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

[TRANSPONDER]

Looking over your post, you twist the request a bit. Nobody is asking for prediction, not even you. But of course you mean Explanations, which you haven't given but Geology has, despite you saying it hasn't. You claim that the Flood model explains it . 'Yes mountains were formed' How, why,. when? The thing is that there have been oceans for millions of years. At one time, more ocean than land, so of course there will be a lot of water - laid strata but at different times and with salt, coal oil, beneath these supposed flood levels. I don't know how the Flood accounts for that (1) , any more than I see how the flood accounts for faulting, tilted strata and mountains. All you could do, I suppose, is use accepted geology and say it all happened at once. Over to you.

(1) Though I just put on my Theist hat and it is easily explaniable - expect for the salt -mines. But that can just be avoided.

[otseng]

Price is studying the Norumbega fault system, a line of ancient faults that cuts across Maine from Calais to Casco Bay. The now extinct faults were seismically active millions of years ago. Today, the Norumbega system is considered an ancient analog for major earthquake faults, such as the San Andreas fault in California and the North Anatolian fault in Turkey, which have produced some of the deadliest quakes in our time.

Like the San Andreas, the Norumbega is a strike-slip fault where only the shallowest parts are exposed or can be reached by drilling. To study deeper fault rocks, an ancient, extinct zone must be found where the depths have been exposed through exhumation and erosion.

The problem for the Flood -theory is going to be supposed flood -geology at different strata levels, which is surely what we see in geology, old faulting and exhumed old mountains and not all related to one flood event related to just one global stratum.

You are referring to this article?
https://phys.org/news/2012-05-ancient-c ... uakes.html

It doesn't really support what you claim and actually presents more questions than it answers.

The fault is exposed at the surface, not embedded below the surface.

"Price is studying a part of the Norumbega fault in Windsor, Maine, that more than 300 million years ago was situated about 10 miles below the surface, but is now exposed. "

No, the sediment layers were deposited in a shallow sea that was situated on top of an interior portion of the North American tectonic plate which was relatively stable for many millions of years. Therefore, no significant tectonic activity of the type you are envisioning would have occurred during that time.

A tectonic plate was relatively stable for millions of years means absolutely no geologic activity during that entire time? No faults, no tilting, no erosion, etc? What can account for that?

Furthermore, you are neglecting the fact that the layers only appear to be horizontal because you are looking at them head-on where they outcrop at the Grand Canyon walls. There is even a geologic term for this optical illusion called "apparent dip". In the case of the Grand Canyon, the apparent dip is 0 degrees.

Sure, I'm not saying the layers now represent flat surfaces. Tilting and deformation have occurred after all the layers were formed. What I am saying is when the layers were formed they were flat. Are you contesting this?

I'm focusing on sedimentary strata. I'll ask it this way, what percentage of faults are in the sedimentary strata that go through the entire strata compared to a fault that stops at a lower strata?

From a geologic perspective, your question makes absolutely no sense. You might as well ask me about the square root of a pork chop. As I've tried to explain a number of times already, the type of faulting you are describing would not be expected in this geologic context.

It makes no sense because SG cannot explain it, not because it's an illogical question.

Are you saying faults never occurred in the past?

Who claimed the layers are the same thickness throughout?

I don't know who, certainly not me. It doesn't matter how thick the layers were. The point is they are parallel, regardless of thickness of the layers.

Unconformities do not explain the erosion problem unless it's proposed all erosion result in a flat surface. Do you claim this to be true? If so, where do we see this occurring now?

There is no erosion problem here.

Because nothing was deposited during unconformities?

You are clearly confused because, and this isn't intended as an ad hominem, you haven't done the work to educate yourself on these technical geologic principles which are clearly over-your-head at the moment.

Doesn't matter what your intention is, but anytime you discuss the poster, rather than the argument, it is an ad hominem.

So far as I can see, the 'Unconformity' appears to be igneous rocks (formative of the Archon period) with later layers on top, which then tilted because of subduct pressure, they were then eroded flat which is what you'd expect. Deep time geology explains that better than original rocks that titled (no doubt in horror at Adam eating the apple) and the Flood swept these hard rocks flat in a week or so and laid down all the flood levels on top. Believe that if you like.

I'll present my theory later of the supergroup tilting when I present the FM.

I had a quick look and the 'Great unconformity' seems to be a worldwide feature, ehich is why it bay appeal to Flood -enthusists.

I don't know what is a "bay" appeal. But, note it was you who first mentioned the Great Unconformity.

There is currently no widely accepted explanation for the Great Unconformity among geoscientists. There are theories that have been proposed; it is widely accepted that there was a combination of more than one event which may have caused such an extensive phenomenon.

Not just the Great Unconformity, but any unconformity is a problem for SG.

This is also when a significant glaciation event known as ‘Snowball Earth’ occurred.[23] Snowball Earth covered almost the entire planet with ice.

So, do you accept the possibility that practically the entire earth was covered with ice at one time?

All I'm seeing in the lovely pictures is how over millions of years, rocks and mountains are eroded and the erosion -material form flat layers that form strata.

I'm asking for a simple yes or no answer to my question. Others may answer as well.
Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

You claim that the Flood model explains it . 'Yes mountains were formed' How, why,. when?

Yes, I have the answers from a FM perspective. But, I'm giving you all the chance first to answer the questions. I will later repost all the questions and then you can give a summary answer to address all the questions. I will then do the same.

[bluegreenearth]

A tectonic plate was relatively stable for millions of years means absolutely no geologic activity during that entire time? No faults, no tilting, no erosion, etc? What can account for that?

No, the entire North American tectonic plate was slowly moving towards the West. As the entire North American plate was moving, the Western leading edge was being folded and faulted into a mountain range as it collided with the Farallon plate. Meanwhile, the rest of the North American plate continued its gradual Westward movement. At the time, a shallow sea existed on top of this portion of the plate to the East of the newly forming mountain range. No folding or faulting occurred in the sediments being deposited in the shallow sea during this time because it was situated on the portion of the plate that was too far away from the leading edge of the colliding plate boundaries. Eventually, however, the Farallon plate became completely subducted beneath the North American Plate to the point where it was being melted into the mantle directly below the portion of the North American plate with the shallow sea on it. It was at this point that the melting Farallon plate uplifted the portion of the North American plate with the shallow sea on it.

Sure, I'm not saying the layers now represent flat surfaces. Tilting and deformation have occurred after all the layers were formed. What I am saying is when the layers were formed they were flat. Are you contesting this?

No, I'm not contesting the fact that sediments were being deposited in a shallow sea behind the newly forming mountain range.

It makes no sense because SG cannot explain it, not because it's an illogical question.

Are you saying faults never occurred in the past?

No, I'm not saying faults never occurred in the past.

I don't know who, certainly not me. It doesn't matter how thick the layers were. The point is they are parallel, regardless of thickness of the layers.

Stratified sedimentary deposits are not unexpected in the geologic context of the Colorado Plateau. The natural explanation for those geologic features has been provided to you multiple times already and is not contested by any of the experts in the field.

Because nothing was deposited during unconformities?

No, unconformities have a variety of natural explanations. Some unconformities do exist because not much deposition was occurring at the time. Other unconformities exist because the previously deposited sediments were eroded away. Unconformities can also exist because the previous layers of sediment were intruded by magma or transformed into metamorphic rock by the heat from a nearby source of magma. The fact that it is difficult or impossible to determine if some unconformities resulted from erosion or a lack of deposition does not invalidate the broader understanding of an area's geologic history.



A Gratuitous Ad Hominem (despite the fact that what follows is a series of critical thinking questions): At what point will we be justified in abandoning our effort to educate you accordingly because you consistently misunderstand these geologic concepts and explanations when they are explained to you over and over again? Are you aware that there is no shame in recognizing when you are in over-your-head with something, and exhibiting this type of intellectual humility does not require you to concede to your opponent's arguments? When I find myself in over-my-head while considering various quantum physics concepts, should I insist that the experts in that field are mistaken because I can't make sense of their rigorously peer-reviewed equations and explanations? Alternatively, should I acknowledge that those quantum physics equations and explanations will only make sense to me after I dedicate a significant amount of time towards educating myself in the necessary prerequisite information? Furthermore, if a few people who do understand quantum physics on an online forum were to abandon their efforts to educate me after I consistently misunderstood their repeated explanations and refused to familiarize myself with the prerequisite information, would I be justified in defaulting to a pseudoscientific explanation simply because a few forum members were unable to help me accurately comprehend the scientific perspective? If you think I would not be justified in that scenario, then why do you keep insisting that the geologic explanations you've been provided are unsatisfactory compared to the pseudoscientific flood model when the people who do correctly understand the basic geologic principles have repeatedly indicated to you that you have neither demonstrated an accurate understanding of those concepts nor demonstrated a willingness to acquire the necessary prerequisite education? Why should the experts who have an accurate understanding of the more complex and nuanced geologic concepts and explanations be persuaded to take your poorly informed objections seriously when you can't even properly describe what it is that you are objecting to? Even if you don't perceive yourself behaving in the way I've described, can you at least acknowledge how such behavior would be perceived as insufferable?

[Grunt0311]

It is no surprise that folks want to discredit God’s word to mankind. How else can people justify to themselves that they only answer to whatever they believe is right or wrong ? Make no mistake everyone will answer to God for their choices.

[bluegreenearth]

It is no surprise that folks want to discredit God’s word to mankind. How else can people justify to themselves that they only answer to whatever they believe is right or wrong ? Make no mistake everyone will answer to God for their choices.

I'm genuinely curious.... would you accept your own reasoning above if it were delivered to you from someone who sincerely believed in a competing religious tradition? If not, then what were you hoping to accomplish with that post?

[Grunt0311]

If they could support their belief from scripture and prove my belief was wrong Yes I would change. There are many who not only believe scripture but also know that God gave His word to mankind for their own good.

[TRANSPONDER]

Price is studying the Norumbega fault system, a line of ancient faults that cuts across Maine from Calais to Casco Bay. The now extinct faults were seismically active millions of years ago. Today, the Norumbega system is considered an ancient analog for major earthquake faults, such as the San Andreas fault in California and the North Anatolian fault in Turkey, which have produced some of the deadliest quakes in our time.

Like the San Andreas, the Norumbega is a strike-slip fault where only the shallowest parts are exposed or can be reached by drilling. To study deeper fault rocks, an ancient, extinct zone must be found where the depths have been exposed through exhumation and erosion.

The problem for the Flood -theory is going to be supposed flood -geology at different strata levels, which is surely what we see in geology, old faulting and exhumed old mountains and not all related to one flood event related to just one global stratum.

You are referring to this article?
https://phys.org/news/2012-05-ancient-c ... uakes.html

It doesn't really support what you claim and actually presents more questions than it answers.

The fault is exposed at the surface, not embedded below the surface.

"Price is studying a part of the Norumbega fault in Windsor, Maine, that more than 300 million years ago was situated about 10 miles below the surface, but is now exposed. "
.I don't recall I was referencing any particular article rather than a general geological mechanism - Fault must go all the way down to the mantle or tectonic plate mechanics wouldn't work.

As to ancient faults that once went down to the mantle but have now been raised up above the mantle, that is not a problem. Except of course for the Flood scenario.......

So far as I can see, the 'Unconformity' appears to be igneous rocks (formative of the Archon period) with later layers on top, which then tilted because of subduct pressure, they were then eroded flat which is what you'd expect. Deep time geology explains that better than original rocks that titled (no doubt in horror at Adam eating the apple) and the Flood swept these hard rocks flat in a week or so and laid down all the flood levels on top. Believe that if you like.

I'll present my theory later of the supergroup tilting when I present the FM.

I had a quick look and the 'Great unconformity' seems to be a worldwide feature, which is why it may appeal to Flood -enthusists.

I don't know what is a "bay" appeal. But, note it was you who first mentioned the Great Unconformity.

There is currently no widely accepted explanation for the Great Unconformity among geoscientists. There are theories that have been proposed; it is widely accepted that there was a combination of more than one event which may have caused such an extensive phenomenon.

Not just the Great Unconformity, but any unconformity is a problem for SG.

This is also when a significant glaciation event known as ‘Snowball Earth’ occurred.[23] Snowball Earth covered almost the entire planet with ice.

So, do you accept the possibility that practically the entire earth was covered with ice at one time?

All I'm seeing in the lovely pictures is how over millions of years, rocks and mountains are eroded and the erosion -material form flat layers that form strata.

I'm asking for a simple yes or no answer to my question. Others may answer as well.
Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

You claim that the Flood model explains it . 'Yes mountains were formed' How, why,. when?

Yes, I have the answers from a FM perspective. But, I'm giving you all the chance first to answer the questions. I will later repost all the questions and then you can give a summary answer to address all the questions. I will then do the same.

You question is how erosion -levels are flat? What else would they be? Erosion - material tends to settle at a level,

As I recall it was you who brought up the 'great Unconformity' when I was referring to the tilted strata in the Grand Canyon which is (I recall called 'the unconformity'. What the Great Unconformity is other than it's worldwide and is hypothetically connected with a global glaciation - period, I'd have to look into. So you wave away that it accounts for shearing of strata (such as the tilted strata at the Grand Canyon and you shit to some point about a 'global snowball'. Sure, when you keep shifting, you will never run out of of questions to ask.

Not so far as I know do we see one time of geological stasis when just flat levels of strata are being laid down and then a single period of tectonic activity with faults and folding. Tectonic movement with Faulting here and mountain building there and erosion causing flat strata everywhere else was going on all the time. As I mentioned above, Fayulting must go down to the mantle but can be raised up uver time so the old fault no longer goes all the way down. That seems a problem for the Flood scenario not for Deep time geology.

[bluegreenearth]

FYI - My apologies, but I won't be available to respond on this forum for a while. My career is advancing me into a new role in another State, and I'll be busy preparing my house to go on the market and finding a new home. Thanks for understanding.

[TRANSPONDER]

FYI - My apologies, but I won't be available to respond on this forum for a while. My career is advancing me into a new role in another State, and I'll be busy preparing my house to go on the market and finding a new home. Thanks for understanding.

You chose a nice time of year for doing it - but good luck. There's not much going on with the topic anyway, just another effort to argue that Genesis is something more than an ancient Babylonian myth.

[otseng]

There's not much going on with the topic anyway

I'm waiting for anyone to give a simple yes or no answer to:

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?