Is it fair to conclude that the bible is infallible on essential faith and morals?

Bible is not infallible in morals.

Lets examine the commandments.

thou shall not kill

Can anyone explain why person shouldnt kill others?

thou shall not steal

Can anyone explain why person shouldnt steal from others?

Do not commit adultery

Why shouldnt person commit adultery?

thou shall not bear false witness

Why not?

honor your mother and father

Why would one even do that?

If your answers to any of these are "Because God says so", that is no different from saying "Because I say so".

If your answer is "God always says what is correct / God is always correct", that is not only unproved but even unlikely.

However, if you try to base these morals in some objective logic, a simple problem arises, that any objective logic supporting these morals doesnt support the Bible.

Lets take as example "Eye for eye" (considered objective morality). God of Bible orders killing of people who killed no one, orders killing of gay people, killing of people who wear different clothes.

Now, you can either say killing of gays is fine, hence violating Bible's first commandment, or you can say its not fine, and then admit Bible is wrong.

Further, a morality of eye for eye pretty much leads to body autonomy argument, which Bible at the same time denies.

Further, anyone who claims "We are owned by God and thus dont have body autonomy", well, in that case, there is no morality either. If God can kill people randomly, which God does, then he violates the very commandments he asks others to uphold.

If God determines morality, morality doesnt exist because God can just change it at will. And if God doesnt determine morality, then the question rises "What does?".

the problem with Bible is very simple. there is nothing to deduce morality from. If you deduce it from "Eye for eye", you end up contradicting the Bible. If you deduce it from "Because God says so", that is not morality, but just God's opinion which he can change at any time, and also has no justification for.

So in order to deduce morality from something, something must already contain morality, but logically, there is nothing which contains morality to deduce morality from.

there are attempts at self-contradiction, but we must first explain what self-contradiction is. Self-contradiction is simply trying to hold two statements both as true, while they cannot be logically both true.

So, in a sense of: A or not A. But Not A produces contradiction, so A true.

the issue, however, is that no one so far did this for morality, not further than lex talionis at least.

this is simply because, if something was self-contradictive, it would be impossible to do. So if certain action was self-contradictive, to do such action would be impossible in the first place.

So any morally wrong action wouldnt exist in the first place, if morally wrong action was self-contradictive.

What lex talionis does, is not prove what is good and what is wrong, but it functions under logic that if killing is okay, then punishing a murderer with death is okay too, and if killing is not okay, then murderer is wrong in his actions and thus can be punished for them.

"Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man by sleeping with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by sleeping with him, keep alive for yourselves."

Bible Numbers 31:17-18

"Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. ¹⁴ Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

¹⁵ “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. ¹⁶ “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. ¹⁷ Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, ¹⁸ but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Also, in order to deduce moral values from anywhere, you first need their definition.

However, no definition of "good, bad, should, shouldnt" exists. You will not find in any dictionary definition which isnt just circular (good is morally right. morally right is acting in morally good way.) You simply get nowhere with any dictionary, because these definitions simply dont objectively exist.

It is not possible to prove definitions, but when definitions can only be arbitrary and not even observed or produced from basic logic, then the very deductive logic deducing from them becomes pure arbitrary product of imagination.

There different ways to approach biblical accuracy. Theres inerrancy, there's literalism, there's simply being inspired, theres infallible on all questions of faith and morals, and theres another approach that i feel intuitively... infallible on essential faith and morals. Of course some might call it a cop out cause then people can weasel around what's actually essential

Thoughts?

The Bible was written over a period of about 1,500 years, in three different languages, on three different continents, by at least 40 different authors from different walks of life including fisherman, physicians, and shepherds. The authors of the Bible were relating the religious “experience” of the Jewish people, they were not biographers or historians, they were writing "Sacred History" from the passionate perspective of their own religious experience. Consequently, the Bible is a book of widely different perspectives utilizing many different literary genres, including history and prophecy, poetry and love songs, allegories and parables, none of which is conducive to any kind of "literal" translation.

To go beyond reading the Bible to be inspired by its pages, to go to it as though it were an unyielding oracle that related once and for all the will of God is to make the Bible a pretentious idol, a barrier to creative and personal thought, and a myth. I do not accept the Biblical myth that many try to impose on me, I do accept the Bible as a profound work of both historical and current significance, and for me, the myth of the Bible is nothing compared to the reality.

The Bible itself warns against worshipping anything other than the one true God as idolatry. replacing a living relationship with God with a rigid, literal, and often human-interpreted, set of rules amounts to worshipping the text itself. You elevate the Bible to divine status whenever it is being used to replace or redefine God, rather than to lead to Him. Treating the Bible as a literally inerrant, supreme authority, distorts God’s nature by ignoring the historical, cultural, and literary context of scripture, focusing instead on human-centric, black-and-white interpretations. It is a form human hubris, to force a rigid interpretation, in defiance of the Bible’s own themes of humility.

I think reducing faith to some set of formulaic statements and insisting on absolute certainty regarding those formulaic statements, offered as proofs, is "idolatry" by any Christian definition of the term I've ever seen. I understand why a full commitment to a Church and her doctrines is necessary, but when that commitment transforms into a belief that a single Church is in sole possession of the truth in a complete and definitive way it is guilty of the sin of idolatry. It diminishes God to even think that human beings could devise a single doctrine that could exhaust all the possibilities of expressing the truth of God, on the contrary, what it expresses is a desire to “possess” God.

"The word of God is not bound" - 2 Timothy 2:9

That is not what the Bible authors wrote.

2 Timothy 3:16

All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching , for reproof, for correction and for training in righteousness.This verse affirms that the Bible is divinely inspired , authoritative and essential for guiding believers in truth and righteous living.

It is viewed as a divine revelation , containing 66 books that, despite diverse authorship maintains a unified message of salvation.

You should check out different interpretations of that verse many just say scripture is merely inspired not necessarily God breathed

2 Timothy 3:16 means all scriptures encompassing both New and Old Testaments is believed to be directly from God, providing divine authority for doctrine and instruction.

2 Timothy 3:16 means all scriptures encompassing both New and Old Testaments is believed to be directly from God, providing divine authority for doctrine and instruction.

What is the process by which the New and Old Testaments came "directly from God", was it dictated to the authors maybe? What was the means of "direct" transfer from God to the authors?

Also, in 1 Corinthians 7:25, Paul states, "I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy", if what Paul wrote was "directly from God", then why would he say, "I have no command from the Lord".

2 Timothy 3:16

The term indicates that Scripture is not merely human writing but originates directly from God, highlighting its divine inspiration.

1 Corinthians 7:25

Now about virgins, I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgement as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.

Paul clearly states he has no command from God to speak about virgins and that he is using his own judgement when expressing his opinion.

I think Paul is trying to say there is no divine mandate or prohibition either way, but there can be an advantage one way

Paul was not a disciple of Jesus, never met Jesus in person and spent much of his letters defending himself instead of preaching clear divine commands.

As I keep telling y'all.

A bible is an inanimate book compiled by people.

Based upon an archaic Middle Eastern, naive creation and existence hypothesis, wherein, it must have been a magic bloke what did it.

That further became the basis of regional and broader theo-political social doctrines.

It is testament to the power of generational data transfer and programming, and also testament to the clever/stupid nature of of the human condition.

And the magicman GOD is still no show, and Jesus the charlatan will continue to inspire programmed enthusiasts.

Then why mention Paul if he's already done for?

Paul was a historical figure who started his careen persecuting early Christians then converted to Christianity himself and became one of the most powerful voices in the early Christian missionary. He wrote 14 of the 27 books in the New Testament.