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'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.

...

That's only half an answer. On the face of it it's admitting that geology explains what we see as well as a Flood. That is - what we see does NOT particularly prove a Flood. Now that's where the fossil sequencing and radiometric dating shows that a single flood does not work for what we see. But even before then (since I recall that you wanted me to prove deep time rather than a Flood without reference to dating or fossils) I have to ask how a Flood accounts for tilted strata when the earth was only a couple of thousand years old. Because that is presumably cut off level by the Flood - though you'd have to explain how rainwater would do that - or explain where else the water came from, and then the Flood laid down new strata on top, which over a mere four thousand years has turned to rock - something that should take millions of years - and through which flood water cut through all those layers, though where a riverine current in a global flood would come from is also something you'd have to explain as well as why it would meander rather than cut a relatively straight canyon. And while you are explaining all those features before you can imply that both scenarios are equally likely, you can explain where all the water went afterwards.

[TRANSPONDER]

To be clear, no one should worship the Bible. Only God should be worshiped.
(trans) Which god? This is not a snarky quip, but is a serious and relevant question.

I thought it was you, but sometimes the nested quotes aren't too clear. The point being, why the god of the Bible? The thing about Creationist arguments is that they point to a creator doing it rather than just natural processes. But unless the Bible is basic in telling us which god did it, it could be any god. I recall that somebody implied that he didn't rely on the Bible but went by the evidence.

At the same time, someone tried to put in a neat little plug for the Bible referring the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem and saying the Bible reported it accurately. Not exactly. It skipped over the fact of Lashceish being sacked, it put the submission and payment of tribute at the start which would have made the attacks of Lascheish and Libnah pointless. It spins the narrative by saying frankly that God smote the Assyrians when the reason they marched away was because Hezekiah submitted. So to call it an accurate account (whoever that was) is doing a bit of Spin themselves.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #300]

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.

Well, as convenient as your short-time belief is in relation to your belief that it is through the written word that relationship with The Mind is established - as I wrote earlier - I prefer to preface The Mind with Evidence and the idea that creation was done through the processes that Science has shown us.

In that I will add, The Father speaks through the living world as one way of communing with the individual person.

The Bible on the other hand, [in and of itself as an object] is not a living document.

Inviting a bee to land on my finger, and watching it do so, is a communion with the Living Mind of Creation which no book or movie could ever hope to replicate.

Understanding the awe inspiring creative process involved in the formation of Galaxies, is a communion with the Living Mind of Creation which no book or movie could ever hope to replicate.

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?

It can only be direct revelation from The Father. Oral tradition involves a third-party medium and appears to be primarily for those who cannot or will not establish for themselves a relationship of direct revelation.

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.

One arrives at the truth when one establishes a direct relationship with The Mind and upon arrival, one then proceeds with their journey into all truth [mysticism].
Therein, there is no single item [Biblical study, philosophy, math, science, history, arts, religion etc] which cannot be useful in the continuing journey into all truth, but these are not singular methodologies in themselves which will help anyone actually establish a direct relationship with The Mind.

Problematic to Christianity is the belief that the bible alone IS equal to "Establishing and maintaining a relationship between the individual and The Father" but in realty such a belief is no more useful to that end than seeking out a fortune-teller as a means of discovering next weeks lotto numbers, produces that desired result.

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?

That is not what I am arguing otseng.

It is my understanding [correct me if I am misunderstanding] that you do not consider the bible to be the word of The Father?

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?

I have already said.

Christianity claims the bible is the WOG. Therein they have their 'authority' re the bible.

It is Christianity which makes the claim, therefore it is up to Christians who believe in the claim to produce the evidence and argument to back up the claim.

The evidence I have is that no Christian has ever been able to back up that claim. They simply believe it on faith - through third-party processes - and won't budge from that position because it is non-negotiable.

I myself prefer a hands on living relationship with The Mind Behind Creation.

[Difflugia]

Let me come at it from another angle. Would you agree we see massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited?

Yes.

Would you agree there is practically no erosion compared to the final erosion while the layers were being deposited

No.

My assumption here is that you've been given the idea that the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon area is much more uniform than it actually is, but again, what do you mean by "practically no erosion?"

And the effect of the erosion after millions of years for each unconformity is to perfectly form a parallel plane across a vast region?

This is another one of those "somewhere between literal and hyperbole" statements that I don't know exactly what you mean. Are you claiming that any of these unconformities lie atop formations that were eroded to exactly the same layer across some large area? The whole Grand Canyon? The entire Colorado Plateau? The world? What exactly am I trying to show you?

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?

If I might make a request, knock off the rhetorical questions until we both understand exactly what you're claiming. What erosion of what layers? What flat plane are you talking about, what is its extent, and why is it anomalous?

Even if erosion did happen to form a flat plane, where did all the sediments go?

Again, what flat plane and what are "all the sediments" that I am looking for? Depending on what you're asking for, the answer might be the Colorado River delta, but I'm losing confidence in my ability to understand what you're asking.

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.

You claimed that "folds or tectonic movement or earthquakes or any geologic activity" should be visible in the strata. Here is a scientist telling you that they are, which is a direct rebuttal to how I read your claim. If you intended more nuance than that, you didn't communicate it.

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.

Is this what you mean?



This is a crop from a larger image in a blog. That's a fault, then a tilt, then parallel layers deposited on top. Or do you mean something different?

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?

I'm trying not to get frustrated here, but not all geologic activity is the same. I already linked to at least one paper describing how the uplift was the result of the surface of the Earth being pushed up magma. It's measurable. That kind of uplift is far more gentle in a geologic sense, than say, the kind of subduction faulting in California that results in earthquakes. What kind of faulting are you expecting along with that? Or do you just think that there ought to be more faulting in general?

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

In some places one sees that, but what do you mean by "primarily?" Can you write that in the form of, "if I am correct, there will be no examples of X feature?"

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.

Your earlier statement said that you wouldn't expect any folding, tilting, or faulting, but later you linked a photo yourself that showed faulting. Clearly the earlier statement was hyperbolic, so what's my target? Tell me what kind of picture you'd like me to find. A lot of the time success just comes from knowing what geologists call a particular feature, but I also suspect that your ideas of both what the Grand Canyon is and should be are vague enough that you've thus far been able to dismiss disconfirming evidence as a series of mostly minor exceptions. My request is that you step back a moment to consider what you think are the defining features of the Canyon and list them for us with no hyperbole and without rhetorical questions. I suspect that many of your premises themselves are wrong in important ways, but stated in such a way that a geologist might agree with them because they're understanding the words differently than you are. I'm intimately familiar with creationist apologetics and even I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're asking.

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.

I think you're misunderstanding what "expended" means in this case. It's kind of nonintuitive, but if I drop a rock on the ground and it stops, the potential energy from holding the rock above the ground becomes kinetic energy as the rock falls. When the rock stops, the kinetic energy is transferred to the Earth, but doesn't disappear. In a frictionless universe, the kinetic energy would take the form of a wave that would travel through the medium forever, but friction converts what you're calling kinetic energy into heat (heat is technically kinetic energy for the purposes of energy conservation).

When the water shoots up, it erodes the rock by moving it. If the rocks are moving up (i.e. away from the center of gravity), then the kinetic energy is becoming potential energy. If they fall again, the potential energy once again becomes kinetic energy without loss (conservation of energy). Energy "lost" to friction becomes what we're calling heat. When the rocks stop moving, either whatever stopped them or the mass of the rocks themselves gains the energy. Friction ultimately converts the energy (again losslessly) into heat. When we talk about energy loss, that loss is the conversion to heat.

If there is enough potential energy stored in the rock layer atop the subterranean reservoirs to shoot the water up in the air, that energy ends up as heat if that water comes to rest at any point below its maximum height. As I said before, this is counterintuitive because things like the surface of the Earth, the atmosphere, and the oceans are immensely massive heat sinks compare to even the largest rock we might drop. You're talking, though, about the ocean itself, or some huge fraction of it, replacing the dropped rock. If a thousand kilograms of water is shot 430 meters in the air and returns to the surface, that energy will impart enough heat to have raised that thousand kilograms one degree celsius. Some of it might go into the air, some into the rock, and some into a larger pool of water, but the energy never disappears. Ultimately, it would be radiated away into space, but that takes time and without divine intervention, it's longer than Noah has.

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.

I'm assuming again that your understanding of that question is somehow nonliteral, but maybe it's not. I went to Michigan Technological University in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and spent a lot of time in the Huron mountains. The land surface there (and much of the shore of Lake Superior) is made up of metamorphic rock dating to the precambrian, so it completely lacks the sedimentary layers of the Grand Canyon and therefore lacks the pattern.

Does that answer your question or do you mean something different by it?

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.

I went back and reread what you wrote and my confusion was your vague "entire region." I took "entire region" to mean the entire Colorado Plateau. Since you claim to be looking for evidence in photographs, you obviously meant something much smaller and more local.

Regardless, the mechanism in that paper explains what you're seeing. The Grand Canyon area was lifted with very little deformation by magma beneath the crust. So, to try again to narrow down exactly what question I'm answering, do you think that the Grand Canyon wasn't uplifted at all? Was it uplifted by some Flood mechanism that no other natural mechanism can account for?

So far, this argument looks like "that's flat and I don't think it should be." I pointed you to a paper that says, "that's flat and here's one way that could have happened." That doesn't have to be the answer that you're looking for, but I'd prefer to stop having to guess at what you are looking for.

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?

Hopefully not all at once, because that's what starts a Gish gallop. After you agree (if you ever do) that there's a plausible mechanism for the Grand Canyon, we should first check to make sure that the next canyon shares details with the Grand Canyon that you think it does. I'm getting the impression that we're all assuming that our understandings of even modern details about the Grand Canyon are shared and they're not. I'd like to see a list of premises as detailed and literal as possible, but that might not be practical. Instead, when you refine an old question or ask a new one, please write it in such a way that it can be understood literally and without assumptions.

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng is taking a break from me, and I don't want to interrup you, but I reall that he mentioned the 'canyon' effect in Mt St Helens. Of course, that was in soft ash and the flood -channels were quicker (and straighter) than the grand Canyon. And of course the 'slump' effect in both was somewhat the same except that it could take mere days at Mt St. Helens but millions of years at the Canyon.

But I was going say that the floods there were from the higher ground of the mountains. The same with most river - sources. From mountains and hills. The mountains are formed by tectonic plates moving and pushing against another landmass and pushing up mountains. or sometime it can rise up over it causing faulting, which can also be caused by one land mass parting from another. I get the off deja vu feeling that all global geology has to be explained down to the last detail or there is something 'unexplained' and therefore a gap for God, or the Flood at least. Perhaps I'll check where the grand canyon river originates.

[TRANSPONDER]

There we go. How ever did atheist apologetics manage before the internet? Oh..that's right...we didn't.

"Colorado River flows 1,450 miles from its headwaters atop Poudre Pass in Rocky Mountain National Park to the Gulf of California in Mexico."

The rocky mountains are relatively new as a geographical feature and the flat lands did not feature the Colorado river until they appeared and the river began to cut through the plain on the way to the sea. I suppose we'll then get protests about that all being too quick (Not compared the the 2 years or less of the Flood) and then questioning the dating of the various strata.

Or Otseng might put his hands up and say 'Ok, the Grand canyon does not really make a case for the Biblical Flood'.

[otseng]

I have to ask how a Flood accounts for tilted strata when the earth was only a couple of thousand years old.
...
And while you are explaining all those features before you can imply that both scenarios are equally likely, you can explain where all the water went afterwards.

There are flood theories proposed to explain the Great Unconformity. I'll present that and address your other questions when I explain the FM. But, in the meantime, the focus is on how SG explains the strata pattern.

The point being, why the god of the Bible?

If the Bible is authoritative, then the God described in the Bible would be what Christians should worship. So, the question then is why should the Bible be considered authoritative, which is what we're trying to address in this thread. We've gotten into several arguments why the Bible should be considered authoritative. And we'll continue to discuss that after the flood discussion.

At the same time, someone tried to put in a neat little plug for the Bible referring the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem and saying the Bible reported it accurately.

I'll let readers decide for themselves on who reported it accurately.

Understanding the awe inspiring creative process involved in the formation of Galaxies, is a communion with the Living Mind of Creation which no book or movie could ever hope to replicate.

I do believe nature proclaims God's existence. But, as to how to have a relationship with God, I don't see how it can show that.

It can only be direct revelation from The Father. Oral tradition involves a third-party medium and appears to be primarily for those who cannot or will not establish for themselves a relationship of direct revelation.

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?

Therein, there is no single item [Biblical study, philosophy, math, science, history, arts, religion etc] which cannot be useful in the continuing journey into all truth, but these are not singular methodologies in themselves which will help anyone actually establish a direct relationship with The Mind.

We obviously have different ways to have a relationship with God as expressed through all the religions. Which one is the correct one? I'm asking this rhetorically because this can lead to another huge topic. But, the point is without some objective criteria of what is the correct way to have a relationship, then there's no way to determine if a way to have a relationship with God is right.

Problematic to Christianity is the belief that the bible alone IS equal to "Establishing and maintaining a relationship between the individual and The Father"

Yes, the Bible is a guide for belief, but there is another side of practice of belief. Having a relationship with God involves more than just mental assent to the Bible, but also prayer and other disciplines.

That is not what I am arguing otseng.

You said: "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."

Are you referring to the Bible with the above? If so, then what I'm countering is the Bible is not as what you portray it to be.

It is my understanding [correct me if I am misunderstanding] that you do not consider the bible to be the word of The Father?

I personally believe the Bible is the word of God.

The evidence I have is that no Christian has ever been able to back up that claim.

That's not considered evidence to back up your claim.

As for backing up the claim the Bible should be considered authoritative, that's what I've been discussing in this entire thread. Currently, we are addressing the claim made in the Bible about a global flood. At the end of this thread, I'll summarize all the arguments on why the Bible should be considered authoritative.

My assumption here is that you've been given the idea that the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon area is much more uniform than it actually is, but again, what do you mean by "practically no erosion?"

As compared to the erosion that occurred after all the layers have been deposited.

what flat plane and what are "all the sediments" that I am looking for?

I think we'll need to focus on this so we can understand each other before we get too detailed.

What we see in the exposed strata is two-dimensional. Each stratum is parallel with each other. But what that means is each layer represents a flat surface plane. It's like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other. What is proposed in SG is a vast area underwater has accumulated sediments at pretty much the same rate at each spot across a large region. For millions of years it does this to form a layer (to form a sheet of paper). There are possible times of erosion to remove layers. The effect of this erosion is to remove the sediments at the same depth across the entire area (to remove a sheet of paper). If this erosion occurred, where did that sediment go (the sheet of paper that was removed)? What mechanism could erode it so every spot has same amount of sediments removed so that it resulted in a flat plane?

[Difflugia]

My assumption here is that you've been given the idea that the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon area is much more uniform than it actually is, but again, what do you mean by "practically no erosion?"

As compared to the erosion that occurred after all the layers have been deposited.

I'm asking what, to you, "practically no erosion" means because that statement is false in any way I can reasonably think to interpret it.

From "Paleozoic vertebrate paleontology of Grand Canyon National Park: research history, resources and potential" (starting on p. 105 of this publication that I linked in an earlier post; quote is on p. 109):

The Surprise Canyon Formation was originally divided into a lower unit consisting of fluvial clastics and an upper marine unit composed of siltstones and limestones (Billingsley and Beus, 1985). Subsequent studies indicated the presence of three units: a lower fluvial chert pebble conglomerate interbedded with coarse- to fine grained redbrown sandstone and siltstone mainly of terrestrial origin; a middle marine unit of grey-yellow or reddish-brown, coarsely crystalline, thin-bedded limestone separated from the lower unit by an erosional unconformity; and an upper marine unit of reddish-brown, calcareous siltstone, with minor limestone.

p. 121:

The Surprise Canyon Formation is latest Mississippian in age (~325 Ma) and is exposed throughout Grand Canyon as isolated lenses filling old erosional valleys, caves, and karst collapse structures in the top of the Redwall Limestone (Billingsley and Beus, 1985; Beus, 1986).

p. 123

The Hermit Formation, often referred to as the Hermit Shale, is early Permian in age (~280 Ma), and forms a soft, deep red slope near the top of Grand Canyon.

...

The Hermit Formation lies directly above the Supai Group, filling erosional channels cut into the top of the Esplanade Sandstone, and forming an extensive deep red slope throughout the canyon.

Does your idea of "practically none" allow for these? That's not a rhetorical question. I don't know what you mean.

what flat plane and what are "all the sediments" that I am looking for?

I think we'll need to focus on this so we can understand each other before we get too detailed.

What we see in the exposed strata is two-dimensional. Each stratum is parallel with each other. But what that means is each layer represents a flat surface plane. It's like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other. What is proposed in SG is a vast area underwater has accumulated sediments at pretty much the same rate at each spot across a large region. For millions of years it does this to form a layer (to form a sheet of paper). There are possible times of erosion to remove layers. The effect of this erosion is to remove the sediments at the same depth across the entire area (to remove a sheet of paper). If this erosion occurred, where did that sediment go (the sheet of paper that was removed)?

Probably a combination of the surface soil of the Great Plains and into the ocean off one of the coasts. If, as I suspect, this is a rhetorical question based on the assumption that the sediment is "missing" in a way that geology can't account for, then the assumption is without merit.

"Mapping the global depth to bedrock for land surface modeling" includes a world map that is topographical based on the depth of bedrock. The soil on top is a combination of erosion sediment and volcanic ash. Note that in the United States, the thickest soils are just outside the areas we're talking about. I suspect that's not a coincidence. Note also that since the erosions you're asking about include sedimentary rock layers above them, then the sediments themselves are obviously old enough to be included in sedimentary rock elsewhere.

NOAA's "Total Sediment Thickness of the World's Oceans and Marginal Seas" shows that the sediment layers off the east coast of the Americas and west coast of Africa are over five miles thick in places. The west coast of the Americas isn't that deep because, remember, it's an active subduction zone. At least some of the sediment you're looking for has undoubtedly been returned to the mantle.

What mechanism could erode it so every spot has same amount of sediments removed so that it resulted in a flat plane?

The premise behind this question is false, at least literally, which is why I asked you to avoid hyperbole and rhetorical questions.

From "Late Oligocene–early Miocene Grand Canyon: A Canadian connection?":

An early Miocene paleocanyon floor may transect the entire length of Grand Canyon, midway between the rim and the river. The feature is represented by a ~5-km-wide terrace that is incised by the deep and narrow Inner Gorge. The terrace transects hundreds of meters of tilted stratigraphy as it crosses the Kaibab Upwarp, a major Laramide anticline in eastern Grand Canyon (Dickinson, 2013). It is offset by Pliocene and younger normal faults.

This is evidence of a canyon that eroded before what we currently call the Grand Canyon because there are faults that appeared after that surface was eroded, but before the current Canyon was cut. The earlier canyon was obviously not a flat plane, so the Grand Canyon wasn't incised into a flat plane.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to ask how a Flood accounts for tilted strata when the earth was only a couple of thousand years old.
...
And while you are explaining all those features before you can imply that both scenarios are equally likely, you can explain where all the water went afterwards.

There are flood theories proposed to explain the Great Unconformity. I'll present that and address your other questions when I explain the FM. But, in the meantime, the focus is on how SG explains the strata pattern.

The point being, why the god of the Bible?

If the Bible is authoritative, then the God described in the Bible would be what Christians should worship. So, the question then is why should the Bible be considered authoritative, which is what we're trying to address in this thread. We've gotten into several arguments why the Bible should be considered authoritative. And we'll continue to discuss that after the flood discussion.

At the same time, someone tried to put in a neat little plug for the Bible referring the Assyrian attack on Jerusalem and saying the Bible reported it accurately.

I'll let readers decide for themselves on who reported it accurately.

Understanding the awe inspiring creative process involved in the formation of Galaxies, is a communion with the Living Mind of Creation which no book or movie could ever hope to replicate.

I do believe nature proclaims God's existence. But, as to how to have a relationship with God, I don't see how it can show that.

It can only be direct revelation from The Father. Oral tradition involves a third-party medium and appears to be primarily for those who cannot or will not establish for themselves a relationship of direct revelation.

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?

Therein, there is no single item [Biblical study, philosophy, math, science, history, arts, religion etc] which cannot be useful in the continuing journey into all truth, but these are not singular methodologies in themselves which will help anyone actually establish a direct relationship with The Mind.

We obviously have different ways to have a relationship with God as expressed through all the religions. Which one is the correct one? I'm asking this rhetorically because this can lead to another huge topic. But, the point is without some objective criteria of what is the correct way to have a relationship, then there's no way to determine if a way to have a relationship with God is right.

Problematic to Christianity is the belief that the bible alone IS equal to "Establishing and maintaining a relationship between the individual and The Father"

Yes, the Bible is a guide for belief, but there is another side of practice of belief. Having a relationship with God involves more than just mental assent to the Bible, but also prayer and other disciplines.

That is not what I am arguing otseng.

You said: "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."

Are you referring to the Bible with the above? If so, then what I'm countering is the Bible is not as what you portray it to be.

It is my understanding [correct me if I am misunderstanding] that you do not consider the bible to be the word of The Father?

I personally believe the Bible is the word of God.

The evidence I have is that no Christian has ever been able to back up that claim.

That's not considered evidence to back up your claim.

As for backing up the claim the Bible should be considered authoritative, that's what I've been discussing in this entire thread. Currently, we are addressing the claim made in the Bible about a global flood. At the end of this thread, I'll summarize all the arguments on why the Bible should be considered authoritative.

My assumption here is that you've been given the idea that the stratigraphy of the Grand Canyon area is much more uniform than it actually is, but again, what do you mean by "practically no erosion?"

As compared to the erosion that occurred after all the layers have been deposited.

what flat plane and what are "all the sediments" that I am looking for?

I think we'll need to focus on this so we can understand each other before we get too detailed.

What we see in the exposed strata is two-dimensional. Each stratum is parallel with each other. But what that means is each layer represents a flat surface plane. It's like sheets of paper stacked on top of each other. What is proposed in SG is a vast area underwater has accumulated sediments at pretty much the same rate at each spot across a large region. For millions of years it does this to form a layer (to form a sheet of paper). There are possible times of erosion to remove layers. The effect of this erosion is to remove the sediments at the same depth across the entire area (to remove a sheet of paper). If this erosion occurred, where did that sediment go (the sheet of paper that was removed)? What mechanism could erode it so every spot has same amount of sediments removed so that it resulted in a flat plane?

How crafty. You wave away any request to explain how the Flood theory works with the geology we have and demand that the deep time theory explain it as though that's not what we have been doing for the last dozen pages. Tilted strata, erosion, tectonic plates, source of the Colorado river that eroded the canyon over 6 million years in much older rocks. And you have presented nothing at all to support the flood claim or explain the problems with it.

Yes. The Christian answer to 'which God' is the Bible. That's the point. Though these things get so messy I don't blame you for overlooking it. It is Not Creation - theories or ID arguments that prove which god it is but the Bible. So far as I recall, we have debated the resurrection account and the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem and while you argue very well you lose in the end and walk away.

Yes you do sunshine When you claimed that the Assyrian records support the Bible, yes they do in that they agree the event happened and Hezekiah paid tribute and submitted. They agree. But the Bible spins it to look like the tribute and submission was done first, Sennacherib sacking Lascheish is hardly hinted at and it is implied that the Assyrians marched away because God smote them when it make better sense (the only sense really) if Sennacherib smashed Lascheish, invested Libnah and sent deputies to demand surrender from Hezekiah who gave in. That is what agree with the Assyrian records and not the way the Bible spins it and your apparent line that we should prefer the Biblical account over the Assyrian does not stack up no more than the Flood stacks up as regards geology.

Well we shall see what case you can make (remember, I have seen it all before), but so far it's been you putting all the questions and answering none yourself. Oh yes. not to me, but asking what would cause uniform erosion? Erosion. Wind, rain, why should it NOT be uniform? And where the eroded material goes? The make up other strata being washed into seas or lower ground. That's where strata comes from. It's why salt mines from ancient dried up seas are often underground. It's why coal often has to be mined. Land rises and falls, gets covered by water and rises up. That just one reason we know this can't have happened in a year or two of Biblical Flood.

The appeal to personal relationships is pointless. People have 'personal relationships with other gods. That validates nothing other than humans have this god -delusion. Did you say that the Bible is the word of God? Didn't you argue to me that you thought it was the work of humans with their errors but it was reliable enough to tell us about God. Or didn't you say that? You've been arguing in this and other threads why you think the Bible should be authoritative, but all I can recall is denial, evasion and saying you'll explain it all later. The observer will indeed have to make up their own minds.

[Difflugia]

I'd like to make a quick point to anyone else dealing with creationist apologetics: double-check the questions before even bothering to start on the answers. Many (or possibly even most) apologetic arguments are based on faulty premises and too many people take for granted that the questions are valid, especially in domains that they're not experts in.

"How do scientists explain fish not having hearts?"

"If cows didn't evolve until the 1850s, where did the cheese come from to form the moon?"

Especially anything prefaced with "it's a fact that..." or something similar.