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

[otseng]

Time to wrap up the debate on the Old Testament ethics. This has been one of the largest topics in this thread with it spanning almost 70 pages. And needless to say, it can go much longer. As noted, it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for unbelievers and is continually brought up on this forum.

There are two main areas of attack from skeptics in this area:
A. the Old Testament (and God) is immoral
B. the Old Testament (and God) is illogical

The immoral argument says the actions in the OT are contrary to how things should be done. God should not have committed genocide, allowed slavery, killed the innocent, etc.

The illogical argument says God is omni-perfect, omni-benevolent, omni-fair, omni-justice, etc. And since God is not perfect, benevolent, fair, and just, then it's contrary to his claimed nature.

In both of these cases, skeptics take passages from the Bible and judge God is acting immorally. Two major examples include the global flood and the Canaanite conquest.

In order to make a judgment on God's actions, skeptics need to accept objective moral values and believe their moral values are objectively right and God's is objectively wrong. Otherwise it's just the subjective opinions from skeptics of God's actions and it would be as irrelevant as debating what colors God should have made the flowers.

I spent time discussing the philosophy of morality and argued atheists have no justification for their belief in objective morality. I summarized it in Summary argument of atheism and morality. The only viable justification for a belief in objective morality is God as I summarized in Objective morality of Christianity.

So, fundamentally, it is the skeptics that are making a contradictory argument since they cannot justify the usage of objective moral claims against God. To make an objective moral judgment, God must exist. So, the moral arguments against God is not disproving the existence of God, but arguing they do not like God and how he operates.

The illogical argument (B) also requires a moral judgment on God since there are no explicit statements in the Bible God is immoral. It is the interpretations and judgments of skeptics of how God acts and then claiming God is immoral in his actions. So skeptics must employ objective moral judgments even in the illogical argument.

Further, many, if not all, of the omni characteristics of God are nebulous idealizations of God and not adequately defined and even supported by the Bible. They are straw man attacks on God.

So the issue is, though God does exist, people might not like how He acts and thus is not worthy of worship.

One major issue is God acting unjustly in the destruction of people in the flood. I addressed this in Flood and morality.

Another issue is God committing genocide in the Canaanite conquest. I summarized my arguments in Genocide summary argument.

Another major issue is slavery in the Bible. I summarized this in Slavery summary argument.

And finally is the issue of homosexuality. I summarized it in Summary argument on homosexuality.

Rather than God being a capricious and mean God and killing the foreigners, weak and innocent, God is the opposite. God is not xenophobic, but rather is xenophilic. God does not oppress the weak, but has a heart for the disadvantaged.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4030

Yes, he put in links to what those who know something about the subject wrote. I guess I should text with them since they’re educated on the matter. It’s useless to try to discuss a subject with someone who essentially says, “read here! This guy will tell you what I think. I can’t do it myself.”

It's known as "providing references".

[Athetotheist]

Time to wrap up the debate on the Old Testament ethics. This has been one of the largest topics in this thread with it spanning almost 70 pages. And needless to say, it can go much longer. As noted, it is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for unbelievers and is continually brought up on this forum.

There are two main areas of attack from skeptics in this area:
A. the Old Testament (and God) is immoral
B. the Old Testament (and God) is illogical

The immoral argument says the actions in the OT are contrary to how things should be done. God should not have committed genocide, allowed slavery, killed the innocent, etc.

The illogical argument says God is omni-perfect, omni-benevolent, omni-fair, omni-justice, etc. And since God is not perfect, benevolent, fair, and just, then it's contrary to his claimed nature.

In both of these cases, skeptics take passages from the Bible and judge God is acting immorally. Two major examples include the global flood and the Canaanite conquest.

In order to make a judgment on God's actions, skeptics need to accept objective moral values and believe their moral values are objectively right and God's is objectively wrong. Otherwise it's just the subjective opinions from skeptics of God's actions and it would be as irrelevant as debating what colors God should have made the flowers.

I spent time discussing the philosophy of morality and argued atheists have no justification for their belief in objective morality. I summarized it in Summary argument of atheism and morality. The only viable justification for a belief in objective morality is God as I summarized in Objective morality of Christianity.

So, fundamentally, it is the skeptics that are making a contradictory argument since they cannot justify the usage of objective moral claims against God. To make an objective moral judgment, God must exist. So, the moral arguments against God is not disproving the existence of God, but arguing they do not like God and how he operates.

The illogical argument (B) also requires a moral judgment on God since there are no explicit statements in the Bible God is immoral. It is the interpretations and judgments of skeptics of how God acts and then claiming God is immoral in his actions. So skeptics must employ objective moral judgments even in the illogical argument.

Further, many, if not all, of the omni characteristics of God are nebulous idealizations of God and not adequately defined and even supported by the Bible. They are straw man attacks on God.

So the issue is, though God does exist, people might not like how He acts and thus is not worthy of worship.

One major issue is God acting unjustly in the destruction of people in the flood. I addressed this in Flood and morality.

Another issue is God committing genocide in the Canaanite conquest. I summarized my arguments in Genocide summary argument.

Another major issue is slavery in the Bible. I summarized this in Slavery summary argument.

And finally is the issue of homosexuality. I summarized it in Summary argument on homosexuality.

Rather than God being a capricious and mean God and killing the foreigners, weak and innocent, God is the opposite. God is not xenophobic, but rather is xenophilic. God does not oppress the weak, but has a heart for the disadvantaged.

If this debate is being wrapped up, does that mean we can finally examine how the behavior of Jehovah stacks up against that of other gods, since you've been brushing that aside for a later time? Can that later time be now?

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4030

Yes, he put in links to what those who know something about the subject wrote. I guess I should text with them since they’re educated on the matter. It’s useless to try to discuss a subject with someone who essentially says, “read here! This guy will tell you what I think. I can’t do it myself.”

It's known as "providing references".

It really is getting comical now isn't it?

And what exactly is a „trickster god?” How does that work? Where are you getting this from?

I provide multiple references to trickster gods to answer the exact questions posed. When faced with the answer that was asked for, tap dance and don't deal with the information. This is becoming a pattern sadly.

It seems some people only want personal hearsay since that's all they themselves are giving.

Apparently if you don't know all the details of something yourself, it's not cool to look up information and learn. It also seems not ok to list references so readers can also learn something and/or verify it themselves.

Anyways, back to the OP and tie this in: Assuming the Bible was from a god (the information provided inerrant or not), how would we determine if it was a trickster god or not? Or in the parlance of Christianity, Satan spreading lies. Other than circular reasoning (the Bible says this or that to prove itself), what external, verifiable evidence do we have that what's in the Bible is trustworthy? Many of us have already discovered multiple places within it that (on plain reading) either contradict other parts of it or modern knowledge. That seems to break the trust right away. Maybe there is a real god and it wants us to notice all these problems and determine this collection of works is 'tainted' by Satan and instead rely on our god given senses to discover the real god.

God, if it exists, gave us our senses, logic, and reasoning skills. Perhaps we are supposed to use those at all times instead of just relying on ancient writings from a time when humanity as a species knew a lot less.

[otseng]

If this debate is being wrapped up, does that mean we can finally examine how the behavior of Jehovah stacks up against that of other gods, since you've been brushing that aside for a later time? Can that later time be now?

I don't see that as very relevant to the reliability and authority of the Bible. And I don't see that as a big issue among Christians or skeptics. But if you want to start another thread on that, feel free to create it.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #4030

Yes, he put in links to what those who know something about the subject wrote. I guess I should text with them since they’re educated on the matter. It’s useless to try to discuss a subject with someone who essentially says, “read here! This guy will tell you what I think. I can’t do it myself.”

It's known as "providing references".

It really is getting comical now isn't it?

And what exactly is a „trickster god?” How does that work? Where are you getting this from?

I provide multiple references to trickster gods to answer the exact questions posed. When faced with the answer that was asked for, tap dance and don't deal with the information. This is becoming a pattern sadly.

Leave out the references to others who express what you think. The whole idea of a discussion is expanding our ability to verbalize our own thoughts. References destroy that learning opportunity.

What you wrote is clearly out the imagination of someone else. The spiritual beings who trick humans are demons. That’s their name. They do like to be thought of as gods and they do lie. But “tricky” belongs to bugs bunny.

It seems some people only want personal hearsay since that's all they themselves are giving.

Some don’t want to expand their ability to express their thoughts and so borrow the heresay of others. Just cause it’s a link doesn’t make it a reference.

Apparently if you don't know all the details of something yourself, it's not cool to look up information and learn. It also seems not ok to list references so readers can also learn something and/or verify it themselves.

I’m here for a discussion and to learn what others think, not what others who can’t but can only cut and paste.

Anyways, back to the OP and tie this in: Assuming the Bible was from a god (the information provided inerrant or not), how would we determine if it was a trickster god or not? Or in the parlance of Christianity, Satan spreading lies. Other than circular reasoning (the Bible says this or that to prove itself), what external, verifiable evidence do we have that what's in the Bible is trustworthy?

What it says matches real life.

Many of us have already discovered multiple places within it that (on plain reading) either contradict other parts of it or modern knowledge. That seems to break the trust right away. Maybe there is a real god and it wants us to notice all these problems and determine this collection of works is 'tainted' by Satan and instead rely on our god given senses to discover the real god.

Sigh! Highly learned men can tell you this isn’t so. But if one wants to know if it’s true, one has to actually DO what Jesus taught. There’s no other way. Refuse that and you’ll never see.

God, if it exists, gave us our senses, logic, and reasoning skills. Perhaps we are supposed to use those at all times instead of just relying on ancient writings from a time when humanity as a species knew a lot less.

When I’ve watched atheist vs christian debates where the participants are of equal academic background, the christian was far better equipped to think in the spot, was more articulate, kinder, and better able to meet arguments. Those men had their intellect, senses, and logic sharpened. The atheists to a man, were less sharp.

[benchwarmer]

Leave out the references to others who express what you think. The whole idea of a discussion is expanding our ability to verbalize our own thoughts. References destroy that learning opportunity.

You can't be serious.

First, this isn't just a discussion. This is a debate site in case you haven't noticed which site you are on. Regardless of what you think is happening or supposed to happen here, the point is to debate. It's right there at the top of your web browser.

As to 'destroying a learning opportunity' how exactly is providing reference to information destroying anything other than perhaps some false claims you've made? When you went to school, did the teacher forbid you to read textbooks? Were you only allowed to discuss what you already knew? That seems to be what you are after here. Sorry, that's not how this works. I suggest reading the rules for participating in these debate forums. If you simply want to chat then I suggest one of the general discussion rooms like Random Rambling or maybe Holy Huddle.

What you wrote is clearly out the imagination of someone else. The spiritual beings who trick humans are demons. That’s their name. They do like to be thought of as gods and they do lie. But “tricky” belongs to bugs bunny.

Until you can provide some means to verify your claim here, we can all simply dismiss that as your imagination.

I personally think a good chunk of what's contained in the Bible is out of the imagination of humans. If I were to claim that (like you've made a claim above about demons), I would be expected to back it up with evidence (i.e. references that other people can check/verify/debate/etc).

Some don’t want to expand their ability to express their thoughts and so borrow the heresay of others. Just cause it’s a link doesn’t make it a reference.

Dear readers, please all read that last sentence above again. A link isn't a reference. What would you prefer dear interlocuter? A UPS delivery of actual paper documents signed by the author?

Please explain to the class what is a reference in your mind.

I’m here for a discussion and to learn what others think, not what others who can’t but can only cut and paste.

The difference is, some of us here are also backing up our claims with references for readers to fact check us. You, on the other hand, just make claim after claim with zero backup. What can be claimed with zero evidence can be just as easily dismissed.

Anyways, back to the OP and tie this in: Assuming the Bible was from a god (the information provided inerrant or not), how would we determine if it was a trickster god or not? Or in the parlance of Christianity, Satan spreading lies. Other than circular reasoning (the Bible says this or that to prove itself), what external, verifiable evidence do we have that what's in the Bible is trustworthy?

What it says matches real life.

Oh really....

Animals before humans:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

24 And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind.” And it was so.

26 Then God said, “Let us make humans[c] in our image, according to our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over the cattle and over all the wild animals of the earth[d] and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.”

Humans before animals:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.” 19 So out of the ground the Lord God formed every animal of the field and every bird of the air and brought them to the man to see what he would call them, and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name.

Woops. It doesn't even match itself, never mind real life.

Oh wait, you don't like references. I guess ignore the above. Readers, however, will probably appreciate me backing up my claim.

When I’ve watched atheist vs christian debates where the participants are of equal academic background, the christian was far better equipped to think in the spot, was more articulate, kinder, and better able to meet arguments. Those men had their intellect, senses, and logic sharpened. The atheists to a man, were less sharp.

Another claim, more missing evidence. Yawn. Care to point us to these debates you supposedly watched with participants of equal background?

I've noticed the exact opposite, but I'll wait for you to support your claim before I bother supporting mine. Otherwise we can just dismiss it as more hearsay.

[POI]

(U) How is my intuition even relevant? I've never even brought intuition to decide if male on male sex is right or wrong.

POI It's relevant because what you said here "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

Does your intuitions tell you all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination?

(U) And there's no need to explain the why for all the laws.

POI I disagree. Why is all male-on-male anal sex an abomination?

(U) It's obvious the penis and the vagina were designed to be used together. The main purpose of the two coming together is to reproduce. Thus it was designed to be this way.

POI Using your logic, it is just as obvious that the penis can go into the male anus.

You are also deflecting here... Isn't it also obvious a 'clumsy designer' created an airway to share a food-way, or a sewage-way to share a female pleasure-way, or a male urethra to go straight though the male prostate gland?

(U) Really the only case where it is an "abomination" would be if they are a Christian or a Jew and they believe in the authority of the Bible. If they do not, then there's no need for them to believe it is an abomination.

POI Sounds like outside the Bible's arbitrary say-so, there exists no actual valid reason(s) that consensual, of age, non-violent, and monogamous male-on-male anal sex is an abomination either.

(U) I've never argued about sexual practices between a man and a woman. Technically the Bible says nothing about heterosexual anal sex.

POI But here lies my point. In my given example, the only difference, is between male-on-male (vs) male-on-female. If all other factors are the same, why is the male-on-male activity actually wrong? Or is all human anal sex wrong?

(U) I agree we cannot trust our intuitions on determining exactly what is right or wrong. And if we can't trust our intuition, then how can we determine what is right or wrong?

POI You stated "objective morality is more an intuitive sense". But now you state our intuitions are not trustworthy. How is one to then assess the rightness and wrongness of an assertion made from the Bible, or any other claimed holy book?

[TRANSPONDER]

I watch yhis conversation, but would rather stay out. I see no proper responses from the theists side but they reject and deny the evidence, say the Bible makes sense (Translation: Take real life and look at it as though God was behind it all - never mind which one) and get into theist huddles for bias confirmation.

A proper conversation is impossible.

[otseng]

(U) How is my intuition even relevant? I've never even brought intuition to decide if male on male sex is right or wrong.

POI It's relevant because what you said here "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

Does your intuitions tell you all male-on-male anal sex is an abomination?

As I've noted, since our intuitions are fallen, our intuition can be flawed, whether we believe male on male sex is either right or wrong. So, though intuition can be guide, it cannot be the ultimate guide on what is objectively right or wrong.

(U) And there's no need to explain the why for all the laws.

POI I disagree. Why is all male-on-male anal sex an abomination?

I've addressed this multiple times. You are free to disagree with me, but repeating the question does not further your case.

(U) It's obvious the penis and the vagina were designed to be used together. The main purpose of the two coming together is to reproduce. Thus it was designed to be this way.

POI Using your logic, it is just as obvious that the penis can go into the male anus.

There is no ability to reproduce in such a case, so no, it is not using my logic.

You are also deflecting here... Isn't it also obvious a 'clumsy designer' created an airway to share a food-way, or a sewage-way to share a female pleasure-way, or a male urethra to go straight though the male prostate gland?

I'm not the one deflecting when I point out your arguments are irrelevant to the current discussion.

(U) Really the only case where it is an "abomination" would be if they are a Christian or a Jew and they believe in the authority of the Bible. If they do not, then there's no need for them to believe it is an abomination.

POI Sounds like outside the Bible's arbitrary say-so, there exists no actual valid reason(s) that consensual, of age, non-violent, and monogamous male-on-male anal sex is an abomination either.

As I've mentioned, there are no qualifications mentioned in the Old Testament, so why should your qualifications make it acceptable?

Or is all human anal sex wrong?

From an Old Testament perspective, there is no statement all anal sex is wrong. There are many sexual practices the Bible does not mention. What is right or wrong for all those cases? It's up to one's personal reasoning and conscience to decide.

(U) I agree we cannot trust our intuitions on determining exactly what is right or wrong. And if we can't trust our intuition, then how can we determine what is right or wrong?

POI You stated "objective morality is more an intuitive sense". But now you state our intuitions are not trustworthy. How is one to then assess the rightness and wrongness of an assertion made from the Bible, or any other claimed holy book?

Like I said, I'm not using intuition to determine what the Bible says nor how to decide what is right or wrong. Intuition is a guide, but since it is fallen, it cannot be a reliable guide in all situations.

If the Bible is reliable and authoritative, then it has the authority to claim what is right and wrong.

Now your turn, if we can't trust our intuition, then how can we determine what is right or wrong?