How about you?

(U) Bottom line, I've never stated that and it's just more twisting of my words.

POI Here is exactly what you stated: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules.". I merely paraphrased the exact same thing, by stating "objective morals are gathered from our intuitive senses". So no, I am certainly not "twisting". Instead, you are avoiding.

(U) Who says I've settled the debate on the authority of the Bible?

POI Great point. I doubt you have

(U) I've also addressed this in the summary.

POI Not to post 3830. Your "summary" stopped short or before my demonstrated conclusion about "Biblical slavery". I guess we can let the readers decide for themselves.

[otseng]

(U) It's obvious? No, it was not designed for that. How was it designed for that?

POI Like the vagina, the anus also offers to the perfect parking place for the male penis.

Like I said, just because there is a hole doesn't mean it's designed for anything to go into that hole.

(U) For you to claim it's a very clumsy design, you'll need to offer a viable design that is much better.

POI The vagina and the urinary tract system would not share the exact same path. Prior to a few decades ago, countless women died from UTI's, which are now treated/cured with antibiotics. I doubt prayer did the trick to cure these women before this recent discovery. It's obvious it was God's purposeful design to create this easy death-trap setup.

You did not offer a more viable design and rather gave more diversionary claims. Also, anal sex is one cause of UTI.

There are many organs in the body that have multiple purposes. If each organ only had a single dedicated function, the body would be massive. So, the fact organs have multiple functions shows it was ingeniously designed for a minimum body size to function.

(U) Where did I say homosexuality is a sin? All I'm claiming is male on male sex is a sin. It is entirely possible to be a homosexual and not engage in male on male sex. It's also possible to be a hetereosexual and engage in male on male sex.

POI You already know exactly what I mean. I realize there exists countless gay priests, who opt not to actually engage in their desires. So, let's stop with the games.

Who's the one playing games? You stated, "And because the Bible does not come right out and say that homosexuality is a sin, it means it's not, and millions of Christians are mistaken?" I'm addressing that and I'm making the point that being a homosexual is not a sin.

Countless Christian families deny their sons, when they tell them they are gay. Are these Christian families objectively wrong to shun their own child for being attracted to the same sex?

What I'm debating is what the Bible says, not what Christians believe. And I do not see anywhere in the Bible that says being gay is a sin.

Yes, I believe it is wrong for families to shun a child simply because they say they are gay. And even if there were such passages, I do not believe it's sufficient reason to disown a child for it.

Reading the Bible, in context, what-say-you, as to the conclusion here? Meaning, if the Bible does not come right out and say every single thing, does this mean it is okay?

The Bible does not contain a comprehensive list of do's and don'ts. As a matter of fact, no set of rules have that. So, it's up to each person's conscience to judge what is right and wrong. And each will be judged for their own actions.

Or, are we expected to understand context? I'd say I do understand the context here and think the writers of the Bible would frown upon anyone who announced they were 'homosexual'.

This is why I spent so much time looking at the context of the passages, the definitions, and the historical context. Based on all of these, the Levitical passages are simply talking about male on male sex and not specifically targeting homosexuals.

They would be deemed a sinner, and the Christian parents would pray for their son to no longer like other men in that way. How about you?

I don't think attraction is something that can be easily changed. And being attracted to something is not a sin, whether it is to the same sex or married spouses or even underage teens. However, when one acts on it, then it becomes a sin.

(U) Bottom line, I've never stated that and it's just more twisting of my words.

POI Here is exactly what you stated: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules.". I merely paraphrased the exact same thing, by stating "objective morals are gathered from our intuitive senses". So no, I am certainly not "twisting". Instead, you are avoiding.

The context of the discussion was on intuition and knowing if the Bible is right or wrong on homosexuality. I'm claiming we cannot use our intuition as a reliable guide to determine what is objectively right or wrong. Specific objective morals are based on sources of authority rather than on intuition. Where intuition comes into play is believing in the existence of objective morality.

Also, you stated in the thread: "Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?" This is also twisting my words.

(U) I've also addressed this in the summary.

POI Not to post 3830. Your "summary" stopped short or before my demonstrated conclusion about "Biblical slavery".

Are you referring to this post? It's not even a summary or concluding argument, but simply repeating your assertions.

I guess we can let the readers decide for themselves.

Yes.

[POI]

(U) Like I said, just because there is a hole doesn't mean it's designed for anything to go into that hole.

POI But it was designed for this. The penis fits perfectly up there, just like it does for the vagina. When the husband did not want to get her pregnant, choose the other hole, the anus. There was no birth control in those days. And some families did not want to have a dozen kids. What an awesome God!

I'm also sure if a homosexual wanted a child of their own, back in the day, they may have decided to perform the icky task of penetrating a warranted vagina. Thank goodness for medical science today though, huh?

(U) You did not offer a more viable design and rather gave more diversionary claims.

POI I noticed you have provided no pushback, regarding the obvious observation I have made. I guess we agree, that at best, we have a) an inept designer, or b) a deliberately deceptive designer, or c) no designer at all. Take your pick.

And yes, my last response suggested an obvious alternative design, without actually having to state it. Which is to have completely separate and independent pathways for (waste and pleasure). Placing a sterile field buried within an unsterile cavity is just poor design.

(U) Also, anal sex is one cause of UTI.

POI Sure, but many/most UTI's happen without any anal sex at all. Poor design is the culprit. God never updates or improves his proverbial iPhone

(U) There are many organs in the body that have multiple purposes. If each organ only had a single dedicated function, the body would be massive. So, the fact organs have multiple functions shows it was ingeniously designed for a minimum body size to function.

POI That's right. The male/female anus is not only designed to provide a pathway to expel fecal waste, but also to provide a perfect pathway for a man's penis. This way, their partner can still obtain pleasure outside oral compilation and/or hand jobs and/or vaginal penetration (for the female).

(U) I'm addressing that and I'm making the point that being a homosexual is not a sin.

POI "Impure" thoughts and desires about male-on-male anal sex are not a sin just because the Bible does not come right out and say it? Interesting.

(U) What I'm debating is what the Bible says, not what Christians believe. And I do not see anywhere in the Bible that says being gay is a sin.

POI So if the Bible does not come right out and explicitly say something in detail, it's okay?

(U) Yes, I believe it is wrong for families to shun a child simply because they say they are gay. And even if there were such passages, I do not believe it's sufficient reason to disown a child for it.

POI Then why have millions of Christian families been (so wrong) about what they believe the Bible God thinks, regarding this topic?

I also have to ask, since we are on the topic... Do you believe homosexuality is a choice, or not?

(U) The Bible does not contain a comprehensive list of do's and don'ts. As a matter of fact, no set of rules have that. So, it's up to each person's conscience to judge what is right and wrong. And each will be judged for their own actions.

POI Then how are we to know if 'homosexuality' IS or is NOT a sin? We are right back to "intuitive senses" and/or our 'conscience'. And we both already agree this mechanism is flawed. God is going to judge us for using a mechanism which is not reliable and fallible?

(U) This is why I spent so much time looking at the context of the passages, the definitions, and the historical context. Based on all of these, the Levitical passages are simply talking about male on male sex and not specifically targeting homosexuals.

POI Then you skipped my last question. (From post 4051) If an of age and legal union exists between two loving males, why is consensual, non-violent, and monogamous anal sex still an abomination?

(U) I don't think attraction is something that can be easily changed. And being attracted to something is not a sin, whether it is to the same sex or married spouses or even underage teens. However, when one acts on it, then it becomes a sin.

POI How can you be attracted to someone without also having any <lustful> desires - (which your God views as a sin)? But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matt. 5:28

(U) The context of the discussion was on intuition and knowing if the Bible is right or wrong on homosexuality. I'm claiming we cannot use our intuition as a reliable guide to determine what is objectively right or wrong. Specific objective morals are based on sources of authority rather than on intuition. Where intuition comes into play is believing in the existence of objective morality.

POI Post 67 (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 2&start=70)

(U) Are you referring to this post? It's not even a summary or concluding argument, but simply repeating your assertions.

POI Simply restating my points, after providing the rationale for those points, and giving you the opportunity to refute them and you not doing so, is a summarization of my position in post 3830.

[otseng]

POI Simply restating my points, after providing the rationale for those points, and giving you the opportunity to refute them and you not doing so, is a summarization of my position in post 3830.

I've already addressed your points multiple times. I'll let the jury assess with my Summary argument on homosexuality and Old Testament ethics summary argument and move on to the next argument for the trustworthiness and relevance of the Bible.

[otseng]

For the past 70 pages, we've been discussing ethics and I argued Christianity offers a justification for objective moral values, whereas atheism does not. And we find a similar situation in other areas of philosophy as well, in which Christianity better addresses major philosophical issues and questions better than other worldviews.

Here is one such list of philosophical questions:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Is our universe real?
3. Do we have free will?
4. Does God exist?
5. Is there life after death?
6. Can you really experience anything objectively?
7. What is the best moral system?
https://gizmodo.com/8-great-philosophic ... ve-5945801

Unlike the article which states, "These are questions that may always lay just beyond the limits of our comprehension", Christianity does offer answers to these questions:

1. Because God created everything.
2. Yes, we are not part of a simulation.
3. Yes, we freely decide between choices.
4. Yes.
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. Christianity offers one of the best moral systems.

[POI]

POI Simply restating my points, after providing the rationale for those points, and giving you the opportunity to refute them and you not doing so, is a summarization of my position in post 3830.

I've already addressed your points multiple times. I'll let the jury assess with my Summary argument on homosexuality and Old Testament ethics summary argument and move on to the next argument for the trustworthiness and relevance of the Bible.

Post 3830 is my undisputed summarization on slavery, not homosexuality. I have yet to provide my undisputed summarization on homosexuality, because we have not completely fleshed this topic out. But, you do you.

[Mae von H]

.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #4055]

2. Is our universe real?
2. Yes, we are not part of a simulation.

I see that your index list in the OP does not cover this particular subject. So how is it that the Bible shows us that we do not exist within a simulated reality experience?

[otseng]

So how is it that the Bible shows us that we do not exist within a simulated reality experience?

The Bible says God created the universe.

[Gen 1:1 KJV] 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[Col 1:16 KJV] 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[Heb 11:3 ESV] 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

[Jhn 1:3 ESV] 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

It doesn't say God created a simulator and we are beings inside a simulator.

[William]

So how is it that the Bible shows us that we do not exist within a simulated reality experience?

The Bible says God created the universe.

Exactly.

[Gen 1:1 KJV] 1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[Col 1:16 KJV] 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

[Heb 11:3 ESV] 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

[Jhn 1:3 ESV] 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Thank for those quotes. They clearly do not say anything other than a thing was created. Indeed, simulations are created things.

It doesn't say God created a simulator and we are beings inside a simulator.

The bible doesn't mention dinosaurs either. What is your point?