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]

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.

I believe this is the Great Unconformity that was briefly discussed here and here. It's a whole other topic in itself. If necessary, we can cover this specifically after discussing the strata pattern.

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?

The pattern I talk about is the massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited and the layers themselves have little record of geologic activity. I'm not talking about a pattern of a single stratum that exists throughout the world. As for evidence of the pattern "little geologic activity while layers were formed, all layers formed, major geologic activity", I've posted some in post 266. I'll have more in my next post.

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

And to confirm, we all agree the sedimentary layers are flat is due to all the layers have been formed under water?

The search term you're looking for is "paleochannel," sometimes described more specifically as "paleoriver" or "paleocanyon." Old ones are refilled with sandstone.

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

For a palaeochannel that is visible on the surface, it's probably not of significance since it's explainable by recent sediments filling in a dried up river bed. If it's a palaeochannel that is embedded in the strata, it's a little harder to explain. Since layers are formed underwater, the land would have to rise so its above the water, then a river would form, then it would have to be lowered to be underwater again for additional layers to be deposited on top of that.

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

Let's go back to your original claim:

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.

My rebuttal is simply the energy in the water also resulted in work, not just heat.

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?

Yes, I agree it'd be a lot of energy. The water that immediately returned to the earth would've flooded and buried the animals and plants and compressed them to form the oil and coal and formed the entire sedimentary strata. As the sea level lowered, the water caused the massive erosion of the sedimentary layers.

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.

What flat sea floors are being referred to?

We see parallel layers in all the sedimentary strata covering vast areas across the world. So, at all of these places, they must've had flat sea floors. Yet, we do not see flat sea floors covering vast areas across the globe now.



Ocean floor topography

The pattern is a repeated sequence of deposition followed by erosion, which is what you're claiming we should see if geology were true.

And the erosion in practically all cases results in a flat layer?

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.

I'm contesting erosion should result in a flat layer.

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.

That's precisely my point. The North American plate stays on top. It is not going under the Pacific plate and being recycled into the earth.

[otseng]

The pattern I talk about is the massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited and the layers themselves have little record of geologic activity. I'm not talking about a pattern of a single stratum that exists throughout the world. As for evidence of the pattern "little geologic activity while layers were formed, all layers formed, major geologic activity", I've posted some in post 266.

It is not only massive erosion in canyons that we see after all the layers were formed. We also see mountain formation after all the layers formed.

Napi Rock in Montana



Segelselskapets Fjord in Greenland






Aktau Mountains in Kazakhstan



Mount Head



Canadian Rockies





Swiss Jura



Patagonia

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Great pictures showing rock strata laid down over millions of years, pushed up in tectonic movements eroded down...how do they do anything but support the standard model of deep -time geology, and - yet again - how do they support the Flood -story?

[William]

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.

I have not claimed that. I can only speak from my subjective experience, and that experience happens to include that methodology. It was biblical Jesus who lead me the way, re the script.

Do you have evidence that I have every made the claims to the contrary?

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.

They are if they are making the claim the the bible is the word of god, because god is alive. The bible is not.

[nobspeople]

Yes. Great pictures showing rock strata laid down over millions of years, pushed up in tectonic movements eroded down...how do they do anything but support the standard model of deep -time geology, and - yet again - how do they support the Flood -story?

Through hopes and wishes.
I wonder if people who report these types of things as 'proof of a world wide flood' even understand erosion, fluid mechanics and geology.
At least, understand it outside the myth of the bible, which was written by long dead men, translated by other long dead men and edited by (depending on the time frame, long dead) men.

No I don't wonder...

[Difflugia]

I believe this is the Great Unconformity that was briefly discussed here and here. It's a whole other topic in itself. If necessary, we can cover this specifically after discussing the strata pattern.

In case you're missing the forest for the trees, the Colorado Plateau was geologically stable for a long time (sedimentary rock under the Great Unconformity), then geologically unstable (sometime between the Great Uncormity and the layers above it), then stable again for a long time (layer deposition and erosion), then unstable for a long time (the uplift of the Plateau and formation of the Grand Canyon), then stable again (the present day). Your argument is that because one of those periods was either too stable (or at least not unstable in the way you imagine it to be), the whole thing is too anomalous to have happened without the Flood. All of the features that you have claimed yourself are necessary for "normal" geology are present in that column, but you've dismissed all of them via special pleading. "How do you explain the absence of these features except where they're present?"

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?

The pattern I talk about is the massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited and the layers themselves have little record of geologic activity.

That pattern doesn't even exist in the Grand Canyon. There's evidence of lots of geologic activity and I've pointed you to descriptions of it.

I'm not talking about a pattern of a single stratum that exists throughout the world. As for evidence of the pattern "little geologic activity while layers were formed, all layers formed, major geologic activity", I've posted some in post 266. I'll have more in my next post.

I would be surprised if there weren't multiple places with broadly similar geology. Why is that anomalous? It might be interesting if all of the canyons you mentioned on different continents showed all of the same erosion plain unconformities as the Grand Canyon and they either date to the same period or (because I know you deny the validity of radiometric dating) show the same kinds of sediment above and below the unconformities. Remember that there are many unconformities in the upper layers of the Grand Canyon. You have neither acknowledged nor refuted that, so I'm not sure if you're including those in your "little record of geologic activity" or are just ignoring them.

I'm also still hazy on your idea of "worldwide." It's obviously absurd if I point out several deserts (Sahara, Mojave, Gobi, Negev) and then claim that the entire world is desert. Does the presence of multiple, discrete deserts fit the same definition of worldwide? Or do you mean something more than that?

Most of the Earth's surface shows geological patterns different from those at the Grand Canyon. The Huron Mountains that I mentioned show a completely different geology, yet were apparently under the same Flood.

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

And to confirm, we all agree the sedimentary layers are flat is due to all the layers have been formed under water?

With the caveat that you've neither confirmed nor denied that there are multiple erosion unconformities representing periods where the land was not underwater, then yes.

For a palaeochannel that is visible on the surface, it's probably not of significance since it's explainable by recent sediments filling in a dried up river bed. If it's a palaeochannel that is embedded in the strata, it's a little harder to explain. Since layers are formed underwater, the land would have to rise so its above the water, then a river would form, then it would have to be lowered to be underwater again for additional layers to be deposited on top of that.

Exactly. That's why I picked the channel I did. The sedimentary layer representing the deposition of river sediment is buried under 10- to 20-million-year-old volcanic rock and only "partially re-excavated." There are areas that are exposed, so they were able to find it, but parts were still buried under volcanic rock and more sedimentary deposition. So the layers of sediment were laid down, had time to turn to rock, were excavated by a river that laid down its own sediment, then was covered by rock from a volcanic eruption, then was then incised by another river cutting another canyon.

One of the funny things about the gravel sediment is that some of it is "reworked" conglomerate, meaning that it's pieces of older rock eroded from somewhere else, then deposited and given time to harden into conglomerate (essentially sandstone, but it includes larger pieces than sand). Some of this conglomerate then was eroded and deposited again by the ancient river. Some of that gravel includes fossils, including things like river-smoothed petrified wood. So we have fossils that were supposed to be because of the Flood having time to be petrified, smoothed out by running water, compacted into rock again, then re-eroded. If this was all within a single year because of the Flood, then the Flood was busy. The search terms are "reworked fossils" and "reworked conglomerate".

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

My rebuttal is simply the energy in the water also resulted in work, not just heat.

Your rebuttal is wrong. Energy that does "work" ends up as either potential energy again or heat. I don't know what else to tell you. Find a physicist you trust and ask her.

What flat sea floors are being referred to?

The floors of the series of shallow seas that covered the Colorado Plateau.

We see parallel layers in all the sedimentary strata covering vast areas across the world.

Again, you're being vague and I'm not even looking it up this time. I'm going to guess that the "vast" areas are smaller than you think they were. I'll pointedly note that my guess has exactly the same amount of support for it that you've given us for your claims.

Find and link source that says the same thing you are, but with footnotes.

So, at all of these places, they must've had flat sea floors. Yet, we do not see flat sea floors covering vast areas across the globe now.

First. the sea level was higher than it is now during much of the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras when much of the sediment was deposited.

Second, we do, subject to your presentation of a source that both confirms the "vast areas" that you're claiming and is less vague about what that means.

And the erosion in practically all cases results in a flat layer?

No, but neither are the unconformities. "Paleochannels," remember? In the absence of some other source or clarification, you seem to just mean "flat except where it's not."

I'm contesting erosion should result in a flat layer.

And I'm contesting that anything is as flat as you seem to think it is. I've given you multiple sources describing ancient geological features all across the Colorado Plateau that are anything but what I would call flat.

Give us a source that says the layers and unconformities in the Grand Canyon area are as flat as you think they are and that explains what exactly "flat" means.

That's precisely my point. The North American plate stays on top. It is not going under the Pacific plate and being recycled into the earth.

Sediment that was deposited into the ocean to the south and west of the Colorado Plateau was. Before modern irrigation took all the water, the Colorado River emptied into the Baja California, where there's a huge river delta that's visible from space. The reason that it goes there instead of further west is because the Rocky Mountains are in the way. The Rocky Mountains are younger than the sediment you were asking about, so nothing prevented them from being dumped right into the subduction zone.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Great pictures showing rock strata laid down over millions of years, pushed up in tectonic movements eroded down...how do they do anything but support the standard model of deep -time geology, and - yet again - how do they support the Flood -story?

Through hopes and wishes.
I wonder if people who report these types of things as 'proof of a world wide flood' even understand erosion, fluid mechanics and geology.
At least, understand it outside the myth of the bible, which was written by long dead men, translated by other long dead men and edited by (depending on the time frame, long dead) men.

No I don't wonder...

Well, I've been avoiding using the atheist neck -pinch but the fact is that to question the geological conclusions about Geology is to do science -denial and there should be no mistake about that. But then it was always implicit in any argument for Genesis and the Flood is always going to be anti -Deep Time and evolution -skeptic.

But it's like I said - atheist apologists have to be able to ague anything from quantum mechanics to Roman dating and animal morphology to Near eastern archaeology, because the Theistic method is to poke holes in science looking something that the atheist can't explain (rather than go to a dedicated website where experts can) and if they can find an Atheist -stumper, play the 'One shot win'. Which murky depths I won't go too deep into but it's always there.

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #330]

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.

If Joey knows that he was in the wrong, he would and does say so. I would expect that if he knows he was not in the wrong, he would also say so.

So with the biblical god, this is also the case yes? If the accuser says you did something wrong, and you knew that you did not do what the accuser claims, the biblical god would not take the side of the accuser and expect me to 'fess up and take responsibility' without first hearing my case.

That is not what Christians are saying that the bible tells us we should all do, is it?

[bluegreenearth]

The pattern I talk about is the massive erosion after all the layers have been deposited and the layers themselves have little record of geologic activity. I'm not talking about a pattern of a single stratum that exists throughout the world. As for evidence of the pattern "little geologic activity while layers were formed, all layers formed, major geologic activity", I've posted some in post 266.

It is not only massive erosion in canyons that we see after all the layers were formed. We also see mountain formation after all the layers formed.

Napi Rock in Montana

Those sedimentary layers were originally deposited horizontally in a shallow sea prior being folded, thrust faulted (i.e. Lewis Overthrust), and eroded during the subsequent mountain building process illustrated below:

Segelselskapets Fjord in Greenland

Again, sedimentary layers were originally deposited in a shallow sea prior to the subsequent mountain building orogeny:

Aktau Mountains in Kazakhstan

These sedimentary layers were originally deposited in a shallow lake which existed in that area during the Paleogene-Neogene after the surrounding mountain range was uplifted during the Cretaceous.

Types of lacustrine deposits:

Mount Head


Canadian Rockies

These sedimentary layers were originally deposited horizontally in a shallow sea before they were folded, faulted, and eroded into the features observed your referenced images:

Swiss Jura

The marine sediments which comprise this sequence of stratigraphy were deposited horizontally in an ocean which existed between the continents of Africa, India, and Eurasia prior to their convergence which uplifted, folded, faulted, and eroded to create the Alpine mountains:

Patagonia

The tectonic evolution of Patagonia is too complex to be accurately described here, but the folded stratigraphy featured in your referenced image is basically explained by the same geologic processes previously described (i.e. horizontal sediment deposition in a marine environment followed by uplift, folding, faulting, and erosion).

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you Those were some great pictures and some great explanation. Of course Flood - apologists have an explanation because I've seen it before - "it all happened just as the Geologists say - but all in a few months". Of course that doesn't work because salt mines and coal seams require dying oceans and millions of years of of years of forests being buried beneath (supposed) flood levels, and riverine canyons being carved out in a meander - shape rather than a straight rush -flood event. In short, a year or two global flood does not explain the geology that we see.