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

[otseng]

Erosion of mountains with particles being washed into seas.
Layers building up over eons under water.
Uplifting caused by tectonic movement to produce new mountains.
Erosion resulting in the exposure of strata in the rock.

The briefest of summaries. I'm sure a quick search would provide a more detailed and far better explanation.

Thank you for being the only one that has actually addressed my questions.

Strata is what I want to focus on for now, instead of being deluged with everything else regarding the flood.

Would you agree that if there are parallel layers, the surfaces would originally have to be relatively flat?
Would you agree the majority of layers were formed underwater?
How long did it take for each stratum to form?
If it's on the order of thousands/millions of years, shouldn't there be records of geologic activity in each layer? At least there should be erosion. Where in the world do we see flat surfaces remain flat and accumulate sedimentation for a long period of time without any erosion?
If all the layers were formed underwater, would it be expected most sedimentary rock should be found in the ocean and seas, rather than on land?

[TRANSPONDER]

Erosion of mountains with particles being washed into seas.
Layers building up over eons under water.
Uplifting caused by tectonic movement to produce new mountains.
Erosion resulting in the exposure of strata in the rock.

The briefest of summaries. I'm sure a quick search would provide a more detailed and far better explanation.

Thank you for being the only one that has actually addressed my questions.

Strata is what I want to focus on for now, instead of being deluged with everything else regarding the flood.

Would you agree that if there are parallel layers, the surfaces would originally have to be relatively flat?
Would you agree the majority of layers were formed underwater?
How long did it take for each stratum to form?
If it's on the order of thousands/millions of years, shouldn't there be records of geologic activity in each layer? At least there should be erosion. Where in the world do we see flat surfaces remain flat and accumulate sedimentation for a long period of time without any erosion?
If all the layers were formed underwater, would it be expected most sedimentary rock should be found in the ocean and seas, rather than on land?

I touched on this in #234 "But we would not get the rolling over, faulting tilting and inversion" but that was not very not detailed. But your questions above are a bit odd, aren't they? It seems as though you're arguing that all those things should show up if deep time geology was true, but they don't. But of course they do show up repeatedly in geology. It is a Young Earth Flood scenario that would fail to account for the faulting, erosion, inverted strata and typical geology that is found all over.

[otseng]

Let's look at the strata of the Grand Canyon and try to go through the sequence of steps it must've gone through according to SG.

As mentioned by brunumb, all of this must've originally been underwater. This is a large expanse and the strata is quite deep.

"The Grand Canyon is 277 miles (446 km) long, up to 18 miles (29 km) wide and attains a depth of over a mile (6,093 feet or 1,857 meters)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

So, every layer that accumulated was underwater, flat, and extended across a very large area. Each layer is reputedly spanning thousands/millions of years. During this entire time, all the layers were flat. Sediment from some remote mountain erosion was able to be deposited relatively evenly across miles. This is done for each layer. For each successive layer, there is little to no erosion, no tectonic activity, no folding, no uplift, Repeat this for several thousand feet of strata. The oldest sedimentary layer is around 1.25 billion years. So, for over a billion years, we have a building up of all the layers, from unknown remote mountains that was able to uniformly deposit layers, with practically no geologic activity occurring during the billion years. Then after all these layers are formed, it is eroded by water activity to form the exposed canyon. I mean, does this even sound reasonable? Why this particular sequence of steps? And why is this sequence of steps found everywhere around the world?

[TRANSPONDER]

Well yes, it does sound reasonable. There is no reason to demand tilting, faulting, rolling over and strata folding everywhere. I recall that such features are associated with mountain formation where tectonics plates come together. Elsewhere, you'd expect flat areas where strata would build up (in itself implying deep time) whether on land or under water. Also didn't I recall that the Gran Canyon was cut through 'hard rock' (which implies igneous rock rather than sedimentary) which is to say earth formation rocks rather than water -laid, which means the Grand canyon could not be formed through flood - deposits. Quite apart from (I recall posting this) the meanders in the canyon relate to the river (which is still there) cutting through the rock slowly over a long time rather than anything caused quickly during a purported flood.

Still it's handy that you focus on that particular feature which can be considered in detail, rather than a general assessment of global geology, which is a big subject.

And here's Talk origins' comment on the matter of strata folding.
Claim CD102:
Strata in the geological column are sometimes out of order. The mechanisms geophysicists use to account for them are problematic. Thrust faulting would have produced great amounts of debris, which geologists do not see; folding would require great forces for which geophysicists have trouble accounting.
Source:
Whitcomb, J. C. and H. M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 180-211.
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 120.
Response:
Folds account for out-of-order strata with sequences such as A-B-C-B-A. Faults create sequences such as B-C-A-B-C. The evidence is so overwhelming that these conclusions should be obvious. In many cases, the folds and faults can easily be seen in cross-sections of the strata. In other cases, further geological mapping verifies the presence of the fold or fault. Features such as ripple marks and mud cracks show that the strata were originally horizontal.

Great forces are not a problem in geophysics. First, great forces exist. Earthquakes can move many miles of crust by several feet at a time. Second, the forces act over a long period of time. Rocks which would fracture if bent suddenly will deform gradually under hundreds of millions of years of heat and constant pressure.

Faults do, in fact, produce a layer of debris along the fault line. Sometimes this layer is fairly thin. There is no reason to expect great amounts of debris along all faults.

The geologic column is never out of order in areas that have not been greatly disturbed.

[bluegreenearth]

Let's look at the strata of the Grand Canyon and try to go through the sequence of steps it must've gone through according to SG.

As mentioned by brunumb, all of this must've originally been underwater. This is a large expanse and the strata is quite deep.

"The Grand Canyon is 277 miles (446 km) long, up to 18 miles (29 km) wide and attains a depth of over a mile (6,093 feet or 1,857 meters)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

So, every layer that accumulated was underwater, flat, and extended across a very large area. Each layer is reputedly spanning thousands/millions of years. During this entire time, all the layers were flat. Sediment from some remote mountain erosion was able to be deposited relatively evenly across miles. This is done for each layer. For each successive layer, there is little to no erosion, no tectonic activity, no folding, no uplift, Repeat this for several thousand feet of strata. The oldest sedimentary layer is around 1.25 billion years. So, for over a billion years, we have a building up of all the layers, from unknown remote mountains that was able to uniformly deposit layers, with practically no geologic activity occurring during the billion years. Then after all these layers are formed, it is eroded by water activity to form the exposed canyon. I mean, does this even sound reasonable? Why this particular sequence of steps? And why is this sequence of steps found everywhere around the world?

Whether you realize it or not, your description above is an extreme oversimplification of very complex and nuanced geologic, geophysical, and geomorphic processes which requires many years of intense fieldwork, experimentation, research, and study to accurately comprehend. Therefore, it would be naïve for me or anyone else to expect you to become convinced by mere fragments of a complete picture. Unfortunately, while I am an experienced geomorphologist, I just don't have the time or resources to teach you what I know and can only encourage you to acquire the advanced education necessary on this topic before judging the consensus of experts in the field to be unreasonable. There is nothing wrong with asking those critical thinking questions, but it should mean something to you that none of the experts in the field have found any evidence to suggest the established theories in geology, geomorphology, geophysics, sedimentology, stratigraphy, etc. are unreasonable at this time.

The content provided in the videos below are not at all comprehensive enough, but they do describe a brief history of how the foundational principles of "Earth Science" were first developed, critically examined, and finally accepted by the consensus of experts at the time:

[TRANSPONDER]

There's good article here on canyon geology (the 'hard rock is metamorphic rather than igneous - sediments compressed into hard rock, marble being a good example). It shows a few examples of tilted strata sheared off by erosion and new strata laid down over it. Clearly we aren't looking at a channel cut in a short time during some cataclysmic flood, but a slow and gradual river - erosion over a very long time.
https://www.usgs.gov/science-support/os ... on-geology

btw. I'm still wondering whether all this shouldn't be hived off to a new thread. Young earth objections to deep time geology relate of course to Genesis -literalism but it's not directly the subject of Bible inerrancy.

[bluegreenearth]

Also didn't I recall that the Gran Canyon was cut through 'hard rock' (which implies igneous rock rather than sedimentary) which is to say earth formation rocks rather than water -laid, which means the Grand canyon could not be formed through flood - deposits. Quite apart from (I recall posting this) the meanders in the canyon relate to the river (which is still there) cutting through the rock slowly over a long time rather than anything caused quickly during a purported flood.

I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your comments above, but the 'hard rock' making up the walls of the Grand Canyon are actually lithified sedimentary layers which sit on top of an igneous foundation. https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm

[bluegreenearth]

Clearly we aren't looking at a channel cut in a short time during some cataclysmic flood, but a slow and gradual river - erosion over a very long time.

If I recall, more recent research seems to support the hypothesis that the rate in which the river was initially carving itself into the landscape was slow and gradual but increased dramatically towards the end of one of the ice-ages as an upstream ice dam began to melt. Of course, the rate of erosion was still orders of magnitude slower than what is proposed by creationist pseudoscience.

[TRANSPONDER]

Also didn't I recall that the Gran Canyon was cut through 'hard rock' (which implies igneous rock rather than sedimentary) which is to say earth formation rocks rather than water -laid, which means the Grand canyon could not be formed through flood - deposits. Quite apart from (I recall posting this) the meanders in the canyon relate to the river (which is still there) cutting through the rock slowly over a long time rather than anything caused quickly during a purported flood.

I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your comments above, but the 'hard rock' making up the walls of the Grand Canyon are actually lithified sedimentary layers which sit on top of an igneous foundation. https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/nature/grca-geology.htm

Yes. When I read 'Hard rock' I immediately thought 'igneous', like Basalt but later I saw it was metamorphic (hardened sedimentary) with igneous intrusions. I'm welcoming ongoing corrections of my mistakes so long as we get better information about what the geology of the Grand canyon is and what it signifies. It never looked like evidence for the Noachian Flood but YE Genesis -literalism is welcome to put its' case.

I might comment that though otseng waved away fossils to concentrate on strata, even if the Flood could feasibly produce the geology we see as well as eons of tectonic activity, sea -deposits (salt, micro shells or sand) and erosion, the fossil sequence related to the strata sequence would put the evidence on the deep -time side, not to mention radiometric dating.

The thing is, friends, I've seen this debate before many times and I know how it ends, even if I don't recall all the details of the arguments:

debating the evidence
Questioning the evidence.
relying on Faith.

[brunumb]

The content provided in the videos below are not at all comprehensive enough, but they do describe a brief history of how the foundational principles of "Earth Science" were first developed, critically examined, and finally accepted by the consensus of experts at the time:

I just watched the first of the videos you posted bluegreenearth and it was excellent, as much as for its entertainment value as for being informative. I enjoyed it immensely. Thank you.