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

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[POI]

It's my personal belief that I believe in a global flood. I do not claim, nor believe, that belief in a global flood is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative. There are many Christians that do not believe in a global flood and still are saved. But, for myself, if the Bible makes such a large claim of a global flood and it is actually not true, then it makes the Bible more suspect. Judging from how many have clamored for me to debate these, it looks like we all feel the same way.

Yes, you and I agreed many posts ago.... You and I agree that if the flood claim turns out to be false, then the Bible becomes suspect. And rather than sending me a link to a prior debate about (the flood), I would like to know your conclusion/take-away from that debate... Hence, to streamline the process, when you get the chance, please address the following questions below:

1. What points of contention remain most compelling for you, regarding a claim for a global flood?
2. Why do the given counter arguments fail to debunk these points of contention for a global flood claim?

Maybe we can start with one at a time... Give me the best singular piece of evidence, and why it cannot be disputed?

Thank you

[TRANSPONDER]

It's my personal belief that I believe in a global flood. I do not claim, nor believe, that belief in a global flood is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative. There are many Christians that do not believe in a global flood and still are saved. But, for myself, if the Bible makes such a large claim of a global flood and it is actually not true, then it makes the Bible more suspect. Judging from how many have clamored for me to debate these, it looks like we all feel the same way.

Yes, you and I agreed many posts ago.... You and I agree that if the flood claim turns out to be false, then the Bible becomes suspect. And rather than sending me a link to a prior debate about (the flood), I would like to know your conclusion/take-away from that debate... Hence, to streamline the process, when you get the chance, please address the following questions below:

1. What points of contention remain most compelling for you, regarding a claim for a global flood?
2. Why do the given counter arguments fail to debunk these points of contention for a global flood claim?

Maybe we can start with one at a time... Give me the best singular piece of evidence, and why it cannot be disputed?

Thank you

I can see we'll have a Particular thread on this and the basic evidence will be (I promise you) Genesis says so. The apologetic will be 'You have to totally disprove the Flood and the Genesis -creation or the claim remains viable. That the Genesis -claim is not a 'given' at the outset and the evidence (Geology, biology) should be examined to see what the conclusion is, will not be the Theistic approach to the matter.

It will me (Prediction)

The evidence supports Genesis
Excuses as to why it apparently doesn't
Appeal to Faith.

[otseng]

In the A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood? thread, the question I primarily addressed was "What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?"

I tried to get a consensus on what predictions both the Flood Model (FM) and standard geology (SG) makes.

In standard geology, stratas are formed over long time periods (thousand, millions of years). Each successive strata are formed on top of older stratas. So, the entire strata sequence at any point in the world could span on the order of millions/billions of years.

In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months). For almost all cases, only after all the stratas were formed, did things occur to the entire sequence like folding, faulting, erosion, etc. (More details on this in the link I provided above)

In standard geology, geological events should've occured throughout Earth's history, so these events should be evident in the stratas.

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

After 19 pages, finally someone was willing to agree to discussing these predictions.

ALright, I'll bite. I'll pledge not to make another post until I have read the other flood thread.
I will also pledge to address the one prediction you are alluding to here.

This thread references an earlier thread - Global Flood that presents what the FM actually is. In the A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood? thread, I primarily discuss the prediction above.

This prediction is what I'll be focusing on here in this thread in relation to the flood. I'm not going to talk about the ark, Noah, how did animals survive the flood. Just this single prediction generated a thread 128 pages long and who knows how long this thread will be if we go beyond that. Also, this allows us to debate without using the Bible and without resorting to faith, but only use empirical evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

In the A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood? thread, the question I primarily addressed was "What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?"

I tried to get a consensus on what predictions both the Flood Model (FM) and standard geology (SG) makes.

In standard geology, stratas are formed over long time periods (thousand, millions of years). Each successive strata are formed on top of older stratas. So, the entire strata sequence at any point in the world could span on the order of millions/billions of years.

In the Flood Model, practically all the stratas were formed within a short period (on the order of months). For almost all cases, only after all the stratas were formed, did things occur to the entire sequence like folding, faulting, erosion, etc. (More details on this in the link I provided above)

In standard geology, geological events should've occured throughout Earth's history, so these events should be evident in the stratas.

So, a prediction by the FM is that for the vast majority of cases, we should see folding/faulting/erosion that affects the entire rock stratas. In SG, we should see roughly a uniform distribution of folding/faulting/erosion in the stratas.

Would everyone agree with these predictions? If not, why not?

After 19 pages, finally someone was willing to agree to discussing these predictions.

ALright, I'll bite. I'll pledge not to make another post until I have read the other flood thread.
I will also pledge to address the one prediction you are alluding to here.

This thread references an earlier thread - Global Flood that presents what the FM actually is. In the A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood? thread, I primarily discuss the prediction above.

This prediction is what I'll be focusing on here in this thread in relation to the flood. I'm not going to talk about the ark, Noah, how did animals survive the flood. Just this single prediction generated a thread 128 pages long and who knows how long this thread will be if we go beyond that. Also, this allows us to debate without using the Bible and without resorting to faith, but only use empirical evidence.

The thing is, I already know the traps being dug. First thing is that I'd say that the FM (Faithbased Modfel) would Not predict strata and certainly not the folding, faulting and erosion the otseng refers to. Unless someone misread the claims, those should be reversed. In all my time I'd never seen a Creationist claim that Creation -theory would predicts a sequential diversity of life -forms whereas evolution predicts they all appear at once.

Rather, we should see a few strata with essentially all 'kinds' in it (or at least proto -kinds (Baryma) postulated by Creationists so as not to take up too much room on the Ark) and (in one clever scenario at least) these simple levels thrust up into mountains (so as the original flood water is turned into today's oceans ...brilliant). But we would not get the rolling over, faulting tilting and inversion let alone the multiple strata with fossils corresponding to the evolutionary eras. I know there was an experiment showing that different grades of soil would precipitate into layers, but there are problems, with that. But mainly Genesis does not fit the evidence of evolutionary forms. The run or swim faster excuse doesn't work. Pterodactyls can outfly floods better than elephants. So why are there Jurassic Pterosaurs beneath plastocene ...I mean Pliestocene...elephants? With only natural explanations, please.

[otseng]

The thing is, I already know the traps being dug. First thing is that I'd say that the FM (Faithbased Modfel) would Not predict strata and certainly not the folding, faulting and erosion the otseng refers to. Unless someone misread the claims, those should be reversed. In all my time I'd never seen a Creationist claim that Creation -theory would predicts a sequential diversity of life -forms whereas evolution predicts they all appear at once.

The only thing for discussion is the rock strata, not fossils in the strata. We can get to those later. At first, we'll simply look at the evidence and explain what is the sequence of steps of how all the strata were formed. What evidence is there that large amounts of time passed for each stratum? How did the strata form? When did faults occur? When did erosion occur? When did folding occur?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'm glad I was able to see myself challenged (ignored), buried deep in another post I thought was meant for someone else.

It also promotes bigotry, misogyny, torture, all manner of science denying, fact denying, and all such other carryings on.

Of course, I would disagree with this. But, we can debate this after the creation and the flood.

Of course. You've got the time to stake your claim, the time to at least read my response to it.

You just ain't got the time to actually support your claim within the thread it is ya made it, but have all the time in the world to bury a refusal to accept responsibility for your claims deep within a post you presented to someone else's stuff.


I thought you was better'n that.

[otseng]

Here are examples of exposed stratified rock.





We see parallel layers and then massive erosion after the layers were deposited. This pattern is so common we don't even think twice about it. But, if you think about it, what would cause this pattern? Why would layers be parallel? Where did the sediment come from to form successive layers? Why didn't erosion occur while these layers were formed? What caused the erosion to expose the strata only after all these layers were formed?

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing is, I already know the traps being dug. First thing is that I'd say that the FM (Faithbased Modfel) would Not predict strata and certainly not the folding, faulting and erosion the otseng refers to. Unless someone misread the claims, those should be reversed. In all my time I'd never seen a Creationist claim that Creation -theory would predicts a sequential diversity of life -forms whereas evolution predicts they all appear at once.

The only thing for discussion is the rock strata, not fossils in the strata. We can get to those later. At first, we'll simply look at the evidence and explain what is the sequence of steps of how all the strata were formed. What evidence is there that large amounts of time passed for each stratum? How did the strata form? When did faults occur? When did erosion occur? When did folding occur?

The answer to much of that is in the various methods of dating rocks. You may recall that Creationists set up a body (Acronym RATE) to disprove radiocarbon and potassium-Argon dating and failed. As to the faulting and folding, what matters is that it happened and the way it happened is not compatible with the Flood scenario unless the whole earth convulsed almost at the same time, which would have been more effective than the Flood itself at eliminating all the species including the ones on the Ark.

I would also expect that the nature of the layers of strata would not be explained by the experiment that showed that rock particles would precipitate out into layers in water, but I''d need to look into the geology.

[TRANSPONDER]

Here are examples of exposed stratified rock.





We see parallel layers and then massive erosion after the layers were deposited. This pattern is so common we don't even think twice about it. But, if you think about it, what would cause this pattern? Why would layers be parallel? Where did the sediment come from to form successive layers? Why didn't erosion occur while these layers were formed? What caused the erosion to expose the strata only after all these layers were formed?

You seem to be answering your own question. Erosion itself causes the strata to build up as particles settle, just as chalk is caused by the settlement of formaninifer -shells acting like particles. Erosion causes exposed strata (notably in the form of mountains being exposed) to be worn down and form new strata some tilted old strata is cut off horizontally and the particles settle into a new level strata above. How could a flood do that unless the geological convulsion and the (postulated) destructive torrent of the Flood caused super erosion in a mere matter of months.

[nobspeople]

It's amusing to see a few think they have enough 'data', 'information' and 'facts' to prove some biblical claims true when people for hundreds and hundreds of years haven't been able to do so.
Salt here.
Strata there.
This group says this.
That group says that.

If people spent as much time trying to justify their misguided biblical beliefs as facts and real, on things that would benefit everyone, the world would be much better off.
But I suppose it's their belief that matters - not much else.

The only way the bible can be as trustworthy is if you want to do so. And to do so, you have to ignore some things, reconstruct others and fully accept others. That's not very trustworthy thing to do. But if it works for you.....