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

[otseng]

Unless you start changing your model, the superheated subterranean water still shoots high into the air and falls back down.

Don't discount the water would be heated, but I don't think all the energy would be converted to thermal energy into the water gushing out. Work was also being done and transformed into kinetic energy by the erosion and moving of crust.

Unless you start changing your model, the superheated subterranean water still shoots high into the air and falls back down. Unless the falling water somehow created the mountains, then the energy to push up the mountains is in addition to the energy we were already talking about. Erosion as such ultimately transforms energy into heat, so for the mountains to be an energy sink for the falling and superheated water, there must be a mechanism for falling water to push up mountains.

No, it's not the falling water that created the mountains, but the movement of the crust. I explained this in Flood model summary.

In the case of the kinetic movement of the crust, the energy would end up as potential energy of the mountains and other areas and thermal energy in the rocks when they collided and buckled.

Even flat geologic strata would have potential energy in them.

Unless this is just another technicality involving fractions of a percent, this is something you'll have to justify.

When rivers erode through a strata (like the Grand Canyon), we have rock slides along the walls of the canyon.

And there are probably several other potential energy stores as well.

Like what? There's a reason that physicists (and ChatGPT) typically assume that unenumerated energy sinks are negligible.

Another is chemical potential energy stored in coal, oil, and natural gas. The energy (pressure, heat) of the flood also contributed to making all these fossil fuels which is transformed into potential energy.

Again, just so we're on the same page, are you arguing that my example is technically too simple or that an appreciable amount of light energy is actually converted to potential energy for an appreciable amount of time?

My only point is in systems not all energy becomes thermal energy.

[Difflugia]

Don't discount the water would be heated, but I don't think all the energy would be converted to thermal energy into the water gushing out. Work was also being done and transformed into kinetic energy by the erosion and moving of crust.

We were so close.

You're still talking as if the kinetic energy ends up somewhere other than heat. It doesn't. If it pushes rock (or something) higher (farther from the center of gravity) than it was before and it stays there, you get to claim some potential energy. Otherwise, any motion that is stopped by friction in whatever guise has all (or "virtually all," at least) of its energy converted into heat.

No, it's not the falling water that created the mountains, but the movement of the crust. I explained this in Flood model summary.

That's why I qualified it with the possibility that you changed your model.

In the case of the kinetic movement of the crust, the energy would end up as potential energy of the mountains and other areas and thermal energy in the rocks when they collided and buckled.

Yes, but the water still has to have enough energy to shoot up into the sky. The energy we we're talking about being important is the energy in the water when it comes back down.

When rivers erode through a strata (like the Grand Canyon), we have rock slides along the walls of the canyon.

If you're saying that the Flood waters pushed some rock uphil while laying down (or whatever) the strata, then yes, you're technically correct, but this would still be in addition to the energy required to shoot the water into the sky. The energy that got the water into the sky wasn't transformed into something else before it got there, so unless the falling water pushes a bunch of rock uphill, that energy becomes heat.

Another is chemical potential energy stored in coal, oil, and natural gas. The energy (pressure, heat) of the flood also contributed to making all these fossil fuels which is transformed into potential energy.

The chemical potential energy in fossil fuels is entirely (or almost entirely) stored sunlight. Though you assert that the geological processes involved in fossil fuel formation add to the chemical potential energy, that's not an obvious conclusion and makes for an interesting question. Since I've been entertaining myself with ChatGPT (thanks, by the way), I asked it:

How much chemical potential energy is in coal per mole of carbon compared to the original biomass that formed the coal?

I won't bore you with the entire answer, but I'll give you the punchline:

These values suggest that biomass has more chemical potential energy per mole of its basic unit (CH₂O) than coal has per mole of carbon. However, coal is more energy-dense per kilogram because it is mostly carbon and contains less oxygen and hydrogen compared to biomass. This makes coal a more concentrated energy source by weight, even though the original biomass had higher energy per mole due to its different chemical composition.

In summary, while biomass has more chemical potential energy per mole of its basic molecular unit (CH₂O), coal has a higher energy density per kilogram because it consists primarily of carbon, making it a more efficient fuel source by weight.

Since this is a similar process to making charcoal, I asked ChatGPT about that, too:

In terms of the source wood relative to the resulting charcoal, what is the net gain or loss in chemical energy when converting typical wood to charcoal?

Again, the punchline:

In summary, when converting typical wood to charcoal, there is a net loss in chemical energy. This loss is primarily due to the energy carried away by the volatile compounds and the endothermic nature of the pyrolysis process. The resulting charcoal has a higher energy density per kilogram, but the total energy content is lower compared to the original wood.

Assuming ChatGPT is correct, your energy equation is moving in the wrong direction. The geological heat and pressure converted the biomass into a form that's denser and more convenient for us, but released some of the stored energy, originally from sunlight, in the process, ultimately putting the coal in a lower energy state overall. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine where that energy went.

My only point is in systems not all energy becomes thermal energy.

If that's genuinely your only point, then yes, you're technically correct. It seems to me, though, that part of your point is that there are enough of these energy sinks to not only be significant, but that can keep enough energy from being released as heat to keep Noah and his menagerie alive. That's a much more difficult sell.

The Flood model you're relying on ignores the massive amounts of energy involved that must be conserved. You also seem to have (mostly) accepted that energy doesn't disappear when "work is done," but still have this gut feeling that the energy doesn't end up as heat. Maybe it will help and maybe it won't, but you might start thinking in terms of inefficiency. Even when we try to store energy, there's a massive amount of inefficiency and all of the inefficiency ends up as heat. If you throw something, drop something, push something, shine a light at something, or yell at something without going to a great deal of effort to recapture some form of potential energy, the energy becomes heat sooner rather than later. Even if you do capture some of that energy, the difference ("inefficiency") still becomes heat. That's still a much larger percentage, even for intentionally weird interactions that can normally be ignored, than you seem to realize. That's why I've been trying to nudge you toward quantifying things; "not all energy becomes thermal energy" is technically true whether the "not all" means 20%, 2%, or 0.02%, but quantifying the differences has important implications for your apologetic arguments.

[otseng]

You're still talking as if the kinetic energy ends up somewhere other than heat. It doesn't. If it pushes rock (or something) higher (farther from the center of gravity) than it was before and it stays there, you get to claim some potential energy.

The kinetic energy would end up as potential energy in the mountains and the entire sedimentary strata.

The chemical potential energy in fossil fuels is entirely (or almost entirely) stored sunlight. Though you assert that the geological processes involved in fossil fuel formation add to the chemical potential energy, that's not an obvious conclusion and makes for an interesting question. Since I've been entertaining myself with ChatGPT (thanks, by the way), I asked it:

It was a hypothesis since you asked for additional possibilities of storing energy. I'll retract that hypothesis.

[oaroloye]

[Replying to otseng in post #2923]

We know that Lord Yeshua Resurrected from the Dead, because his Name has The Power to Raise the Dead today.

Functionally-illiterate English plumber preacher, SMITH WIGGLEWORTH Raised the Dead at least five times.

KENNETH ERWIN HAGIN of McKinney, Texas died as a boy, but was Raised from the Dead by the Prayers of his devout grandmother and mother.

The whole point of telling us about his Miracles is so that we can do them too.

. JOHN 14:1-28.

"LET not your heart be troubled:
ye believe in God,
believe also in me.
2. "In my Father's House
are many Mansions:
if it were not so,
I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you.
3. "And if I go and prepare a place for you,
I will come again,
and receive you unto myself;
that where I am,
there ye may be also.
4. "And whither I go ye know,
and The Way ye know."

5. Thomas saith unto him,

"Lord, we know not whither thou goest;
and how can we know The Way?"

6. Jesus Saith unto him,

"I am The Way, The Truth, and The Life:
no man cometh unto The Father, but by me.
7. "If ye had known me,
ye should have Known my Father also:
and from henceforth ye Know Him,
and have seen Him."

8. Philip saith unto him,

"Lord, shew us the Father,
and it sufficeth us."

9. Jesus Saith unto him,

"Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
He that hath seen me hath seen The Father;
and how sayest thou then,

'SHEW US THE FATHER?'

10. "Believest thou not
that I am in the Father,
and the Father in me?
The Words that I speak unto you
I speak not of myself:
but the Father that dwelleth in me,
he doeth The Works.
11. "Believe me
that I am in The Father,
and The Father in me:
or else believe me
for the very Works' sake.
12. "Verily, verily, I Say unto you,

'HE THAT BELIEVETH ON ME,
THE WORKS THAT I DO
SHALL HE DO ALSO;'

and Greater (Works) than these shall he do;
because I go unto my Father.
13. "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my Name,
that will I do,
that The Father may be glorified in The Son.
14. "If ye shall ask any thing in my Name,
I will do it.
15. "If ye love me,
keep my Commandments.
16. "And I will pray The Father,
and He shall give you another Comforter,
that He may abide with you for ever;
17. "Even The Spirit of Truth;
whom the World cannot receive,
because It seeth him not,
neither knoweth Him:
but ye know him;
for He dwelleth with you,
and shall be in you.
18. "I will not leave you comfortless:
I will come to you.
19. "Yet a little while,
and the World seeth me no more;
but ye see me:
because I live,
ye shall live also.
20. "At that Day ye shall know
that I am in my Father,
and ye in me,
and I in you.
21. "He that hath my Commandments,
and keepeth them,
he it is that loveth me:
and he that loveth me
shall be loved of my Father,
and I will love him,
and will manifest myself to him."

22. Judas saith unto him,
not Iscariot,

"Lord, how is it that thou
wilt manifest thyself unto us,
and not unto the World?"

23. Jesus Answered and Said unto him,

"If a man love me,
he will keep my Words:
and my Father will love him,
and we will come unto him,
and make our abode with him.
24. "He that loveth me not
keepeth not my Sayings:
and The Word which ye hear is not mine,
but The Father's which sent me.
25. "These things have I spoken unto you,
being yet present with you.
26. "But the Comforter,
Which is The Holy Ghost,
Whom the Father will send in my Name,
He shall Teach you All Things,
and bring All Things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.
27. "Peace I leave with you,
my Peace I give unto you:
not as the World giveth,
give I unto you.
Let not your heart be troubled,
neither let it be afraid.
28. "Ye have heard how I Said unto you,

'I GO AWAY,
AND COME AGAIN UNTO YOU.'

If ye loved me,
ye would rejoice,
because I Said,

'I GO UNTO THE FATHER:'

for my Father is greater than I."

WHAT DID YOU THINK THE BIG DEAL WAS, ABOUT HIS DISCIPLES RECEIVING THE HOLY GHOST, AND GOD: THE FATHER, AND HIS SON, LORD YESHUA?

Did you think that they were just doing that for fun???

What did you think the goal was- if not to continue the Good Work?

SO, YES- WE HAVE RAISING OF THE DEAD, EVEN UNTIL TODAY- DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF YOUR PEOPLE TO SUPPRESS IT.

Evangeliist TIMOTHY OMOTOSO, a South-Africa based Nigerian reportedly Raised a woman from the Dead, who had been Dead for seven days.

He foolishly meddled in politics- began predicting the outcomes of elections- so he was arrested on trumped-up (no pun intended,) rape charges brought by one of the street-orphans he had helped- and imprisoned.

IF THERE WERE A WORKING WAY TO REVERSE DEATH, IN A SANE WORLD, EVERYTHING WOULD BE DROPPED, TO FOCUS ON THAT.

But, no- nobody wants to know.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to oaroloye in post #4294]

SO, YES- WE HAVE RAISING OF THE DEAD, EVEN UNTIL TODAY- DESPITE THE EFFORTS OF YOUR PEOPLE TO SUPPRESS IT.

Okay, next person in your family or community who dies....raise them from the dead----and be sure to provide the medical evidence so it won't be just anecdotal.