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

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #340]

Marks Gospel:
For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #340]

Marks Gospel:
For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.

We may hope so, and so far its been science that hath revealed it when the Bible had it all wrong.

[tam]

Peace to you all!


I haven't been on this thread in quite some time, but I did catch a glimpse of the following questions. Since this appears to be an issue (considering some of the conflicting claims), I will share some of what my Lord has taught me. Other can do with that as they will, and if this should go into a thread of its own, I understand (though it is covered in the 'Does Christ speak and How?" thread):

If it is direct revelation from God, who's to say who is hearing from God correctly? What if what you hear is different from what another person hears? Or what if what you hear today is different than what you hear tomorrow? What objective criteria would there be to say what is correct?

First...

Speaking about the God and Father of Christ (because people aren't always speaking about the same god), God speaks to us through His Son. There might be rare exceptions, but for the most part, God speaks to us through His Son (the Living Word of God). So it would be who is hearing from Christ correctly.

Second...

Christ and God would be the ones to say, of course. That seems obvious though, so I assume the question is more about who among men could say who is hearing from God (or His Son) correctly?

Well, no one among men is my master. So I'm not sure why that should matter to anyone in Christ, and listening to Him. Because if one is in Christ, if one is one of His sheep, then one remains in Him regardless of what others claim/approve; regardless of whether others accept or refrain from what you have received. That does not mean that two disciples of Christ cannot discuss what they have heard, test the inspired expression and understanding against Christ, against love. Iron sharpening iron and all that. But in the end, we should be faithful to our Master (to Christ).



Third...

This is where 'testing the inspired expression' comes into play.

To test something that someone claims to have heard (or even what you may have heard), you hold it up to the Light. Christ is that Light. Test all things against Christ. If you hear His voice, then you can ask Him if something is true or not. If He has already taught you the truth of the matter, then you just remain in His word. So you test against Christ. His word, His teaching. Ask HIM to lead you into truth; ask HIM for the truth of a matter.

Second is to test something heard (or claimed to be heard) against love. Nothing true from God will be against love, because God IS love. Love is also the law from God, from the beginning. That is why there is no law against love; that is why love covers over a multitude of sins.


So test against Christ (the Light) and love.

If you are going to check against what is written (and most of us do at some point), then at the very least begin with what Christ is written to have said (though again ask Him to help), because He is the Truth, the living Image and Word of God, and the One to whom God said to listen. His words and teachings are going to come first.


**

These things might not be considered 'objective criteria' because not everyone listens to Christ or recognizes His voice... or even believes that He exists, much less that He is alive and speaking. But if you (general you) are Christian, then what does that matter? You listen to and remain in Christ.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[nobspeople]

Yes. Great pictures showing rock strata laid down over millions of years, pushed up in tectonic movements eroded down...how do they do anything but support the standard model of deep -time geology, and - yet again - how do they support the Flood -story?

Through hopes and wishes.
I wonder if people who report these types of things as 'proof of a world wide flood' even understand erosion, fluid mechanics and geology.
At least, understand it outside the myth of the bible, which was written by long dead men, translated by other long dead men and edited by (depending on the time frame, long dead) men.

No I don't wonder...

Well, I've been avoiding using the atheist neck -pinch but the fact is that to question the geological conclusions about Geology is to do science -denial and there should be no mistake about that. But then it was always implicit in any argument for Genesis and the Flood is always going to be anti -Deep Time and evolution -skeptic.

But it's like I said - atheist apologists have to be able to ague anything from quantum mechanics to Roman dating and animal morphology to Near eastern archaeology, because the Theistic method is to poke holes in science looking something that the atheist can't explain (rather than go to a dedicated website where experts can) and if they can find an Atheist -stumper, play the 'One shot win'. Which murky depths I won't go too deep into but it's always there.

A christian's gotta do what they gotta do to 'win' and feel right and superior, I suspect.
Whatever works, also comes to mind.

[otseng]

Here is what I'm arging. Given the sedimentary strata of the Grand Canyon represents more than a billion years and a stratum represents on the order of millions of years, shouldn't it be expected to see more geologic activity in each layer than what we see?

Shouldn't we see faults like this?

No. We would not expect this type of geologic faulting in that area. The image below illustrates the basic types of geologic faults:

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?

Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that the deposition of sediment into the shallow sea would have occurred mostly uninterrupted for many millions of years until the entire Colorado Plateau was uplifted by tectonic colliding forces and upwelling generated by heat from the subducted Farallon plate:

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. Again, the pattern of the stratigraphy illustrated in your diagram is identical on both sides of the fault line indicating lateral movement. The strike/slip fault in your diagram is, to my knowledge, not observed in the area of the Grand Canyon. However, other types of geologic faults are observed:

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?

Your perspective is too narrow. Tilting did occur as a result of tectonic uplift:

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?

Nevertheless, there are various types of unconformities identified in the Grand Canyon stratigraphy:

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?

[otseng]

Yes. Great pictures showing rock strata laid down over millions of years, pushed up in tectonic movements eroded down...how do they do anything but support the standard model of deep -time geology, and - yet again - how do they support the Flood -story?

As I explained in post 345, it shows the same pattern - "parallel layers formed with little geologic activity during the strata formation, then major geologic activity after the entire strata was created."

We see practically no faults that stopped at lower layers. We see parallel layers as the norm indicating there were no tilting. We see no evidence of non-parallel erosion (which is how practically all erosion works now). And then after all the layers were deposited, we see massive erosion and mountain building. This pattern is evidenced in canyons across the world and in mountains across the world.

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?

[otseng]

I have not claimed that. I can only speak from my subjective experience, and that experience happens to include that methodology. It was biblical Jesus who lead me the way, re the script.

Do you have evidence that I have every made the claims to the contrary?

I think this question will clarify the issue for me - if you heard something purportedly from God and it is contrary to the Bible, which one would you believe? What you heard or the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Great pictures showing rock strata laid down over millions of years, pushed up in tectonic movements eroded down...how do they do anything but support the standard model of deep -time geology, and - yet again - how do they support the Flood -story?

As I explained in post 345, it shows the same pattern - "parallel layers formed with little geologic activity during the strata formation, then major geologic activity after the entire strata was created."

We see practically no faults that stopped at lower layers. We see parallel layers as the norm indicating there were no tilting. We see no evidence of non-parallel erosion (which is how practically all erosion works now). And then after all the layers were deposited, we see massive erosion and mountain building. This pattern is evidenced in canyons across the world and in mountains across the world.

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?

You are asking a non -geologist, but I pointed out that new mountains today are formed by tectonic activity in limited areas so there is no reason to suppose that this was any different in the pat when layers were deposited by erosion by wind or water and mountains could thrown up by tectonic activity in old strata as well as in new. I might suggest a quick google of fold mountains and I think exfoliated mountains. That being, as I recall, old mountains partially eroded and then raised up as part of new mountains. I definitely recall mention of that. Which means that this is a process repeated over geological ages and in any strata, which does not fit a flood geology of placid pre flood strata and a lot of wild flood geology all at one time. I'm pretty sure Geology doesn't support that patters. Also while a global flood might be used to explain canyons (which it doesn't - if they meander) how does that explain fold mountains and tilted strata? The flood describes only a lot of water falling and rushing in, nothing to do with mountains suddenly appearing. Unless you are going to use the flood apologtic I've seen that there were no mountains and not much water was needed to flood the world, then mountains were formed and hey presto, flood waters gone.

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.

[Difflugia]

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."

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #347]

If you claim to be able to go to the Father apart from Jesus, then you're not going to the same Father.

I have not claimed that. I can only speak from my subjective experience, and that experience happens to include that methodology. It was biblical Jesus who lead me the way, re the script.

Do you have evidence that I have every made the claims to the contrary?

I think this question will clarify the issue for me - if you heard something purportedly from God and it is contrary to the Bible, which one would you believe? What you heard or the Bible?

I created a thread here on this board.

The answer can be found therein.

What Jesus Said

Likely Christians confuse the bible with the word of god, simply because it contains stories of men [mainly] who claim to be spoke-persons for the MBC [aka God].

However, there is an issue of contradiction which is connected to the subject of inerrancy.

While those who worship the bible tend toward defending even its apparent contradictions as you are doing re defending the young earth argument - I 'hear' it differently and The Father has shown me the ideas ancient folk had about [in this case] the formation of the Earth, can be viewed as metaphor rather than as absolute truth, because scientific research only serves to increase the awesomeness of the MBC [aka The Father] and because The Father is not beholding to the ancient human perceptions of the MBC to the point where he has to play the role that such ancients attributed to their image of him.

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