How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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.

User avatar
Diogenes
Scholar
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: USA
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #651

Post by Diogenes »

I AGREE, "Otseng is presenting evidence. It does often come down to interpretation, such as the interpretation of inverted strata." If I bother to argue with someone, that should be [generally] considered a compliment. I was briefly on another forum where there was one and only one theist who supported his claims with documentation. We became friends.

Part of my gripe with 'proof texting' Bible stories is that too frequently the texts used are interpreted in opposite or different ways, depending on where the debater wants to go with it. I've just shown, with Osteng's help that one can take the Babel story to mean there was one common language or that there were thousands instantly created that have no common origin... or anywhere in between.

The classic example is using the Bible to prove the Earth is flat.... Centuries later one obscure verse "Job sat upon the circle of the Earth" was used to prove the opposite, once the scientific evidence became overwhelming and even the Church changed its view.

There are many clear and explicit verses that show Jesus said he'd be back before some of his listeners were dead, and many passages that show Paul and others expected the same. When it didn't happen, the clear language of those verses got reinterpreted and even new books were forged, like 2 Thessalonians, to show that it could happen later.

There are many examples, including the 'faith vs works' argument, free will vs determinism, the predestination kerfuffle, and dozens of variations on pre and post millennialism and other doctrines. The Bible can mean almost anything you want it to mean.
Plutarch openly scorned Greek religious beliefs in resurrections "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #652

Post by TRANSPONDER »

Diogenes wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:18 am I AGREE, "Otseng is presenting evidence. It does often come down to interpretation, such as the interpretation of inverted strata." If I bother to argue with someone, that should be [generally] considered a compliment. I was briefly on another forum where there was one and only one theist who supported his claims with documentation. We became friends.

Part of my gripe with 'proof texting' Bible stories is that too frequently the texts used are interpreted in opposite or different ways, depending on where the debater wants to go with it. I've just shown, with Osteng's help that one can take the Babel story to mean there was one common language or that there were thousands instantly created that have no common origin... or anywhere in between.

The classic example is using the Bible to prove the Earth is flat.... Centuries later one obscure verse "Job sat upon the circle of the Earth" was used to prove the opposite, once the scientific evidence became overwhelming and even the Church changed its view.

There are many clear and explicit verses that show Jesus said he'd be back before some of his listeners were dead, and many passages that show Paul and others expected the same. When it didn't happen, the clear language of those verses got reinterpreted and even new books were forged, like 2 Thessalonians, to show that it could happen later.

There are many examples, including the 'faith vs works' argument, free will vs determinism, the predestination kerfuffle, and dozens of variations on pre and post millennialism and other doctrines. The Bible can mean almost anything you want it to mean.
Very good. Yes. Obviously taking the Myth as a reliable record (as per the topic) it's got to deny the science (archaeological evidence for various cultures developing no doubt with their own languages) and insist the earth ios a few thousands years old rather than a few billions, OR one can go along with the science but Interpret the Bible to fit. Just as '7 days' can mean 14 billion years divided into 7. But that requires cherry picking the Bible and ignoring that each 'day' will have a dark and light, morning and evening. So one can argue (perhaps) that there was one human language spoken by the sub -species that eventually populated the world. No doubt the Neanderthals had their own language but presumably it's as extinct as Etruscan.

But that's a heck of a leap from a plausible Single Origin for all human languages through claiming God is behind everything :roll: which is taking a truckload for granted and then relating it to the Tower of Babel which is another leap to something that looks mythical (having no scientific support in history or archaeology) in a book of other stuff that looks mythical and even (like a postulated global Flood) would only be a matter of Bias to attribute it to the doings of a particular god. That's without the sliding scale of credibility applied to science ..."I believe in a round earth and heliocentric solar system and in fact Deny that Genesis is talking about a flat earth with a sky -dome over it, but I vehemently deny that critters evolved and that human society took tens of thousand of years to develop (1) and in fact had a human populace a mere thousand years after Noah". Though whether it had spread over the globe or the archaeology is simply denied and the world was empty apart from 'Mesopotamian'. Sorry China. No Yang Chao culture. You didn't exist before the Xia dynasty global flood (2).

"What's Mespopotamian, precious?"

"Meso-potamian! Speak it, write it, stick it in the books"

(1) cue: "science is always changing their minds - now they decided Pluto is a planet after all!"

(2) or after..there's another problem. If the Chinese flood is the Biblical one, people were already living in China and because the Great Yu eventually controlled the Flood, they were living there (speaking Adunaic-Noachian Mesopotamian origin-speak) until Babel fell down in Iraq half a century later, and suddenly they all started speaking Chinese. So...I'm sorry :D I feel like I'm being asked to take a flat earthist seriously.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #653

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:06 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:58 pmA theist on my former board became a laughing -stock for protesting that bad evidence was still "Evidence".
:) Exactly! I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that 'bad evidence,' "evidence" that is not relevant or has no nexus to the proposition being advanced is excluded from consideration. In other words, it is ruled to not be 'evidence' at all.

I HEREBY MOVE that Osteng's entire series of Ziggurat posts be stricken from the record and not be considered as 'evidence' for his unsupported claim that... that... that the Earth is flat or whatever it was he was trying to prove. ;)
Let's compare notes as to the quantity and quality of evidence that have been provided just in the last 3 pages. I'll post all the links that the three of us have provided.

otseng:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat_of_Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogha_Zanbil
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient- ... in-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Venta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikal_Temple_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_pyramids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_T ... ,_1594.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piet ... edited.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... edited.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... Babel.jpeg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... roject.jpg
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh_Ker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monks_Mound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_d%27Accoddi
http://www.sandalyon.eu/eng/articles/ar ... __229.html
https://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/2 ... veled.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... th_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viso%C4%8Dica_hill
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10335950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Sacr ... California
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/71 ... he-future/
https://tylerleavitt.wordpress.com/2011 ... -pyramids/

Diagoras:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/flood-2
https://m.made-in-china.com/product/Woo ... 37142.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950347/

TRANSPONDER:
could not find any links

I will let readers decide for themselves who has been presenting the better evidence.

As to why Diogenes would suggest to strike out all my evidence, perhaps because it's the only way to counter all my evidence?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #654

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:44 pm Genesis 11:6], the main point is that this is like so many other myths, a simple picture story used to explain why we have different languages. That this story could be taken seriously as an actual event in history is laughable. This is typical of myths around the world, a transparent and simplified 'explanation' of how something came to be.
To be clear, I do not take the entire passage of the tower of Babel literally. As I've been proposing all along in this thread, not every word in the Bible needs to be taken as literally true. The fundamental message out of the passage is all languages of the world originated from a single language. And if this is true, then there should be some evidence to back this up. The timing of the tower of Babel as compared to the earliest written languages confirms this. The fact that we have many cultures around the world since the earliest times building ziggurat-like structures also is in line with the Biblical account.

There is nothing wrong with telling a truth within a story. And actually, it can be preferable. It allows the truth to be understood by anybody at any education level. It makes it more memorable and more interesting to read. Yes, it would seem too mythological for a scientific mind, but the basic message can still hold up to the evidence.

So, what should be taken as true and what should be taken as the fictional wrapping around the truth? I argue it should be through evidence. So far, I've presented pages of evidence for a global flood and a tower of Babel. And compared to the alternative explanations, the Bible is able to hold its ground.

User avatar
Diogenes
Scholar
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: USA
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #655

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:00 am
Diogenes wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 8:44 pm Genesis 11:6], the main point is that this is like so many other myths, a simple picture story used to explain why we have different languages. That this story could be taken seriously as an actual event in history is laughable. This is typical of myths around the world, a transparent and simplified 'explanation' of how something came to be.
To be clear, I do not take the entire passage of the tower of Babel literally. As I've been proposing all along in this thread, not every word in the Bible needs to be taken as literally true. The fundamental message out of the passage is all languages of the world originated from a single language. And if this is true, then there should be some evidence to back this up. The timing of the tower of Babel as compared to the earliest written languages confirms this. The fact that we have many cultures around the world since the earliest times building ziggurat-like structures also is in line with the Biblical account.

There is nothing wrong with telling a truth within a story. And actually, it can be preferable. It allows the truth to be understood by anybody at any education level. It makes it more memorable and more interesting to read. Yes, it would seem too mythological for a scientific mind, but the basic message can still hold up to the evidence.

So, what should be taken as true and what should be taken as the fictional wrapping around the truth? I argue it should be through evidence. So far, I've presented pages of evidence for a global flood and a tower of Babel. And compared to the alternative explanations, the Bible is able to hold its ground.
This is EXACTLY my point. You take an obvious myth, a fable trying to explain why we have different languages, and commendably do not accept it all as literal truth, but then you turn around and cherry pick the parts that fit your narrative that there must be SOME truth to be found in the Bible.

More importantly, you have failed to address my point that the Babel myth can be used equally to show that all languages are NOT related, but separate and distinct so as to 'confuse' the workers. Or was God so lame he could not make them distinct, with no relation to each other. THAT s the main point, that the myth can just as easily, no, MORE easily be used to show there never was a common language from which all descended.

You have proved nothing except that the Bible noted towers have been built and there have been floods. That's about as prescient as predicting there will be daylight in the morning.
Plutarch openly scorned Greek religious beliefs in resurrections "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."

User avatar
Diogenes
Scholar
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: USA
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #656

Post by Diogenes »

Finding historical facts that coincide with myths, Biblical or otherwise, is hardly surprising, whether it be about the development of language, creation itself, or flood myths. A common example that incorporates both creation, deluges, and the dualism of a God and a Satan are found all over the world.

"Water, though important everywhere as a source of life and image of endless potentiality, has a special role in Asia and North America, where the creator (often an animal) is assisted by another figure, who dives for earth in the primordial ocean. The earth-diver helper sometimes develops into an opponent, or Satan-like character, in other areas—e.g., those touched by Zoroastrianism, an ancient Persian dualistic religion. Though hardly an explanation in the ordinary sense of the word, the theme accounts for the fact that evil is constitutive of the cosmos without holding the creator responsible for it."
https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth/Myth-and-history
Finding similar motifs and examples in the Bible hardly makes the Bible special. This is simply what human culture does, and variations of these stories are universal. What is special about the myths of Genesis? They are sometimes similar to others and often borrowed from earlier cultures.
Plutarch openly scorned Greek religious beliefs in resurrections "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18572
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #657

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:02 am You still have nothing, as I keep having to point out.
Readers can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence that has been presented. You repeatedly claiming this does not invalidate my evidence.
Perhaps all languages did derive from a single one or perhaps not. Nobody knows. That is - as I have said - irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. If all languages of the world independently originated, it would falsify the Biblical story that all languages originated from a common language. And if there was a single original language, then it would affirm the Biblical account.
What is relevant is that the Biblical account does not look credible as an explanation of the diversity of languages.
With an inerrantist view of this passage, I would agree it appears to be a silly situation for God to feel threatened with people building a tower to reach heaven. However, since I'm not an inerrantist, I don't need to believe God was actually threatened in any way and that he physically visited the citizens of Babel and then snapped his fingers and everyone started speaking different languages. It can simply be a story that is wrapped around a fundamental truth.
Also as I said the evolution of languages is a thing that can be seen to happen. e.g from Latin through to various European languages. Indirect evidence.

We both believe Latin influenced many languages, so it's not relevant. What is relevant is the original languages. Was there only one original language or has there been multiple original languages?

The hydroplate theory I read where the water -pressure pushed up the mountains isn't the version you use, which has a kind of continental collision - which is the actual reason I explained why pushing over soft strata would not result in a neat rollover of strata.
OK, then we can dismiss your charge since it does not apply to the FM.
But tectonic plate movement which is something measurable today, does explain it It does not only happen when strata has been deposited.
Yes, according to SG, tectonic plate movement has always been happening. Yet, there's practically no evidence of it within the strata layers (no faults, deformations, etc). The only major one has been the angular tilt in the Great Unconformity.
That is a problem with the Hydroplate theory - strata below the great unconformity and also above, but only having a couple of years for all this geological activity.
As I've mentioned, I propose it was formed during the great flood, not before it.
otseng wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:22 am How can the angular unconformity be explained in the Grand Canyon?

The sedimentary layers are formed from rock being eroded at the mid-oceanic ridges. The tilted supergroup formation was formed by erosion of the Pacific ridge west of the American continent. After this strata was deposited, tectonic activity caused the layers to be tilted. Then the layers in the tonto group and above were formed by the continental crust eroded along the mid-Atlantic ridge.
it ends up having to pack millions of years of cosmological, geological and biological activity into a matter of years or less.
What millions of years are you referring to? Deep time is only assumed for SG, it is not assumed for the FM.
It would no doubt suit you if I didn't, but I shall continue to do so,
Sure, you can rebut all you want. But simply having the last word on something does not mean I assent to your claims.
to pretend you won the Babel argument that I have heard in a long while
Where have I ever said I "won" any argument?
I keep pointing out that actually you have no good evidence because you don't seem to understand this.
The only valid response would be presenting counter-evidence, not simply claiming I have no good evidence.
language was that spoken before it was written
I never said there was no spoken language before. But, to be consistent with the Bible, all spoken language would have been the same language. What evidence do you have that all spoken language before 3500 BC were all different?
Not to mention the continents have split up before the flood even came down, so the splitting up of Pangaea is sunk as an explanation of animal diversity.
You're conflating SG and the FM. The FM does not posit the crust was moving prior to the flood.

As for animal diversity, that's a whole another topic of debate.
You sure keep me busy.
Well, there's only one of me. And there's two on your side that I have to respond to.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #658

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:36 pm
Diogenes wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:06 pm
TRANSPONDER wrote: Thu Jan 20, 2022 6:58 pmA theist on my former board became a laughing -stock for protesting that bad evidence was still "Evidence".
:) Exactly! I'm no lawyer, but my understanding is that 'bad evidence,' "evidence" that is not relevant or has no nexus to the proposition being advanced is excluded from consideration. In other words, it is ruled to not be 'evidence' at all.

I HEREBY MOVE that Osteng's entire series of Ziggurat posts be stricken from the record and not be considered as 'evidence' for his unsupported claim that... that... that the Earth is flat or whatever it was he was trying to prove. ;)
Let's compare notes as to the quantity and quality of evidence that have been provided just in the last 3 pages. I'll post all the links that the three of us have provided.

otseng:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat_of_Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogha_Zanbil
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient- ... in-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Venta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikal_Temple_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_pyramids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_T ... ,_1594.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piet ... edited.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... edited.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... Babel.jpeg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... roject.jpg
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh_Ker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monks_Mound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_d%27Accoddi
http://www.sandalyon.eu/eng/articles/ar ... __229.html
https://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/2 ... veled.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... th_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viso%C4%8Dica_hill
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10335950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Sacr ... California
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/71 ... he-future/
https://tylerleavitt.wordpress.com/2011 ... -pyramids/

Diagoras:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/flood-2
https://m.made-in-china.com/product/Woo ... 37142.html
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science- ... 180950347/

TRANSPONDER:
could not find any links

I will let readers decide for themselves who has been presenting the better evidence.

As to why Diogenes would suggest to strike out all my evidence, perhaps because it's the only way to counter all my evidence?
In the end it's down to the reader. What did you present? Links to Creationist material. Various pictures intended to mislead people with photos of eroded valleys and rocks hoping they'd assume that has to be evidence of a global flood. I didn't just link to propaganda material, but posted the other side in discussion. You link to various edifices sorta collecting pyramids and temples and suggesting they are all evidence of a tower of Babel. I don't just link to propaganda websites but explain to people why the evidence doesn't support the Babel story.

I don't know whether your post implies that you are walking away from the conclusions while thrusting a last propaganda leaflet into our hands or not, but I'm not finished with debunking the Bible. Not by a long way. Whether you are done with it or not is up to you.

It's always an education, not just the material but the Creationist arguments. It's remarkable how they often work with out of context. Like that diagram of the hydroplate - fountain like it was a desktop model. But then relate it back to the world-globe on a model spanning two continents and it really makes no sense at all.

Just like Babel and a postulated ziggurat before all the others falling down for one reason or another and that (like everything from hurricanes to football games) being ascribed to One Particular God. And suggestion that was the reason for diversity of language. Taken out of context and a desktop model, so to speak, I suppose it could look persuasive, but in global context and other cultures like Egypt and China, how do they fit into this story?

I'm aware that I'm relying on the better hypothesis for the 'indirect evidence' of the proto - literate cultures of China and Egypt, because there's no proof of what language they spoke, but the indirect evidence suggests continued proto - literate cultures in various areas, and especially putting Pre -literate China in the context of the Biblical Flood and what is supposed to be the 'Chinese Flood legend' makes nonsense of the idea of a unified language being split up into all the others long after what must be the first dynasty in China managing the flood and surviving with their own culture and language before any possible Babel event.

In the wider context, or the Big Picture it makes nonsense of the Bible, just as the global context makes nonsense of the Hydroplate theory and in fact all the evidence makes nonsense of the whole Genesis -creation hypothesis.

It's significant that right from the start you wanted to leave fossils and dating alone and deal with one thing (geology) in isolation. The poster -boy of the Flood, the Grand canyon. The Unexplained' of the Great Unconformity'. 'Swept clean! Science has no explanation! Proof of Flood!'. Not when you put it into the context of any flood theory.

If I were a creationist, I'd be adding my hoc right now. 'Do I scrap the hydroplate theory and keep Pangaea to explain animal diversity? Or keep the Hydroplate and deny everything?'

The reader will have noted (I'll remind them, if not) that I have several times pointed out that the meanders of the Grand Canyon imply a long slow process of eroding the valley, not a rush of flood waters in a short time. Never once have you addressed that. I won't be forgetting it again, nor the problem of the Chinese Flood or indeed the false claim of God smiting the Assyrians. Just as I won't forget the arguments by other Bible - believers
about Tyre by pointing to ruins outside the present city and implying that 'Tyre was never rebuilt' when old Tyre is all underneath the present city.

What is it with these out of context arguments? They show the Necropolis (which would hardly be inside the city) and some ruins on the beach and even in the sea and claim the prophecy is true, when a very quick Google will show that the present city covers all of old Tyre. Why this presentation of selective and misleading information when the context debunks it?

I have a theory of course - it is Faith in the Bible and if evidence contradicts it, then the evidence is 'wrong'. It is never about understanding the science, so the evidence is irrelevant on its' own terms, but only serves to be used to prop up the Faith, and that nearly always means selectivity. 'The Assyrian siege of Jerusalem really happened; Bible is true'. The evidence is that the Assyrians were not smitten by God, either wiping them out or using an infestation of mice, so the Bible is false. But the whole context needs to be looked at and this business of selective evidence out of the wider context has to be used to make the trick work.

I think it's not just the Trick of selective evidence that has to be understood, but the whole faithbased mindset that's behind it.

TRANSPONDER
Guru
Posts: 2011
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 269 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #659

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Sun Jan 23, 2022 12:52 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:02 am You still have nothing, as I keep having to point out.
Readers can decide for themselves by looking at the evidence that has been presented. You repeatedly claiming this does not invalidate my evidence.
Perhaps all languages did derive from a single one or perhaps not. Nobody knows. That is - as I have said - irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. If all languages of the world independently originated, it would falsify the Biblical story that all languages originated from a common language. And if there was a single original language, then it would affirm the Biblical account.
What is relevant is that the Biblical account does not look credible as an explanation of the diversity of languages.
With an inerrantist view of this passage, I would agree it appears to be a silly situation for God to feel threatened with people building a tower to reach heaven. However, since I'm not an inerrantist, I don't need to believe God was actually threatened in any way and that he physically visited the citizens of Babel and then snapped his fingers and everyone started speaking different languages. It can simply be a story that is wrapped around a fundamental truth.
I have no idea where you think that will help you. If 'Babel' was based on a real tower collapse, that is nothing to do with God, If there was a single origin or multiple origin of languages, that need not be anything to do with Babel, let alone God. You have absolutely nothing if you don't rely on the Bible account.
Also as I said the evolution of languages is a thing that can be seen to happen. e.g from Latin through to various European languages. Indirect evidence.

We both believe Latin influenced many languages, so it's not relevant. What is relevant is the original languages. Was there only one original language or has there been multiple original languages?

The hydroplate theory I read where the water -pressure pushed up the mountains isn't the version you use, which has a kind of continental collision - which is the actual reason I explained why pushing over soft strata would not result in a neat rollover of strata.
OK, then we can dismiss your charge since it does not apply to the FM.
But tectonic plate movement which is something measurable today, does explain it It does not only happen when strata has been deposited.
Yes, according to SG, tectonic plate movement has always been happening. Yet, there's practically no evidence of it within the strata layers (no faults, deformations, etc). The only major one has been the angular tilt in the Great Unconformity.
That is a problem with the Hydroplate theory - strata below the great unconformity and also above, but only having a couple of years for all this geological activity.
As I've mentioned, I propose it was formed during the great flood, not before it.
otseng wrote: Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:22 am How can the angular unconformity be explained in the Grand Canyon?

The sedimentary layers are formed from rock being eroded at the mid-oceanic ridges. The tilted supergroup formation was formed by erosion of the Pacific ridge west of the American continent. After this strata was deposited, tectonic activity caused the layers to be tilted. Then the layers in the tonto group and above were formed by the continental crust eroded along the mid-Atlantic ridge.
it ends up having to pack millions of years of cosmological, geological and biological activity into a matter of years or less.
What millions of years are you referring to? Deep time is only assumed for SG, it is not assumed for the FM.
It would no doubt suit you if I didn't, but I shall continue to do so,
Sure, you can rebut all you want. But simply having the last word on something does not mean I assent to your claims.
Failure to rebut is tacit admission of validity of the rebut. Whether you admit it or not.
to pretend you won the Babel argument that I have heard in a long while
Where have I ever said I "won" any argument?
Where did I say that you said you did? I said 'pretend' not 'said'. If you can try to make points by dickering about who said what, so can I.
I keep pointing out that actually you have no good evidence because you don't seem to understand this.
The only valid response would be presenting counter-evidence, not simply claiming I have no good evidence.
The readers (if we have any) will know that I have been presenting the counters, not to say debunks. You presented to evidence claiming to interpret that in a way that fits the Bible. I show the counter -argument. I don't need to present evidence other than what you posted, just a different Interpretation - but one that makes more sense. Like meanders imply millions of years of strata erosion, not one quick rush as in the Flood model. I don't need to post further photos; yours will do perfectly well.
language was that spoken before it was written
I never said there was no spoken language before. But, to be consistent with the Bible, all spoken language would have been the same language. What evidence do you have that all spoken language before 3500 BC were all different?
Not to mention the continents have split up before the flood even came down, so the splitting up of Pangaea is sunk as an explanation of animal diversity.
You're conflating SG and the FM. The FM does not posit the crust was moving prior to the flood.

As for animal diversity, that's a whole another topic of debate.
Sure, you prefer to look at the FM in bits, out of a general context. But you try to misrepresent my argument. To be clear. I'm using the order of events (causing the geology) in sequence according to the Flood model, irrespective of how long that was supposed to take. Given that you still postulate Pangaea (you may want to change your mind about that) that whole island (being the hydroplate) is covered by the strata that will be below the Great Unconformity. Where did that strata come from if not being water deposited and raised up in ancient geological activity (which also explains the tilt of strata). So that 'moves before the flood' in the process of being burst open and pushed apart as the water erupts in a fountain. Clear so far?

The continent slabs are floated aside by the water underneath (if you are sticking with that model) and they crunch into...something, maybe the sides of the reservoir, pushing up the rockies in the west and Himalayas in the East, I'd suppose. The water comes crashing down flooding the broken hydroplate and slicing off the strata of the Unconformity. That's why I say you have to explain where the strata underneath the Unconformity came from if the world of the Pangaea hydroplate was already under water. Also the mountains were formed before the flood, so the flood waters going down can't be explained by mountains rising up.
You sure keep me busy.
Well, there's only one of me. And there's two on your side that I have to respond to.
Yes, but it is easy to throw in a few denials and quibbles, and it is more work for me to rebut them

It is necessary to point out to readers that no tower, no real links between ziggurats, pyramids and temples and all the evidence indicating different cultures with their own languages means - you have nothing. Just as your strawman argument of If all languages of the world independently originated, it would falsify the Biblical story that all languages originated from a common language. And if there was a single original language, then it would affirm the Biblical account. As silly as 'if it could be proved that God was a space -alien..' sure, but what a Red herring. As much as 'but if God is Not a space alien..Bible is true'. :D No. A single origin (as I explained once, at least) works as well with a single human tribe out of Africa and doesn't have to have anything to do with a single language spoken in Mesopotamia, and is not therefore is no evidence for the Bible account. The readers will pick up the terrible piece of rhetorical legerdemain that you tried to pull there.

You are again trying to dismiss overall context and pin the whole discussion on an irrelevant out of context point. Whether languages arose independently or derive from one tribe in Africa, say, has nothing to do with Babel. The relevance of the evolution of Latin or Germanic languages indirectly shows that languages can evolve and that explains language diversity better than the Babel event for which - it has to be said, again - you have No real valid evidence.,

"I explained why pushing over soft strata would not result in a neat rollover of strata.
..OK, then we can dismiss your charge since it does not apply to the FM."

Are you kidding? It of course relates as an argument against the feasibility of your soft strata hypothesis explaining strata inversions. As I mentioned, I know these exist because Creationists have used them to try to debunk SG or 'deep time' geology in the past, and the vertical whale (because the strata was turned vertical) was used as evidence for the Biblical Flood. Of course there's evidence of tectonic plate movement, in antiquity as well as now. You actually pointed to faults because they did not go all the way down to the basalt mantle.

I'm sure you can think up some ad hoc excuse for the strata below the Unconformity before the flood when strata above the unconformity is also supposed to be the Flood. I can think an excuse up myself (Pangaea means that the rest of the world was covered by water) but do readers really believe this theory of continent -sized slabs bursting open and crashing into the sides of the underworld reservoir and Noah and his Ark of Animals surviving without even the need for iron framing?

Millions of yours? The millions of years evidence dby the dating of the rocks, the geological creep that accounts for the deformed strata better than your tectonic car -crash, and the 6 million years needed for the Colorado river to cut through the strata leaving meanders which can't be accounted for by a rapid channel - cutting during the Flood model. This is all context that refutes the Flood model and which you have to ignore and focus on making a desktop model work, which doesn't fit the evidence, even if it did work.

I have already given the indirect evidence (cultural continuity) that make different languages the better hypothesis than all the various cultures speaking the same language which suddenly became different when Babel (supposedly) collapsed. Do you really expect that to sound credible?

User avatar
Diogenes
Scholar
Posts: 328
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: USA
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 251 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #660

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sat Jan 22, 2022 11:36 pm
Let's compare notes as to the quantity and quality of evidence that have been provided just in the last 3 pages. I'll post all the links that the three of us have provided.

otseng:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziggurat_of_Ur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chogha_Zanbil
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient- ... in-america
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Venta
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikal_Temple_I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_pyramids
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:La_T ... ,_1594.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Piet ... edited.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... edited.jpg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... Babel.jpeg
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... roject.jpg
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/rdas/hd_rdas.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh_Ker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monks_Mound
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_d%27Accoddi
http://www.sandalyon.eu/eng/articles/ar ... __229.html
https://www.thenigerianvoice.com/news/2 ... veled.html
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... th_America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viso%C4%8Dica_hill
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna10335950
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Sacr ... California
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/71 ... he-future/
https://tylerleavitt.wordpress.com/2011 ... -pyramids/
....

I will let readers decide for themselves who has been presenting the better evidence.

As to why Diogenes would suggest to strike out all my evidence, perhaps because it's the only way to counter all my evidence?
Some of your 'evidence' made me laugh, and why do you bother since you've claimed that if the Bible is contradicted by evidence, it is the evidence that must go. I took a look at some of these links, chose this one randomly, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viso%C4%8Dica_hill
Pseudoscientific pyramid claims

Visočica hill came to international attention in October 2005, following a campaign to promote the scientifically unsupported idea that it is the largest of a group of ancient man-made pyramids. This idea originated with Houston-based expatriate Bosnian author and businessman Semir Osmanagić who has since turned the site into a tourist destination.

All scientific investigations have concluded that Visočica hill and the surrounding hills are natural geological formations known as a flatirons, and no scientific study has demonstrated the existence of man-made pyramids in Bosnia.[4][5][6] Archaeologists have criticised the Bosnian authorities for supporting the pyramid claim saying, "This scheme is a cruel hoax on an unsuspecting public and has no place in the world of genuine science."[7]

As of 2017, Osmanagić continues to run his project at Visočica, and to link the hill to long-standing non-scientific notions such as free energy and ancient astronauts.
Why use a pseudoscientific claim of pyramids, that just turned out to be some natural hills, as 'evidence' of anything? "Quantity" of lousy evidence is worse than none at all. I've never understood your claim that because ancients built some ziggurats, low lying pyramid like structures, this somehow validates the claim in Genesis that men built a tower so high that 'God' felt threatened. Then as 'evidence' you cite a painting of an imaginary tower, painted by Marten van Valckenborch the Elder in 1595?

That men built pyramids and ziggurats is not disputed and presents zero evidence of the magical tower so high God felt threatened by it. Why would a tall building be a threat to the creator of the universe? The tallest Ziggurat was less than 300 feet tall. https://www.ducksters.com/history/mesop ... gurats.php
Plutarch openly scorned Greek religious beliefs in resurrections "many such improbabilities do your fabulous writers relate, deifying creatures naturally mortal."

Post Reply