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

[otseng]

That is, entire land areas can raised up and it is not surprising if entire level areas are raised, still more or less level. I also understand that tilting and rolling over and shearing of strata is not at all uncommon.

If an entire land mass did happen to be raised up, what is more likely to happen - everything remain level or there would be a tilt? And this is no small uplift, but it is on the order of 5000-10,000 feet.

"The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5–10 thousand feet (1,500 to 3,000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

What can account for the entire area to be raised over 5000 feet vertically and for the entire area to remain level without any signs of tilting?

As I mentioned, the grand canyon itself has an example of tilted strata sheared off by erosion and newer strata deposited over the top.

I assume you are referring to the Great Unconformity.



Whether it is SG or FM, it's an interesting puzzle to decipher.

According to SG, the unconformity spans a gap of a over 1 billion years.

"the Great Unconformity represents a period as much as 1.2 to 1.6 billion year"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity

Why would the lower layers be tilted, then sheared flat, then nothing happens for over a billion years, then layers be deposited after that?

Whether it is SG or FM, both would agree on the sequence, but not on the timing. In the SG, it has to explain the gap of over a billion years. In the FM, there is no time gap.

[otseng]

I do not believe answering the questions should be so difficult.

OK. I'll bite.

Thanks.

To the detail that you're expecting scientific answers? Not a chance.

Sure, I'm not expecting any scientific answers.

As an aside, whether it's intentional or not, I can't quote the "Global Flood" thread in the standard way (there's no double quote icon), so if any quote links don't work, it's because I'm crafting them myself. For reference, I've quoted statements from that thread that impact on geology. I'm intentionally ignoring for now anything related to the biosphere.

Thanks for summarizing. You can't quote because you're not allowed to post since it's in head-to-head.

For readers, the thread is at Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

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.

This is wrong. The sedimentary layers in that region aren't continuous through that entire period and show evidence of intervening geologic activity, including magma intrusions of multiple ages, layers that were tilted and weathered before more layers were deposited on top, and glaciers.

Yes, there are some signs of geologic activity, never claimed there are none. But, my point is there should be plenty of evidence of geologic activity, in particular erosion since that should be going on all the time. Further, shouldn't faults or folds or tectonic movement or earthquakes or any geologic activity be recorded in every stratum if each layer represents on the order of thousands/millions of years?

I'm not sure that incredulity is persuasive when the alternative explanation is literal magic.

Actually, there is no magic involved in the FM. There is no appeal to supernatural causation.

What do you mean by "everywhere around the world?"

I've already pointed out several canyons around the world exhibiting the same pattern in post 266. I can post more canyons if necessary.

[otseng]

I am up to page #24 at present, and picked out the following parts which you wrote that interested me.

Thanks for reading through it and also pointing out parts of it.

Q: Why was the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" asked? Who asked the question?

The question evolved out of the inerrancy thread. In particular, it spawned from:

I would agree contradictions is not an atheist vs theist issue. As a Christian myself (and I would consider myself fairly orthodox), I see it as the opposite - Christians want to see the Bible as perfect, inerrant, and without contradictions. And the reason is the assumption that the authority of the Bible hinges on inerrancy. I'm not sure how to dislodge this assumption. It is ingrained in Christians as well as skeptics, but I'm trying to address this in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?.

viewtopic.php?p=1051388#p1051388

The way I view the bible is to acknowledge that any one individual can have a relationship with The Father without having to believe a word that is written in the bible, because whether the bible is true, false, or a mix of both is beside the point re that relationship with The Mind behind Creation, which BJ refers to as "The Father".

How would you know what the Mind(Father) requires or how to have a relationship with him?

I prefer to preface The Mind with Evidence and the idea that creation was done through the processes that Science has shown us.

Sure. I value science as well, but it has its limits. It is not the end all / know all to truth.

Fireside storytelling attempts involving first-humans in a paradise and folklore about angels and demons and dragons and talking serpents and floods and fatal bear-attacks on cheeky children and blood sacrifices and other mythological beasties, flies in the face of our actual reality and makes the God of The Great Apes look like something the Greeks and Romans would have thought up, rather than an actual creator Mind of this reality before us, which we call Nature.

Sure, I would not consider any book like that to be authoritative. Of course, I do not believe the Bible is like that.

We took one case study of the attack on Jerusalem by Sennacherib. And the Biblical account is actually quite historically accurate. The only quibbles really are how did Sennacherib's army die and why he left.

So the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" *appears to be asked, because the desire to continue worshiping the bible as 'the word of god' is strong in the one asking the question.

To be clear, no one should worship the Bible. Only God should be worshiped.

[TRANSPONDER]

That is, entire land areas can raised up and it is not surprising if entire level areas are raised, still more or less level. I also understand that tilting and rolling over and shearing of strata is not at all uncommon.

If an entire land mass did happen to be raised up, what is more likely to happen - everything remain level or there would be a tilt? And this is no small uplift, but it is on the order of 5000-10,000 feet.

"The great depth of the Grand Canyon and especially the height of its strata (most of which formed below sea level) can be attributed to 5–10 thousand feet (1,500 to 3,000 m) of uplift of the Colorado Plateau."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canyon

What can account for the entire area to be raised over 5000 feet vertically and for the entire area to remain level without any signs of tilting?

As I mentioned, the grand canyon itself has an example of tilted strata sheared off by erosion and newer strata deposited over the top.

I assume you are referring to the Great Unconformity.



Whether it is SG or FM, it's an interesting puzzle to decipher.

According to SG, the unconformity spans a gap of a over 1 billion years.

"the Great Unconformity represents a period as much as 1.2 to 1.6 billion year"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Unconformity

Why would the lower layers be tilted, then sheared flat, then nothing happens for over a billion years, then layers be deposited after that?

Whether it is SG or FM, both would agree on the sequence, but not on the timing. In the SG, it has to explain the gap of over a billion years. In the FM, there is no time gap.

I'd suggest because that's how deep time geology works. Land strata get tilted, then eroded away as seen in the strata then new layers are deposited on top. It takes million or indeed billions of years. That's the SG explanation and now yours.

And I'd repeat my question to you - how does your Flood scenario explain those geological features?

[TRANSPONDER]

I am up to page #24 at present, and picked out the following parts which you wrote that interested me.

Thanks for reading through it and also pointing out parts of it.

Q: Why was the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" asked? Who asked the question?

The question evolved out of the inerrancy thread. In particular, it spawned from:

I would agree contradictions is not an atheist vs theist issue. As a Christian myself (and I would consider myself fairly orthodox), I see it as the opposite - Christians want to see the Bible as perfect, inerrant, and without contradictions. And the reason is the assumption that the authority of the Bible hinges on inerrancy. I'm not sure how to dislodge this assumption. It is ingrained in Christians as well as skeptics, but I'm trying to address this in How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?.

viewtopic.php?p=1051388#p1051388

The way I view the bible is to acknowledge that any one individual can have a relationship with The Father without having to believe a word that is written in the bible, because whether the bible is true, false, or a mix of both is beside the point re that relationship with The Mind behind Creation, which BJ refers to as "The Father".

How would you know what the Mind(Father) requires or how to have a relationship with him?

I prefer to preface The Mind with Evidence and the idea that creation was done through the processes that Science has shown us.

Sure. I value science as well, but it has its limits. It is not the end all / know all to truth.

Fireside storytelling attempts involving first-humans in a paradise and folklore about angels and demons and dragons and talking serpents and floods and fatal bear-attacks on cheeky children and blood sacrifices and other mythological beasties, flies in the face of our actual reality and makes the God of The Great Apes look like something the Greeks and Romans would have thought up, rather than an actual creator Mind of this reality before us, which we call Nature.

Sure, I would not consider any book like that to be authoritative. Of course, I do not believe the Bible is like that.

We took one case study of the attack on Jerusalem by Sennacherib. And the Biblical account is actually quite historically accurate. The only quibbles really are how did Sennacherib's army die and why he left.

So the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" *appears to be asked, because the desire to continue worshiping the bible as 'the word of god' is strong in the one asking the question.

To be clear, no one should worship the Bible. Only God should be worshiped.

Which god? This is not a snarky quip, but is a serious and relevant question.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #293]

The way I view the bible is to acknowledge that any one individual can have a relationship with The Father without having to believe a word that is written in the bible, because whether the bible is true, false, or a mix of both is beside the point re that relationship with The Mind behind Creation, which BJ refers to as "The Father".

How would you know what the Mind (Father) requires or how to have a relationship with him?

When one establishes such relationship, one knows.

How do you think folk were achieving this before people started writing about it?

I prefer to preface The Mind with Evidence and the idea that creation was done through the processes that Science has shown us.

Sure. I value science as well, but it has its limits. It is not the end all / know all to truth.

If I assume you are not claiming that the bible does not 'have its limits' or is the 'end all/know all of truth". what am I to make of this reply?

Fireside storytelling attempts involving first-humans in a paradise and folklore about angels and demons and dragons and talking serpents and floods and fatal bear-attacks on cheeky children and blood sacrifices and other mythological beasties, flies in the face of our actual reality and makes the God of The Great Apes look like something the Greeks and Romans would have thought up, rather than an actual creator Mind of this reality before us, which we call Nature.

Sure, I would not consider any book like that to be authoritative. Of course, I do not believe the Bible is like that.

It is most obviously like that. And so too are those who believe it is authoritative as 'the word of god'. That is precisely why folk label it 'the word of god'. To give it an air of authority.

So the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" *appears to be asked, because the desire to continue worshiping the bible as 'the word of god' is strong in the one asking the question.

To be clear, no one should worship the Bible. Only God should be worshiped.

So Christians might claim. Their claim appears to contradict their actions. I am satisfied from what you have said - [not just here in this thread] - that your focus of attention is on the bible and it is where you get your information on those particular versions of The Creator [aka "God"] to the degree where you cannot place it aside because it is vital to your alleged relationship with The Mind, and without it you cannot comprehend how anyone could have a relationship with The Mind behind Creation, which is why you asked the question;

How would you know what the Mind (Father) requires or how to have a relationship with him?

In that regard, the bible can be said to be a false idol, phesdo-performing a role of medium between a human being and a false image of The Creator. {The Mind Behind Creation}

[Difflugia]

Yes, there are some signs of geologic activity, never claimed there are none.

What you wrote is "practically no evidence of erosion or any geologic activity recorded in the strata." I'll agree that the "practically" affords some wiggle room, but I would stil consider it to be untrue. I've no idea what kinds of activity you think would fall under your "practically" and still allow that statement to be true.

But, my point is there should be plenty of evidence of geologic activity, in particular erosion since that should be going on all the time.

What do you mean by "all the time?" During the periods that the area was under shallow seas? I mentioned the Black Sea earlier. Aside from issues you've alluded to with radiometric dating, do you think that 25,000 years of sedimentation should be able to be sampled without evidence of underwater erosion?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but creationism apologists get many, many, many thing wrong, yet present those things as though they're well-known within the scientific community. With that in mind that I have no way of guessing where the line is between literal and hyperbolic for statements like "practically none" and "all."

Further, shouldn't faults or folds or tectonic movement or earthquakes or any geologic activity be recorded in every stratum if each layer represents on the order of thousands/millions of years?

"Stratigraphy of Grand Canyon National Park" (starts on p. 33 of that publication)

Grand Canyon rocks are most easily simplified as three distinct packages: Precambrian Vishnu Basement rocks, Precambrian Grand Canyon Supergroup rocks, and layered sedimentary Paleozoic rocks. Major unconformities separate these major subdivisions, and numerous shorter unconformities are interspersed within these packages.

Each "unconformity" is a period of erosion rather than deposition. The publication as a whole mentions at least ten distinct unconformities.

"Faulting in East Part of Grand Canyon of Arizona":

The characteristics of several faults and their associated folds in the Grand Canyon district of Arizona are clearly shown by the excellent exposures of the rocks in the deeply dissected canyons of this region.

"Deformation associated with a continental normal fault system, western Grand Canyon, Arizona":

Detailed structural mapping and global positioning system (GPS) surveying of the Frog Fault and Lone Mountain Monocline in the western Grand Canyon demonstrate a systematic relationship between elements of the normal fault system and fold geometry.

"Tectonic inferences from the ca. 1255–1100 Ma Unkar Group and Nankoweap Formation, Grand Canyon: Intracratonic deformation and basin formation during protracted Grenville orogenesis":

Abrupt thickness and facies changes in conglomerate and dolomite of the Bass Formation (lower Unkar Group) associated with NE-striking monoclinal flexures indicate NW-directed synsedimentary contraction at ca. 1250 Ma.

"Flexures" are folds.

Are those compatible with your idea of Grand Canyon geology? If so, do you still think that it's true that "faults or folds or tectonic movement or earthquakes or any geologic activity" aren't "recorded in every stratum?" If so, what specifically are you looking for, why do you think it's missing, and why do you think it shouldn't it be?

Actually, there is no magic involved in the FM. There is no appeal to supernatural causation.

Without divine intervention, it's implausible before we even worry about sedimentation patterns. You wrote: "During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world." Any kinetic energy in the system ("carried it high into the atmosphere") must have come from the potential energy in the rocks that God created above the subterranean water. Even if we start our natural, non-magical cascade after the creation event, any kinetic energy in the system must then be reconverted into potential energy (in this case, by lifting something else) or it will stay kinetic energy in the form of heat. It's not an accident that the imperial unit for energy is the "British thermal unit," or BTU. This also applies to the "vapor canopy." If, by whatever mechanism, the water in the "vapor canopy" returned to Earth, both the potential energy and heat of vaporization in that water would be released as kinetic energy in the form of heat.

Here are a few round numbers:

Potential energy is equal to mass x acceleration due to gravity × height, E = mgh. The SI units for these are joules, kilograms, meters per second², and meters.

According to Google, the specific heat of water is 4.2 kJ/kg per degree Celsius. 4200 J/kg (m²s²) ÷ 9.8 m/s² is 430 m. That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree. If the water fell back down, that much energy went somewhere as heat. According to Google, the Earth contains about 1.4 × 10²¹ kg of water. How much of that was sent how high? What was the water temperature to start with? You said in the other thread that the superheated, subterranean water "lost" energy, but that's not how energy transfer works. If it "lost" energy, it lost it as heat to something else, like the atmosphere. Most systems that we're familiar with "lose" heat energy because the world around us is such a huge heat sink that the scale difference is enormous. When you stop your car, the brake pads will get very hot very quickly (why they used to be made of asbestos), but then lose the heat to the larger system by making it just a smidge hotter in relative scale. If our car and brake pads were an appreciable fraction of the Earth, though, the "lost energy" is no longer negligible.

Despite being in the Ark, Noah would certainly have been "poached" without divine intervention.

What do you mean by "everywhere around the world?"

I've already pointed out several canyons around the world exhibiting the same pattern in post 266. I can post more canyons if necessary.

Several discrete locations with broadly similar geology is not identical stratigraphy everywhere in the world.

If the existence of canyons refutes geology, I genuinely don't understand why.

What can account for the entire area to be raised over 5000 feet vertically and for the entire area to remain level without any signs of tilting?

Accorging to current theory, the entire Colorado Plateau curved due to magma forces over a such a large area that it's measurable in terms of elevation differences, but not apparent to an observer on the ground. It sank around the edges and rose in the middle. So:

• The "entire area" didn't rise.
• The entire area didn't remain level on a geologic scale.
• There are signs of tilting, they're just not obvious to a human being eyeballing it.

[brunumb]

[Replying to otseng in post #291]

I may have missed something, but how does the biblical flood account for the numerous distinct and different layers in the sedimentary rock? Also, how did the sediment become rock in such a short period of time?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #291]

I may have missed something, but how does the biblical flood account for the numerous distinct and different layers in the sedimentary rock? Also, how did the sediment become rock in such a short period of time?

In addition, how did this thread move from debating the topic of trust in the bible to the various tracks/branches which run off-of the main trunk?

Is it really necessary to go off on those tangents in order to find an answer to the debate question?

What is THE MAIN reason as to why the bible should be entrusted/granted the status that Christians give it?

[otseng]

I'd suggest because that's how deep time geology works. Land strata get tilted, then eroded away as seen in the strata then new layers are deposited on top. It takes million or indeed billions of years. That's the SG explanation and now yours.

And I'd repeat my question to you - how does your Flood scenario explain those geological features?

Don't really see how that answers the questions. I can just as well say that's how a global flood works except its on a much shorter timescale.

Which god? This is not a snarky quip, but is a serious and relevant question.

Not sure who you're asking, William or me. But if it's for me, the answer is obvious, the God of the Bible.

How would you know what the Mind (Father) requires or how to have a relationship with him?

When one establishes such relationship, one knows.

How do you think folk were achieving this before people started writing about it?

Well, people started writing about it a long time ago. And since I don't believe in deep time, it's only on the order of thousands of years that mankind has existed. So, it's not a long period of time that there was no writing.

Prior to the written record, it would be two things - direct revelation from God or oral tradition. Would there be a third method? If it's only these two, which of the two would apply in your case?

If I assume you are not claiming that the bible does not 'have its limits' or is the 'end all/know all of truth". what am I to make of this reply?

There is no single methodology to arrive at truth, but a combination of many things - Biblical study, philosophy, math, science, history, arts, religion, and even mysticism.

It is most obviously like that. And so too are those who believe it is authoritative as 'the word of god'. That is precisely why folk label it 'the word of god'. To give it an air of authority.

Well, I already covered in depth one case study with the attack on Jerusalem. Would you classify that as folklore?

In that regard, the bible can be said to be a false idol, phesdo-performing a role of medium between a human being and a false image of The Creator.

What evidence and arguments backs up your claim?

What do you mean by "all the time?" During the periods that the area was under shallow seas? I mentioned the Black Sea earlier. Aside from issues you've alluded to with radiometric dating, do you think that 25,000 years of sedimentation should be able to be sampled without evidence of underwater erosion?

Not to put too fine a point on it, but creationism apologists get many, many, many thing wrong, yet present those things as though they're well-known within the scientific community. With that in mind that I have no way of guessing where the line is between literal and hyperbolic for statements like "practically none" and "all."

Let me come at it from another angle. Would you agree we see massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited? Would you agree there is practically no erosion compared to the final erosion while the layers were being deposited?

Each "unconformity" is a period of erosion rather than deposition. The publication as a whole mentions at least ten distinct unconformities.

And the effect of the erosion after millions of years for each unconformity is to perfectly form a parallel plane across a vast region? Why would this happen, esp when we see massive erosion after the layers were formed that definitely did not result in a flat landmass. Where do we see erosion causing a flat plane currently? Even if erosion did happen to form a flat plane, where did all the sediments go?

The characteristics of several faults and their associated folds in the Grand Canyon district of Arizona are clearly shown by the excellent exposures of the rocks in the deeply dissected canyons of this region.

It would be good if can provide a photo so we can see what is being demonstrated.

But, here's a picture of a fault in the Grand Canyon.



If faults occur all the time while the layers were formed, we should expect to see a fault line stop at a stratum and a parallel layer deposited on top of that. If each stratum represents millions of years, would it not be expected to see at least one fault in each layer? Esp since there's enough geologic activity in the area to have moved it up thousands of feet?

Instead, what we primarily see is a fault that goes through the entire strata.

Are those compatible with your idea of Grand Canyon geology? If so, do you still think that it's true that "faults or folds or tectonic movement or earthquakes or any geologic activity" aren't "recorded in every stratum?" If so, what specifically are you looking for, why do you think it's missing, and why do you think it shouldn't it be

Again, a visual would help so we can see what is being described.

That means that the amount of energy to send an amount of water 430 meters into the air is enough to raise its temperature one degree.

I'm not so sure your calculations entirely apply. Your calculations would be for thermal energy, but not for kinetic energy. Yes, if the water was just sitting still and energy was applied to it, it would raise the temperature. But, during the rupture phase, the water was eroding rock and being thrust into the air. So, energy was being expended for these kinetic actions.

Several discrete locations with broadly similar geology is not identical stratigraphy everywhere in the world.

Are you suggesting there are other places where the pattern does not exist? If so, please provide such examples.

What can account for the entire area to be raised over 5000 feet vertically and for the entire area to remain level without any signs of tilting?

Accorging to current theory, the entire Colorado Plateau curved due to magma forces over a such a large area that it's measurable in terms of elevation differences, but not apparent to an observer on the ground. It sank around the edges and rose in the middle.

Observation evidence does not show a dome pushing up. I've already posted many images of the Grand Canyon at scale that show parallel layers over the entire region with no central bulge. But, if necessary I can post more.

Even if magma from below was able to push the entire region straight up, the Grand Canyon is just the start of the problems. This would have to be explained for every canyon in the world. So, underlying each canyon is a "vertical high-seismic-velocity anomaly" that is able to uplift each canyon perfectly straight up?

I may have missed something, but how does the biblical flood account for the numerous distinct and different layers in the sedimentary rock? Also, how did the sediment become rock in such a short period of time?

No, didn't miss anything. I haven't even started to talk about the FM yet. But, since SG is, well, standard geology, then it should be able to easily answer all the questions I've posed so far. And there are much more of you here defending SG compared to just me defending the FM. So, I think it's reasonable for you guys to answer my questions first.

In addition, how did this thread move from debating the topic of trust in the bible to the various tracks/branches which run off-of the main trunk?

Is it really necessary to go off on those tangents in order to find an answer to the debate question?

Like I said, it wasn't my idea to go into details about the flood. I knew it would be a long discussion, but a poster kept insisting I talk about it.

But a worldwide flood with animals on a boat for a year? Nada. As for the general creation story, among other problems,

Diagoras has said discussing the flood is not necessary...

Of what relevance is it that Diagoras said it is not necessary to discuss the flood? You made a claim there is evidence for the Biblical creation and flood stories. I am asking you to support your claim.

Oliver wrote, "I will eventually get to the creation and the flood. But, I ask everyone to stop repeatedly asking for us to cover these. I will get to it."
Will we have to wait until you translate Proto-Masoretic Hebrew from Second Temple period?