How can the inerrantist trust God?

[ydoaPs]

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Bible is God's word.

 

"Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee."-1Kings 22:23

 

Ok, so, that's God making other people lie. Let's see what else we have. The Bible goes on to make this deceived prophet thing a bit more clear:

 

"And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people Israel."-Ezekiel 14:9

 

So, if God's word says God lies, then how can we trust anything else it says? The Bible itself seems to undermine the inerrantist position.

[md65536]

So, if God's word says God lies, then how can we trust anything else it says? The Bible itself seems to undermine the inerrantist position.

There's nothing inconsistent with believing all your statements together, and that "God has only good things planned for me".

 

If you can assume that the bible is the word of God, with no evidence, you can also assume that the bible is the truth. I think those who are skeptical of a god (of its existence or of its honesty) would be interested in your argument, but people who have reason to believe or to teach the bible probably just prefer to accept it as absolute truth.

[ydoaPs]

There's nothing inconsistent with believing all your statements together, and that "God has only good things planned for me".

But how can you know? Because he said so? Nope, he said he lies.

[md65536]

But how can you know? Because he said so? Nope, he said he lies.

Why am I even assuming that God exists and said anything though?

 

It's probably a good argument for people who (as you suggested) assume that God wrote the bible, and perhaps assume that the bible is true because God is an honest god. But to an inerrantist who believes

a) God exists and wrote the bible,

b) God has deceived people and admitted to it, and

c) the bible is true,

your argument probably won't sway them because even if you think those are an unbelievable set of beliefs, they're not logically inconsistent.

 

Ultimately it comes down to what you're assuming to begin with, and there's no point in asking someone to assume something slightly different than their beliefs, to show that some modified set of beliefs doesn't make much sense. If someone starts out believing that the bible is true regardless of what other bad things God may have done, then saying "but God lied before!" doesn't change that. Would you doubt everything you ever learned, if you found out that every teacher told a lie at some point in their lives?

 

And if one tries to think purely logically and avoid as much assumption as possible, and question the source of every purported fact, its hard to make sense of any mythology. Ultimately these beliefs start with assumptions and faith in those assumptions. But then again!, if you question all knowledge, you end up needing to assume *something* to believe anything. There must be several hidden implicit assumptions involved in simply believing that anything even exists at all!

 

 

 

Edit: You were talking about "trust" and I ended up shifting focus to "belief". So I guess there's more to it than just belief. People believe they can trust whom they trust, but there's also submission to whom they consider a greater authority. As in, "God or my drill sergeant tells me who to listen to and their judgement supersedes my own so I will not question what I'm told." I think that for the same reason that a lot of people feel there is absolute right and wrong and don't question it, they would not question whether their god is right or wrong, or trustworthy or not. But it's a better question than my answer gives credit for. Too much thinking about questions like this I imagine would unravel beliefs, and I think believers and nonbelievers don't (or can't or won't?) think about these things the same way.

Edited October 2, 2013 by md65536

[ydoaPs]

Why am I even assuming that God exists and said anything though?

Because that's assumed in "X is what God said".

your argument probably won't sway them because even if you think those are an unbelievable set of beliefs, they're not logically inconsistent.

Something doesn't have to make a contradiction to undermine something. It only has to lower the probability. And since God says he deceives prophets and the Bible was written by prophets, it does lower the probability that the entire Bible is true.

 

Ultimately it comes down to what you're assuming to begin with, and there's no point in asking someone to assume something slightly different than their beliefs, to show that some modified set of beliefs doesn't make much sense. If someone starts out believing that the bible is true regardless of what other bad things God may have done, then saying "but God lied before!" doesn't change that. Would you doubt everything you ever learned, if you found out that every teacher told a lie at some point in their lives?

It's about that since God says he lies, we need a way to accurately know which parts of the rest of it is true. All of it might be true, but how do you know? That's the rub. It undermines the authority which comes from the epistemological power of "God said so".

[doG]

So, if God's word says God lies, then how can we trust anything else it says?

Because it will make you burn in hell for all eternity if you don't believe its word......because it loves you.

Edited October 2, 2013 by doG

[pears]

I'm curious to why you ask that question on a science site. Isn't it a better question for a religious site?

 

In any case I did a quick google search on that verse for you and found this http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=661

[ydoaPs]

I'm curious to why you ask that question on a science site. Isn't it a better question for a religious site?

...because we have a religion section?

[pears]

But wouldn't you expect to get a better range of answers from a religious site where there are experts in that field? Rather than a site where the expertise is in science?

[iNow]

Perhaps he trusts the responses here to be more logical and objective and not laden with logical fallacy and woo. Perhaps he has asked it at a religious site and is asking it here also so he can compare the answers for an even greater understanding. Perhaps he was impelled by god(s) to create this thread.

 

Regardless, NONE of that matters. it doesn't matter why he opened the thread. If you're truly curious, then PM him and maybe chat about it offline, but stop hijacking the thread. If you cannot stay on topic or offer anything relevant to the question in the OP, then it's probably best not to respond at all.

[john5746]

So, if God's word says God lies, then how can we trust anything else it says? The Bible itself seems to undermine the inerrantist position.

They can't. But, you might as well show someone why their music sucks mathematically. They still want to listen and moreover, if the alternative appears to be silence, even shitty music is appealing.

 

I watched a "debate" between Krauss and Craig. Craig offers a psychopathic morality, its unbelievable that anyone could take it seriously. It shows me they see no alternative. Science wins logically, but not emotionally. Most people don't get out of bed for another day of loving logic. I think Atheism has expanded enough so that certain sects, such as humanists or buddhists, etc. can make their appeal.

[WWLabRat]

I'm not arguing the credibility of the bible here or anything like that, but you've taken those quotes out of context... If you read a few verses before the one you quoted from Kings, it shows that what's being said is actually from a spirit saying that he will "possess" a prophet and make him lie so that people will doubt the word of god. It's not god saying that he will make his prophets lie. And the verse from Ezekiel is actually saying that he will punish prophets of his who lie. And further that the punishment given will be relative in severity when compared to the degree which the prophet has erred.

 

As I've stated before, granted in other threads debating verses in the bible, the translation used is of importance. Some translations are more accurate than others. It's no wonder that many people misrepresent portions of the bible. I'm not trying to push for or against it, just stating that if someone is going to quote, then they need to take multiple sources.

 

Also, the bible wasn't written by God or the prophets. It was written down after being passed down by generations by word of mouth.