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]

I'm painfully aware of my limited knowledge in this area, but I'm sure that otseng has an idea in mind that isn't how the geology actually looks.

I hope this isn't copyright but there's a reference (Maine university) on faulting in ancient rocks.
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.

[bluegreenearth]

Your illustration is exactly my point. And it looks like nobody is understanding what I'm getting at so I'll need to focus on this. Let's start at the beginning of the strata formation in my illustration above. The first layer (orange) was deposited. During this period of millions of years, a fault occurred. Obviously the fault would only be visible in the orange layer since there are no other layers on top of that yet. Later, a yellow layer was deposited. During this period, a fault occurred. It would only affect 2 layers, the orange and yellow layers. This is the fault line on the far right. Next the purple layer was deposited. A fault occurred going through 3 layers. The blue layer was laid and a fault goes through 4 layers. Finally, the final white layer was deposited and a fault is made that goes through the entire strata.

So, the question again, why do the majority of faults we see go through all the stratas? If deep time exists, should we not expect staggered faults to be the norm and not the exception?

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. If faulting had occurred, it would have displaced the layers of sediment on either side of the fault line before new layers of sediment were deposited on top like in the image below:

In your diagram, major tectonic activity has been occurring during the formation of the entire strata. Yet, we see no evidence of faults, folds, or even tilting in the parallel layers. If the evidence (which we can see with our eyes) is contrary to the theory (which is not a fact), then we should dismiss the theory.

No, the diagram is a snapshot in-time designed to illustrate a concept. The actual tectonic activity in the area of the Colorado Plateau didn't occur until after the Farallon plate had been completely subducted under the North American plate. Prior to that, the tectonic activity was occurring predominantly at the plate boundary a far distance to the East. As the Colorado plateau was uplifted later, the sedimentary layers were deformed into a broad anticline structure which would not be visible on the scale in which your eyes can see when observing the walls of the Grand Canyon. 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.

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.

Again, your illustration proves my case. The tilting is after all the layers have been deposited.

Let me explain my argument step by step.



The initial green layer was deposited horizontally. Then tilting occurred. The brown layer was deposited horizontally on top of that. Then tilting occurred. The yellow layer was deposited horizontally on top of that. Then tilting occurred. Same for all the layers until finally the white layer was deposited. Anyone can try this for yourself and see what you come up with. It will result in non-parallel layers. The only way to come up with parallel layers is no tilting occurred during deposition of all the layers.

So, the question is why did no tilting occur until after all the layers have been deposited since we see parallel layers?

Who claimed the layers are the same thickness throughout? We are dealing with geology on such an enormous scale that it is not possible for your eyes to detect changes in depositional thickness by standing at the rim of the Grand Canyon and looking at the exposed strata on the other side. In any case, the uplift of the Colorado Plateau did not occur until after the sedimentary layers were deposited in the shallow sea. As the Farallon tectonic plate continued to be subducted beneath the North American tectonic plate, a portion of it eventually reached the location immediately below the shallow sea where the heat and pressure generated by the overriding continental crust caused the entire area to upwell and form the broad anticline structure illustrated in the cross section I referenced. On such a huge scale, the sedimentary layers deposited in the shallow sea were able to flex like plywood rather than fracture all over the place like glass (though some fracturing and faulting did occur in some places).

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. 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. For this reason, I am going to temporarily discontinue our discussion and recommend that you take a break and go study a few geology textbooks at the library. Otherwise, you will just continue to argue against your unintentional but unjustifiably confident strawmen.

[otseng]

Guess we'll need to go into the details of the Great Unconformity (GU)...

Let me say at the outset that neither SG nor the FM can fully explain the Great Unconformity and it is a puzzle for any side.





So, what is the Great Unconformity?

The Great Unconformity of Powell in the Grand Canyon is a regional unconformity that separates the Tonto Group from the underlying, faulted and tilted sedimentary rocks of the Grand Canyon Supergroup and vertically foliated metamorphic and igneous rocks of the Vishnu Basement Rocks. The unconformity between the Tonto Group and the Vishnu Basement Rocks is a nonconformity. The break between the Tonto Group and the Grand Canyon Supergroup is an angular unconformity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity



Underlying the entire strata is the Vishnu basement rocks. According to SG, it is dated 1.84 - 1.68 billion years old. It is comprised of metamorphic and igneous rock. The Vishnu basement rock is part of the exposed Basement that spans the entire continent.

The tilted Supergroup is dated to be between 1.20 billion - 740 million years old. This section is considered to be Precambrian and contains few animal fossils. As far as I can tell, seeing any Precambrian sedimentary rock in the world is rare. Also common globally is finding Precambrian with unconformities.

The bottom of the Tonto group is 525 million years old and is where we start to see flat parallel layers.

The unconformities are where millions to a billion years are missing between the Vishnu basement, tilted Supergroup, and flat Tonto group.

I think there are two issues to address in the GU - the time gaps and the tilted Supergroup.

As for the time gap, the GU is not the only unconformity in the Grand Canyon. There are actually more time missing in the GC than there are represented in the GC strata. So, it's not just the GU that needs to be explained, but all of the others as well. Again, either nothing happened for millions of years in the gaps or flat erosion happened multiple times.

For the FM, time gaps are not an issue. But what is a puzzle is the tilted Supergroup in the GU and how does the FM account for it?



Like the SG, I would say there's one possible sequence - formation of Supergroup horizontally, then tilting, then flat erosion, then formation of the rest of the layers.

There are a few examples of this pattern worldwide, but it is the exception rather than the rule. And when we do see it, it is even rarer to see the sequence happen more than once in the entire billion+ years represented in the stata.

Here's a close-up of another GU:



https://epod.usra.edu/blog/2011/02/unco ... anyon.html

"Sarah, our river raft guide, is pointing out the "Great Unconformity," where Tapeats Sandstone rests upon the Grand Canyon supergroup of layered sedimentary rocks. The span of her fingers represents a gap in the geologic record of at least 250 million years. This sandstone slab is estimated to be about 550 million years old; whereas the supergroup ranges from 1.2 billion to 800 million years old."

It looks like a mudslide eroded the Supergroup, then the sediments/mud was deposited on it.

And interestingly, there is only a single rock layer on top of this GU.



In this image, it does not look like the Supergroup was eroded flat. But instead, two masses of land of different stratas collided into each other.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

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

Possible causes of 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. One example is a large glaciation event which took place during the Neoproterozoic, starting around 1 billion years ago.[23] This is also when a significant glaciation event known as ‘Snowball Earth’ occurred.[23] Snowball Earth covered almost the entire planet with ice. The areas that underwent glaciation were approximately those where the Great Unconformity is located today. When glaciers move, they drag and erode sediment away from the underlying rock. This would explain how a large section of rock was taken away from widespread areas around the same time."

As to a 'glaciation' I recall seeing a talk (online) where it was stated that there was a global freezre that nearly wiped out earliest life (like stromatolites) before it even got started. '

[otseng]

The pattern I talk about is the massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited and the layers themselves have little record of geologic activity.

That pattern doesn't even exist in the Grand Canyon. There's evidence of lots of geologic activity and I've pointed you to descriptions of it.

When I say pattern, I'm talking about majority of cases, not all the cases. The only two major activities you've mentioned in the Grand Canyon is the Great Unconformity and the final erosion we see now. There are hundreds of millions of years of other layers to account for and as you've said are geologically stable. The Great Unconformity and the final erosion only represent a short time period of the entire GC strata. They would be the exception, not the rule. When I speak of a pattern, I'm referring to the general pattern of all the strata. Yes, there will be deviations from the pattern, but they are rare. Demonstrating exceptions to the pattern do not signal the pattern does not exist in the general case.

It might be interesting if all of the canyons you mentioned on different continents showed all of the same erosion plain unconformities as the Grand Canyon and they either date to the same period or (because I know you deny the validity of radiometric dating) show the same kinds of sediment above and below the unconformities.

The SG cannot predict unconformities. I don't see why the FM would need to. Further, unconformities is only a problem with models with deep time.

Remember that there are many unconformities in the upper layers of the Grand Canyon. You have neither acknowledged nor refuted that, so I'm not sure if you're including those in your "little record of geologic activity" or are just ignoring them.

Actually, it's more problems for SG to account for. As mentioned before, either there was no geologic activity for millions of years (why should that happen?) or entire sets of stratum were scraped off leaving a layer parallel with the one under it (how can that happen?).

I'm also still hazy on your idea of "worldwide." It's obviously absurd if I point out several deserts (Sahara, Mojave, Gobi, Negev) and then claim that the entire world is desert

We are talking about the sedimentary strata. So, anywhere worldwide that sedimentary layers exist.

Most of the Earth's surface shows geological patterns different from those at the Grand Canyon. The Huron Mountains that I mentioned show a completely different geology, yet were apparently under the same Flood.

Yes, mountains were formed differently, which the FM accounts for as well.

And to confirm, we all agree the sedimentary layers are flat is due to all the layers have been formed under water?

With the caveat that you've neither confirmed nor denied that there are multiple erosion unconformities representing periods where the land was not underwater, then yes.

Very good.

So, to clarify, the unconformities were not underwater?

For a palaeochannel that is visible on the surface, it's probably not of significance since it's explainable by recent sediments filling in a dried up river bed. If it's a palaeochannel that is embedded in the strata, it's a little harder to explain. Since layers are formed underwater, the land would have to rise so its above the water, then a river would form, then it would have to be lowered to be underwater again for additional layers to be deposited on top of that.

Exactly. That's why I picked the channel I did. The sedimentary layer representing the deposition of river sediment is buried under 10- to 20-million-year-old volcanic rock and only "partially re-excavated."

I don't see how your example demonstrates your point if we agree if it's recent it's easily explainable. 10-20 MYA would represent the most recent layers of the entire Grand Canyon strata. So, for your example that you gave, from the FM perspective, it would've occurred after the flood.

Again, you're being vague and I'm not even looking it up this time. I'm going to guess that the "vast" areas are smaller than you think they were.

In my next post I'll show one example of how vast an area we're talking about with buttes/mesas.

First. the sea level was higher than it is now during much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras when much of the sediment was deposited.

Second, we do, subject to your presentation of a source that both confirms the "vast areas" that you're claiming and is less vague about what that means.

Highly unlikely a continental shelf would be a candidate for sedimentary rock formation.

We have areas of sedimentary rock much larger than this. As a matter of fact, most of the surface land is comprised of sedimentary rock.

"The sedimentary rock cover of the continents of the Earth's crust is extensive (73% of the Earth's current land surface[1]),"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

"Sedimentary rocks cover up to 75% of the Earth's surface."
https://wiki.seg.org/wiki/Sedimentology

Unless it's claimed continental shelf-like areas was much larger in the past.

Another problem is sedimentary strata contains fossils of land animals. So, how can an area like the continental shelf fossilize land animals?

And I'm contesting that anything is as flat as you seem to think it is. I've given you multiple sources describing ancient geological features all across the Colorado Plateau that are anything but what I would call flat.

It's from looking at the parallel layers themselves in the strata. If they are parallel, then it must've been flat.

That's precisely my point. The North American plate stays on top. It is not going under the Pacific plate and being recycled into the earth.

Sediment that was deposited into the ocean to the south and west of the Colorado Plateau was.

So, you're saying even though it is the Pacific plate, and not the North American plate, that is being subducted, sediments from the Grand Canyon was carried over 300 miles and then subducted? So the North American plate was also subducted?

[otseng]

Evidence of the parallel layer pattern across a vast area with little geologic activity and then massive erosion are buttes and mesas.

Here is Monument Valley in Utah.



How did the Mittens form? The entire area must've at one time been a complete strata. In other words, the entire area had sedimentary layers that reached at a minimum to the top of the buttes we see. Then massive erosion occurred in the area and left the buttes.

Drive 40 miles northeast of Monument valley to Valley of the Gods.



Then drive 55 miles southeast to Red Mesa.



Then drive 60 miles south to Many Farms.



Basically, this massive area exhibit the same pattern and also experienced the same layering and erosion event. How did this happen and why?

[otseng]

Fundamentally, it seems like I'm the only one seeing this pattern. Are you all saying this pattern does not exist?

WHAT GAVE US AWAY?

Do you know what a non sequitur is? Here's one: "These are pictures of mountains showing a pattern. The pattern is worldwide."

Let's just limit it to the pattern that we do see. Do you agree the pattern exists that we do see or not?

I've presented this question of the pattern at the very outset of the flood discussion and I have yet to see a SG explanation for this worldwide pattern after 10 pages of discussion. Fundamentally, it seems like I'm the only one seeing this pattern. Are you all saying this pattern does not exist?

Further I'm pretty sure that faulting goes down to the mantle (subduct layer) or the tectonic plates couldn't move, just as volcanoes do or they wouldn't produce lava.

Can't determine if you've answered my question if you acknowledge the pattern exists or not.

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)?

[otseng]

It is quite alright for one not to view the bible as the WOG, osteng.

Of course. And then my point is the God you worship is not the same God of the Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

The pattern I talk about is the massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited and the layers themselves have little record of geologic activity.

That pattern doesn't even exist in the Grand Canyon. There's evidence of lots of geologic activity and I've pointed you to descriptions of it.

When I say pattern, I'm talking about majority of cases, not all the cases. The only two major activities you've mentioned in the Grand Canyon is the Great Unconformity and the final erosion we see now. There are hundreds of millions of years of other layers to account for and as you've said are geologically stable. The Great Unconformity and the final erosion only represent a short time period of the entire GC strata. They would be the exception, not the rule. When I speak of a pattern, I'm referring to the general pattern of all the strata. Yes, there will be deviations from the pattern, but they are rare. Demonstrating exceptions to the pattern do not signal the pattern does not exist in the general case.

It might be interesting if all of the canyons you mentioned on different continents showed all of the same erosion plain unconformities as the Grand Canyon and they either date to the same period or (because I know you deny the validity of radiometric dating) show the same kinds of sediment above and below the unconformities.

The SG cannot predict unconformities. I don't see why the FM would need to. Further, unconformities is only a problem with models with deep time.

Remember that there are many unconformities in the upper layers of the Grand Canyon. You have neither acknowledged nor refuted that, so I'm not sure if you're including those in your "little record of geologic activity" or are just ignoring them.

Actually, it's more problems for SG to account for. As mentioned before, either there was no geologic activity for millions of years (why should that happen?) or entire sets of stratum were scraped off leaving a layer parallel with the one under it (how can that happen?).

I'm also still hazy on your idea of "worldwide." It's obviously absurd if I point out several deserts (Sahara, Mojave, Gobi, Negev) and then claim that the entire world is desert

We are talking about the sedimentary strata. So, anywhere worldwide that sedimentary layers exist.

Most of the Earth's surface shows geological patterns different from those at the Grand Canyon. The Huron Mountains that I mentioned show a completely different geology, yet were apparently under the same Flood.

Yes, mountains were formed differently, which the FM accounts for as well.

And to confirm, we all agree the sedimentary layers are flat is due to all the layers have been formed under water?

With the caveat that you've neither confirmed nor denied that there are multiple erosion unconformities representing periods where the land was not underwater, then yes.

Very good.

So, to clarify, the unconformities were not underwater?

For a palaeochannel that is visible on the surface, it's probably not of significance since it's explainable by recent sediments filling in a dried up river bed. If it's a palaeochannel that is embedded in the strata, it's a little harder to explain. Since layers are formed underwater, the land would have to rise so its above the water, then a river would form, then it would have to be lowered to be underwater again for additional layers to be deposited on top of that.

Exactly. That's why I picked the channel I did. The sedimentary layer representing the deposition of river sediment is buried under 10- to 20-million-year-old volcanic rock and only "partially re-excavated."

I don't see how your example demonstrates your point if we agree if it's recent it's easily explainable. 10-20 MYA would represent the most recent layers of the entire Grand Canyon strata. So, for your example that you gave, from the FM perspective, it would've occurred after the flood.

Again, you're being vague and I'm not even looking it up this time. I'm going to guess that the "vast" areas are smaller than you think they were.

In my next post I'll show one example of how vast an area we're talking about with buttes/mesas.

First. the sea level was higher than it is now during much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras when much of the sediment was deposited.

Second, we do, subject to your presentation of a source that both confirms the "vast areas" that you're claiming and is less vague about what that means.

Highly unlikely a continental shelf would be a candidate for sedimentary rock formation.

We have areas of sedimentary rock much larger than this. As a matter of fact, most of the surface land is comprised of sedimentary rock.

"The sedimentary rock cover of the continents of the Earth's crust is extensive (73% of the Earth's current land surface[1]),"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedimentary_rock

"Sedimentary rocks cover up to 75% of the Earth's surface."
https://wiki.seg.org/wiki/Sedimentology

Unless it's claimed continental shelf-like areas was much larger in the past.

Another problem is sedimentary strata contains fossils of land animals. So, how can an area like the continental shelf fossilize land animals?

And I'm contesting that anything is as flat as you seem to think it is. I've given you multiple sources describing ancient geological features all across the Colorado Plateau that are anything but what I would call flat.

It's from looking at the parallel layers themselves in the strata. If they are parallel, then it must've been flat.

That's precisely my point. The North American plate stays on top. It is not going under the Pacific plate and being recycled into the earth.

Sediment that was deposited into the ocean to the south and west of the Colorado Plateau was.

So, you're saying even though it is the Pacific plate, and not the North American plate, that is being subducted, sediments from the Grand Canyon was carried over 300 miles and then subducted? So the North American plate was also subducted?

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. They may remain level, slightly bulged up, sunken under oceans, raised up in mountains, eroded down again. Nothing that supports a global flood. Perhaps a flat plain with eroded mesas and buttes makes you think of a dry sea -bed with mountains excoriated by rushing water. But the geology just doesn't support a global flood. All you've done so far is variants on 'I don't know the explanation of This or the reason for That' (neither do we, often by the geologists presumably do) 'therefore if I don't understand it, it can't be true'. The Grand Canyon, one of the favourite Flood Evidences of the Genesis -literalists, actually argues against a global flood. Attempts to relate it to the mud erosion of Mt St Helens doesn't work for hard rock. Faulting. scree and folding all argues for long processes at different times, not a global rush of water all at one time·. Posting pretty pictures - indeed magnificent ones - of eroded mesas and geological strata and suggesting ( I suppose) that it looks to you like flood work, when really it doesn't isn't going make your case.

And we haven't even done radiometric dating and the stratified fossil sequence, which is what this is really all about. You just lost the first round but still seem to be claiming that you won.