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]

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.

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.

Regarding subduction of the North American plate, even according to SG it is not occurring except for a few spots on the opposite side of the continent.

For the most part, the North American Plate moves in roughly a southwest direction away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at a rate of about 2.3 centimeters (~1 inch) per year. At the same time, the Pacific Plate is moving to the northwest at a speed of between 7 and 11 centimeters (~3-4 inches) a year.

The motion of the plate cannot be driven by subduction as no part of the North American Plate is being subducted, except for a small section comprising part of the Puerto Rico Trench; thus other mechanisms continue to be investigated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Plate

[William]

For example, I could just run this forum based on what I feel God is saying to me at the moment. I can kick someone off the forum for pretty much any reason I want.

No you could not. There are external laws in place to make sure that you cannot do this, at least not without the possibility of incurring penalty.

Besides which, you are suggesting that God is like that and would support your method and that we who witness such a thing would agree with you.

Therefore you argument against what I wrote is a strawman.

As such, I see no point in going off down that path with you.

My argument is that those who believe that the bible is the WOG cannot actually be in a living relationship with the MBC.

Rather, they are in a relationship with a document which is not a living thing and can never give the person the vital relationship with the MBC that they believe they have, through the bible.

It does not and cannot work that way.

[otseng]

For example, I could just run this forum based on what I feel God is saying to me at the moment. I can kick someone off the forum for pretty much any reason I want.

No you could not. There are external laws in place to make sure that you cannot do this, at least not without the possibility of incurring penalty.

Actually, it would be very easy for me to do. It's as simple as pressing a button. There is really nothing to prevent me from doing what I want to do with this forum, esp considering I'm the one who finances this forum and setup the forum.

What external laws are you referring to?

Besides which, you are suggesting that God is like that and would support your method and that we who witness such a thing would agree with you.

God is like what? I'm not saying anything about what God is like now. All I'm talking about is the difference between subjective standard/truth vs objective standard/truth.

If you believe subjective truth is valid, then if my subjective truth is different than your subjective truth, you have no basis to say my subjective truth is wrong. So, I can very well just ban you from the forum and there's no basis for you to say what I did was wrong. Based on my subjective truth, there is nothing wrong.

However, if there are written rules, then it's an objective standard that we all agree to submit to. If I then ban you without following the written rules, then there's a basis for someone to say what I did was wrong.

My argument is that those who believe that the bible is the WOG cannot actually be in a living relationship with the MBC.

There's no need to have a relationship with the MBC if one believes in the God of the Bible. I contend they are different deities.

It does not and cannot work that way.

Just because you state and believe it to be so does not make it an objective truth.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #323]

There are external laws in place to make sure that you cannot do this, at least not without the possibility of incurring penalty.

Actually, it would be very easy for me to do. It's as simple as pressing a button. There is really nothing to prevent me from doing what I want to do with this forum, esp considering I'm the one who finances this forum and setup the forum.

What external laws are you referring to?

The ones that prevent someone from abusing their power. As an owner of an internet forum, I am surprised that you are not aware of this.

Search - "How to sue internet forum owners"

Here is a discussion about the subject. [link]

Checks and balances in and of themselves are necessary aspects of social dynamics, and needn't be confused as being authorities representation of the MBC [aka "God"] and referred to as being "The WOG".
That is why I think your example argument, is straw.

Besides which, you are suggesting that God is like that and would support your method and that we who witness such a thing would agree with you.

God is like what?

Like a personality who would shut someone out, through use or abuse of rules and regulations.

I'm not saying anything about what God is like now. All I'm talking about is the difference between subjective standard/truth vs objective standard/truth.

Your argument is that if I [for example] claimed to be "The Fathers Son" and have an individual relationship with The MBC, that you could 'look in the bible' to 'see if it is true or not'.
And if, in the looking [based on your personal subjective preferences] you interpret that the bible says my words / actions are not in line with the biblical expectation of what a "Fathers Son" would behave 'in the likeness of' then you can pronounce me "guilty of lying".

Isn't that how rules work?

Sometimes, and even often, personal interpretation of rules which pass a faulty judgement upon another, can be appealed by that other, if there is discrepancy found from that other's personal preference perspective. [all is subjective in the 'land' of consciousness.]

Higher courts can then be employed to see if there is any truth to your allegation.

If it is proven that no truth is found in your allegation, then any judgment you made on that, will be quashed - and usually this is also accompanied by penalty, based on the level of grief such accusation has occurred to the one you accused.

Thus - be aware and tread carefully because in a position of ownership and responsibility, that is the best way to proceed.
Indeed, I would say that is exactly why you do not behave in this manner toward those who use your forum.

If you believe subjective truth is valid, then if my subjective truth is different than your subjective truth, you have no basis to say my subjective truth is wrong.

I allow you the right to your subjective truth, and me the right to mine.
When the wheels get wobbly is when one oversteps and accuses someone of actually lying. [as in the scenario of my example above.] or otherwise lies about what someone did.

So, I can very well just ban you from the forum and there's no basis for you to say what I did was wrong.

I think that is clear, considering there is no internal means in which a person with a grievance can further appeal a moderator decision, if in doing so, the collective moderators all agree with the initial moderator decision under appeal.

But - the buck does not have to stop there. That is why I mentioned the external mechanisms available for further Appeal - although it would be more a case of suing for damages against an unfair ruling by the moderator team in general and the site owner in particular.

It is called "The Law". BJ speaks about it;

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

Based on my subjective truth, there is nothing wrong.

Indeed. That is like saying "According to my judgment, I am correct."

However, if there are written rules, then it's an objective standard that we all agree to submit to. If I then ban you without following the written rules, then there's a basis for someone to say what I did was wrong.

Correct. That is why it is important to make sure you - as a Christian - follow the idea that you try to sort out issues privately and come to an agreement without having to take it further.
The forum rules don't reflect that process.

That is 'okay' as we agree to the rules the way they are [even though they do not following BJ's instructions to the letter] but in that, there is room for mistakes to be made and if the first part of the process is done away with, when someone can complain to a moderator - by-passing the requirement to seek out the one who has offended the complainant - the moderator is empowered to make a ruling without consulting anyone else - not even the one who has been complained about.
If the ruling made is for the complainant and against the alleged offender, then the offender is punished through the powers the moderator has been given to do so, and it is up to the now-found-guilty offender to appeal in an effort to clear their name.

My argument is that those who believe that the bible is the WOG cannot actually be in a living relationship with the MBC.

There's no need to have a relationship with the MBC if one believes in the God of the Bible. I contend they are different deities.

Such subjective assertion has to be supported with evidence. What evidence have you brought to the table regarding this?

Rather, they are in a relationship with a document which is not a living thing and can never give the person the vital relationship with the MBC that they believe they have, through the bible.

It does not and cannot work that way.

Just because you state and believe it to be so does not make it an objective truth.

It IS an objective truth. The bible is NOT a Living Document.

[Difflugia]

Shouldn't we see faults like this?

Here is a picture I linked earlier. I copied it to a different server to avoid hotlinking, but I embedded this time. It looks just like your first diagram. There are faults at multiple levels beneath level erosion plains that are then covered by parallel layers, themselves with later faults that in turn bisect lower strata. It's exactly what you're claiming we should expect to see if geology is correct.

Shouldn't we expect some tilting throughout history to occur? If so, it should result in something like below, that is, non-parallel layers.

Look at the above picture. Are you expecting more tilting than that? If so, why?

Or shouldn't we see massive erosion while the layers were being formed and not just after all the layers were formed.

We do. That's what all of the papers I linked are telling you, particularly the parts I quoted. What do you think they mean instead? Do you think that I'm reading them wrong? That they don't apply to what you're asking? That the authors are wrong or lying? Something else?

To be blunt, you're wrong about how the Grand Canyon formed because you're wrong about how it is now.

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.

Yes, the energy does not disappear. My only point is the energy is not solely transferred to heat up the water, but is transferred to other areas as well, including erosion of rock, ejection of water, movement of land mass, etc.

You're fundamentally wrong and I'm not sure how to prove it to you. Maybe Britannica?

Energy is not created or destroyed but merely changes forms, going from potential to kinetic to thermal energy.

The first form is if something is lifted against gravity and stays there. If the water were lifted high into the atmosphere and it somehow all stayed there, that would be a legitimate sink for the energy. If the water came back down, we only have the two other options. As long as something is still moving on a macro scale, that's also a legitimate sink. If the mass stops moving, the friction necessary to stop it converts the motion to heat (motion within the mass itself).

A dropped rock's worth of energy has a whole ocean to get lost in. Where did the dropped ocean's worth of energy go?

We could include the entire Colorado Plateau. It doesn't really matter. The pattern would exist at practically anyplace around the world.

As far as I know, the one single sedimentary formation that's even close to worldwide is the K-T boundary. I've been trying to avoid "prove it" arguments (even if it's made the debate a bit lopsided), but can you share any evidence at all that the stratigraphic pattern of any point in the Grand Canyon is repeated anywhere else in the world?

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?

No, I do not believe it was uplifted. I believe a more reasonable explanation was the sea level was lowered.

That's fine. The important point is that geologists have explained why it's flat.

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

Here's another way to ask it - do we see any canyon formation (or even a river formation) in the lower layers?

Yes.

The search term you're looking for is "paleochannel," sometimes described more specifically as "paleoriver" or "paleocanyon." Old ones are refilled with sandstone. More recent ones are filled with subsurface gravel. Most of the ones that Grand Canyon geologists are interested in occurred after the uplift responsible for the Canyon, but this publication that I keep linking was written by paleontologists. They're interested in older formations because they're looking at fossils that are often found in sediment in ancient riverbeds.

I can't tell if you're actually reading any of the papers I link, but that's where the evidence is presented. The kind of detail you're looking for isn't interesting to most people, so it doesn't end up in popular sources. From "Breccia-Pipe and Geologic Map of the Southwestern Part of the Hualapai Indian Reservation and Vicinity, Arizona" (link to PDF), emphasis mine:

The Music Mountain Formation on the western Hualapai Plateau represents sediments deposited in a silt- to sand-dominated floodplain environment with scattered channel gravel bars or lenses. The floodplain was confined within the walls of an older paleocanyon, but the sediments are typical of sedimentary sequences and structures common in meandering river environments. The coarser, lighter colored sands and associated gravel lenses represent channel floor deposition, whereas the darker reddish silts and clays are sandbar, overbank, swale-fill, and slack- water deposits. Gravel clast compositions at the Milkweed Canyon type section average 22% granite, 23% quartzite, 46% schist and gneiss, 1% Paleozoic limestones, 6% chert, and 2% foreign volcanic rocks. A few red mudstone rip-up clasts, derived penecontemporaneously from the finer sediments interbedded with the gravel, are mixed in with the exotic clasts. The best stratigraphic sections have been preserved within partially re-excavated reaches of incised paleochannels that are 1-1.5 km wide and are capped by Miocene volcanic rocks.

That's an ancient riverbed inside of an ancient canyon that was filled in sometime before about 20 million years ago.

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.

Note all the layers that have been formed was under water.

Yes.

So, when they were eroded, they were also underwater.

No. The layers were laid down underwater, but they're not continuous. There were multiple periods of submersion during which the layers were laid down, separated by erosion plains created during dry periods. Those are the "erosion unconformities" mentioned in the papers I linked.

So, the present day coasts as we see it now did not exist when the layers were eroded. Also, the erosion from the layers resulted in a flat surface plane. What mechanism can achieve that?

First, the shallow seas that covered the western part of North America were shallow enough to be affected by sea level changes prior to the Laramide uplift responsible for the Rocky Mountains. Second, the erosion surfaces aren't in "flat surface plane[s]" on the scale that you seem to be asserting.

Since I keep linking papers that disconfirm what you're saying, but you keep repeating the claims anyway, I think it's your turn. Can you give us a source that affirms the claim you're making?

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.

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.

Definitely not without coincidence and I believe more easily explained by the FM.

As you keep repeating, the "FM" isn't what we're discussing right now, but "SG." You asked where the sediments are, as though they had no place to go. There they are.

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.

I'm not intending for any of my questions to be hyperbolic or rhetorical. When I refer to "same amount of sediments" or a "flat plane", it's not meant to mean exact same amount of sediments or perfectly flat plane. But since we see parallel layers, they must form a relatively flat plane. Also they are not rhetorical questions because I will be answering the questions I've posed when I present the FM.

The layers are as flat as the floor of a series of shallow seas covering the area with intervening periods of erosion, which is what the papers I've linked say. Are you claiming that it's flatter than that? If you are, do you have a source that shows why those papers are wrong?

Can you provide a visual so we can see what it is referring to?

The paper I quoted from included one: "Figure 5" on page 7. The larger section from which I quoted ("Early Miocene proto-Grand Canyon?") explains the significance of the photograph. If you already saw it when you read the paper and you mean other than that one, then no, I don't.

I'm not asking what is the theory on strata formation. I'm asking something very specific about the strata, that is the pattern exhibited by the strata. Again, the general pattern is parallel layers (which indicate little geologic activity during the formation of each layer) and then massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited.

I keep telling you (and supporting) that that's not the pattern, though. The pattern is a repeated sequence of deposition followed by erosion, which is what you're claiming we should see if geology were true. We do. If you're going to keep insisting otherwise, you need to start supporting that.

At this point, your premises seem false, rendering your conclusions invalid. If you have a source affirming that there isn't a pattern of erosion surfaces in between depositional periods, please share it.

The make up other strata being washed into seas or lower ground.

Yes, it would go to lower ground. But, all the layers are flat. What lower ground is there?

The lower ground completely surrounding the Colorado Plateau, like the Great Basin.

Regarding subduction of the North American plate, even according to SG it is not occurring except for a few spots on the opposite side of the continent.

You're reading that wrong. The North American Plate isn't being subducted because it's the one on top. The Pacific Plate is the one currently subducting under the North American Plate following the near-complete subduction disappearance of the Farallon Plate that occurred during the time period corresponding to the sedimentation you're looking for.

[bluegreenearth]

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

Shouldn't we see faults like this?

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


The pattern in the stratigraphy on either side of the fault lines depicted in your diagram are identical and indicate lateral (i.e. strike/slip faulting) movement instead of vertical movement. There is no reason to expect lateral movement between large blocks of stratified sedimentary layers being actively deposited in a shallow sea that was situated on top of a subsided but stable portion of the North American tectonic plate. At the time, this portion of the North American tectonic plate was a relatively safe distance to the East from the boundary which was slowly colliding with the Farallon tectonic plate to the West:


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

Rather, we see mostly faults like this, that only occur after all the layers were formed.

No. Again, the pattern of the stratigraphy illustrated in your diagram is identical on both sides of the fault line indicating lateral movement. The strike/slip fault in your diagram is, to my knowledge, not observed in the area of the Grand Canyon. However, other types of geologic faults are observed:

Shouldn't we expect some tilting throughout history to occur? If so, it should result in something like below, that is, non-parallel layers.

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

Or shouldn't we see massive erosion while the layers were being formed and not just after all the layers were formed. A pattern for that could be something like:

As previously explained, it is reasonable to expect sediment deposition into the shallow sea to have remained almost continuous for many millions of years. Nevertheless, there are various types of unconformities identified in the Grand Canyon stratigraphy:

No, I do not believe it was uplifted. I believe a more reasonable explanation was the sea level was lowered.

So, is that broad hump in the stratigraphic layers of the Colorado Plateau in which the Grand Canyon resides and the reverse faulting evidenced by vertically displaced stratigraphy just a coincidence?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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.

Regarding subduction of the North American plate, even according to SG it is not occurring except for a few spots on the opposite side of the continent.

For the most part, the North American Plate moves in roughly a southwest direction away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at a rate of about 2.3 centimeters (~1 inch) per year. At the same time, the Pacific Plate is moving to the northwest at a speed of between 7 and 11 centimeters (~3-4 inches) a year.

The motion of the plate cannot be driven by subduction as no part of the North American Plate is being subducted, except for a small section comprising part of the Puerto Rico Trench; thus other mechanisms continue to be investigated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Plate

I'd have to research further but what pops into my head is that your comments here refer to tectonic plate movements at the present , which is to say a handful of million years old, and which threw up the Rockies and Andes thus allowing the Colorado river (an others) to cut through whatever lower levels there were. Those earlier sedimentary levels I would guess are ancient levels tend or a hundred million years old from the time they were eroded flat or raised up by under crust forces to their present position. I'm still having to request that you explain how the Flood scenario accounts for this, the tilted strata and cut off and new levels deposited and how the canyon could be meandering if it was carved out of rock in a matter of months.

Don't you think we've delivered on explanations enough and it's now your turn?

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

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.

Regarding subduction of the North American plate, even according to SG it is not occurring except for a few spots on the opposite side of the continent.

For the most part, the North American Plate moves in roughly a southwest direction away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at a rate of about 2.3 centimeters (~1 inch) per year. At the same time, the Pacific Plate is moving to the northwest at a speed of between 7 and 11 centimeters (~3-4 inches) a year.

The motion of the plate cannot be driven by subduction as no part of the North American Plate is being subducted, except for a small section comprising part of the Puerto Rico Trench; thus other mechanisms continue to be investigated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Plate

I'd have to research further, but what pops into my head is that your comments here refer to tectonic plate movements at the present , which is to say a handful of million years old (the Grand Canyon is supposed to be a mere 6 million years old, or in geological terms, last week), and which threw up the Rockies and Andes thus allowing the Colorado river (and others) to cut through whatever lower levels there were. Those earlier sedimentary levels I would guess are ancient levels ten or a hundred million years old from the time they were eroded flat or raised up from under sea by under crust forces to their present position. I'm still having to request that you explain how the Flood scenario accounts for this, the tilted strata and cut off and new levels deposited and how the canyon could be meandering if it was carved out of rock in a matter of months. Don't you think we've delivered on explanations enough and it's now your turn?

[JoeyKnothead]

Any y'all ever see a gully? The Grand Canyon's just a big, old one of em.

Or, Paul Bunyon, or God - one of em, was tired and dragged their giant axe behind em.

Which of these scenarios comports with reality?

[otseng]

What external laws are you referring to?

The ones that prevent someone from abusing their power. As an owner of an internet forum, I am surprised that you are not aware of this.

Search - "How to sue internet forum owners"

It is not up to me to search for the laws. Please provide a direct link to the laws that you are referring to.

Here is a discussion about the subject. [link]

How does what someone else say on another forum have any jurisdiction on my forum?

Like a personality who would shut someone out, through use or abuse of rules and regulations.

God clearly laid out the laws in the Bible and the consequences. If someone sins, there are consequences to it. Likewise, the rules are clearly laid out on this forum and the consequences. There is no arbitrariness to what the rules are and the process of banishment. The rules are objective and not subjective to anyone's whims.

Your argument is that if I [for example] claimed to be "The Fathers Son" and have an individual relationship with The MBC, that you could 'look in the bible' to 'see if it is true or not'.
And if, in the looking [based on your personal subjective preferences] you interpret that the bible says my words / actions are not in line with the biblical expectation of what a "Fathers Son" would behave 'in the likeness of' then you can pronounce me "guilty of lying".

In John 14:6, it says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

So, according to the Bible, there is no way to the Father except through Jesus Christ. If you claim to be able to go to the Father without Jesus Christ, then it would be contrary to what the Bible says.

Sometimes, and even often, personal interpretation of rules which pass a faulty judgement upon another, can be appealed by that other, if there is discrepancy found from that other's personal preference perspective. [all is subjective in the 'land' of consciousness.]

If it's just subjective truth, then it's not objectively true, so it doesn't have to apply to me or anyone else.

Higher courts can then be employed to see if there is any truth to your allegation.

What higher courts are you referring to? For Christians, the highest objective truth would be the Bible. Are you suggesting there's a higher objective truth than the Bible?

If it is proven that no truth is found in your allegation, then any judgment you made on that, will be quashed - and usually this is also accompanied by penalty, based on the level of grief such accusation has occurred to the one you accused.

Only if it can be compared against a source of objective truth. So, for example, if I violate the published rules and process here on this forum, then it can be objectively proved that I am in the wrong. If I simply banned you or anyone else that did not violate any rules, then I would've also broken the rules. But, if someone did violate the rules, gave them a warning, then gave a final warning, then banned them, I would be in compliance with the rules.

Thus - be aware and tread carefully because in a position of ownership and responsibility, that is the best way to proceed.
Indeed, I would say that is exactly why you do not behave in this manner toward those who use your forum.

It doesn't really matter what you personally believe how I run the forum if it's just your subjective opinion. The only standard that can really be used to judge how I run the forum is based on the written rules that we all have agreed to abide by.

I allow you the right to your subjective truth, and me the right to mine.

Of course, you can believe anything you want.

When the wheels get wobbly is when one oversteps and accuses someone of actually lying. [as in the scenario of my example above.] or otherwise lies about what someone did.

If someone violates the rules, then it's most likely they will get a warning. It's as simple as that.

I think that is clear, considering there is no internal means in which a person with a grievance can further appeal a moderator decision, if in doing so, the collective moderators all agree with the initial moderator decision under appeal.

As stated under the rules, there is a process to appeal a warning. To suggest there should be a different process would only be based on your subjective standard.

But - the buck does not have to stop there. That is why I mentioned the external mechanisms available for further Appeal - although it would be more a case of suing for damages against an unfair ruling by the moderator team in general and the site owner in particular.

Financial damages? Are you paying any money for posting here? You're using this forum on my own dime.
Emotional damages? This is a debating forum. This is not a counseling forum.

It is called "The Law". BJ speaks about it;

Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison. Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

I see no relevance of this passage to giving you a warning for violation of the rules. If anything, it might apply to the reporter of your post and only if he was the target of your post.

Based on my subjective truth, there is nothing wrong.

Indeed. That is like saying "According to my judgment, I am correct."

Exactly. Subjective truth is only valid for an individual, it is not universally valid.

Correct. That is why it is important to make sure you - as a Christian - follow the idea that you try to sort out issues privately and come to an agreement without having to take it further.
The forum rules don't reflect that process.

Exactly, the forum rules don't reflect that process. So, you can't appeal to how the forum rules should be.

it is up to the now-found-guilty offender to appeal in an effort to clear their name.

The best way to clear your name is simply to acknowledge your errors and apologize rather than threaten to sue the forum. The best example of this is Joey. Like how many times has he violated the rules while he's been here? But, because he has consistently acknowledged and apologized, he remains one of the longest standing members here.

There's no need to have a relationship with the MBC if one believes in the God of the Bible. I contend they are different deities.

Such subjective assertion has to be supported with evidence. What evidence have you brought to the table regarding this?

As I stated, in John 14:6, it says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."

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

It IS an objective truth. The bible is NOT a Living Document.

Sure, I don't think anyone is claiming the Bible is a living document.