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

[Difflugia]

I'm waiting for anyone to give a simple yes or no answer to:

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

No.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's not much going on with the topic anyway

I'm waiting for anyone to give a simple yes or no answer to:

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

No. I don't believe so. I recall saying that erosion and geologic activity, including raising of whole areas of strata with a little bulging or tilting at times, and major faulting, themselves raised above solidified rock when they are ancient and causing mountain ranges to form at the edges of contact, indicated millions and even billions of years of tectonic activity rather than a few thousand years of stasis followed by a global flood with all the strata tilting and mountain -building, by coincidence at the edges of tectonic plates.

[otseng]

I'm waiting for anyone to give a simple yes or no answer to:

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

No.

What pattern do you see?

No. I don't believe so. I recall saying that erosion and geologic activity, including raising of whole areas of strata with a little bulging or tilting at times, and major faulting, themselves raised above solidified rock when they are ancient and causing mountain ranges to form at the edges of contact, indicated millions and even billions of years of tectonic activity rather than a few thousand years of stasis followed by a global flood with all the strata tilting and mountain -building, by coincidence at the edges of tectonic plates.

This is describing SG, not the sedimentary rock pattern itself. Suppose you a Martian and landed at the Grand Canyon and just looked at it, how would you describe the pattern of the rock themselves without explaining how it could've formed?

[Difflugia]

What pattern do you see?

The pattern in the Grand Canyon is multiple series of deposition layers separated by multiple unconformities representing periods of erosion. Though similar patterns do appear in other places on Earth, the pattern certainly doesn't exist everywhere or even in general. Furthermore, even within the regions where the pattern I described does appear, features exist that show evidence of various geological phenomena across many different time periods.

Through the course of the discussion, I've provided you with scientific sources supporting each of these points. Your response each time has been some variation of "except those features." I asked you to provide either a description of or a source that describes the pattern you see in a way that's not vague, not ambiguous, and not hyperbolic. You've completely ignored those requests.

I've provided you with specific examples counter to how I've read your expectations every time. You've repeatedly told me that your expectations are vague enough to enfold my counterexamples, but yet somehow not so vague that geology can't explain them. As I've told other posters before and wouldn't have expected to have to tell you, "lol nope" isn't much of a response. I'll repeat the already repeated request that you've thus far ignored:

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

When you actually used the vagueness of your description as an argument in itself is when I stopped responding. If you want us to understand what you mean by things like "flat," "general pattern," and "around the world," you either need to detail exactly what you mean by those or link to someone else that does. Since it looks to me like you've tried to do the former and failed, please consider doing the latter.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's not much going on with the topic anyway

I'm waiting for anyone to give a simple yes or no answer to:

Do we see a general pattern in the sedimentary rock strata around the world where parallel layers are deposited (with relatively little evidence of any geologic activity) and then after the layers were formed we see massive geologic activity (erosion, faults, mountain building)?

No. I don't believe so. I recall saying that erosion and geologic activity, including raising of whole areas of strata with a little bulging or tilting at times, and major faulting, themselves raised above solidified rock when they are ancient and causing mountain ranges to form at the edges of contact, indicated millions and even billions of years of tectonic activity rather than a few thousand years of stasis followed by a global flood with all the strata tilting and mountain -building, by coincidence at the edges of tectonic plates.

Assuming the Martians understood martian geology they'd say it was millions of years of rock layers cut through by water, again over millions of years, because of the meanders.

[otseng]

What pattern do you see?

The pattern in the Grand Canyon is multiple series of deposition layers separated by multiple unconformities representing periods of erosion. Though similar patterns do appear in other places on Earth, the pattern certainly doesn't exist everywhere or even in general. Furthermore, even within the regions where the pattern I described does appear, features exist that show evidence of various geological phenomena across many different time periods.

Unconformities is a problem for SG, not a support of SG. So, by saying there are many unconformities in the sedimentary strata, it does not give greater weight to SG, but presents more questions.

Unconformities do not have to represent erosion, it can also represent periods of no deposition. It is entirely possible all the unconformities in the Grand Canyon are simply periods of no deposition. But, the problem of unconformities is there's no way to tell the difference, whether it's missing layers because of no deposition or erosion. And in either case, it's not explainable. I do not recall you explaining how to tell the difference, why there could be no deposition, or why or how erosion can result in a layer parallel to the one below it, or if erosion was above water when it occurred.

Further, when one says there is an unconformity, it implies deep time. One assumes deep time is true in order for there to be an unconformity. So, an unconformity cannot be used as support for SG, otherwise it would be circular logic.

Through the course of the discussion, I've provided you with scientific sources supporting each of these points.

Just because it's from a scientific source does not mean it's a fact. Actually, it's more a theory than a fact. But, if we can see the photographic evidence, it is stronger evidence since it is a fact. This is why I've been posting primarily photographic evidence.

Your response each time has been some variation of "except those features." I asked you to provide either a description of or a source that describes the pattern you see in a way that's not vague, not ambiguous, and not hyperbolic. You've completely ignored those requests.

I think the number of questions I've asked that has not been addressed has far outnumbered any I've left unaddressed. Note also I'm only one person that is addressing multiple questions from many people, yet there are many of you to answer my questions.

Please point out all the posts where "Your response each time has been some variation of except those features" and we can address those.

As I've told other posters before and wouldn't have expected to have to tell you, "lol nope" isn't much of a response.

Please point out where I've said "lol nope".

If you want us to understand what you mean by things like "flat," "general pattern," and "around the world," you either need to detail exactly what you mean by those or link to someone else that does.

I've assumed it's common knowledge what these terms mean. If necessary, I can define these terms.

Assuming the Martians understood martian geology they'd say it was millions of years of rock layers cut through by water, again over millions of years, because of the meanders.

The final erosion you speak about is only after all the layers have been deposited. What about while the layers have been deposited? During all those supposed hundreds of millions of years, why was no erosion cutting through layers of rock as you've mentioned?

[TRANSPONDER]

Where is your evidence that no such erosion of older rocks is found? I'm sure I have read that old strata are tiled, raised up eroded (sheared of - for example Archeon strata in the first global glaciation) and new strata laid on top which may (or may not) themselves be tilted and folded and eroded, and yet more strata. Though (to note another argument you made) it doesn't have to happen everywhere and large continental areas may remain relatively flat.

And again, even if this couldn't be explained, why would 'a Global Flood' be the default answer? I'm going to be looking at posting some explanations of why (despite your claims) geology best fits what you call SG theory, and also why the geology does not fit a Flood - scenario, and I hope you'll do better than saying you'll discuss it later or you have already discussed it elsewhere.

[TRANSPONDER]

(wiki)The global flood cannot explain geological formations such as angular unconformities, where sedimentary rocks have been tilted and eroded then more sedimentary layers deposited on top, needing long periods of time for these processes. There is also the time needed for the erosion of valleys in sedimentary rock mountains. In another example, the flood, had it occurred, should also have produced large-scale effects spread throughout the entire world. Erosion should be evenly distributed, yet the levels of erosion in, for example, the Appalachians and the Rocky Mountains differ significantly.[112]

Wiki, ok, but this point crops up - also in talk origins where the contributors know their onions. Differing degrees of erosion when the Appalacians are compared with the Rockies is a problem for Flood geology -theory where the erosion should be uniform according to the theory. Unless the Appalachian rocks are softer. I'll check.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hah! We have to be careful how you read it. The Appalachians are igneous and metamorphic and the Rockies Metamorphic, so the same hard rock (compressed sedimentary rocks) but the Appalachians exposed strata are (softer) sedimentary with 'slivers of old sea bed' that show they were old sea beds raised up. Which is said to be a problem for Flood Geology, unless the raising of mountains at the end of the flood is proposed as the theory. Though the apparently 'soft' folding of the strata in some cases of rock formation is a problem for it being done quickly.

[Difflugia]

Unconformities is a problem for SG, not a support of SG.

What problem do you think they present? You're just making assertions without support and vague ones at that.

So, by saying there are many unconformities in the sedimentary strata, it does not give greater weight to SG, but presents more questions.

Maybe, but your argument so far seems to rely on a lack of unconformities. You've asserted without support that there aren't any (or aren't enough or something) and I've given you sources that discuss multiple unconformities corresponding to different time periods.

Unconformities do not have to represent erosion, it can also represent periods of no deposition. It is entirely possible all the unconformities in the Grand Canyon are simply periods of no deposition. But, the problem of unconformities is there's no way to tell the difference, whether it's missing layers because of no deposition or erosion. And in either case, it's not explainable. I do not recall you explaining how to tell the difference, why there could be no deposition, or why or how erosion can result in a layer parallel to the one below it, or if erosion was above water when it occurred.

This is getting close to a Gish gallop.

Are there many unconformities in the Grand Canyon and all of them defy explanation or is the Great Unconformity the only unconformity at all? One of the documents I linked listed ten different ones. Is ten not very many? Are those not really unconformities? Is your argument that geologists can't explain them or that they're some invented artifact of the data and don't really exist?

If your assertion that there is "relatively little geologic activity" after one time period, but before another, does that mean that there are no features in that span that geologists interpret as geologic activity or does that mean you can explain them away as something else? Those are two completely different claims, so it's kind of important to know what you mean.

So far, the main strength of your argument is that nobody can figure out exactly what it is in order to refute it.

Further, when one says there is an unconformity, it implies deep time. One assumes deep time is true in order for there to be an unconformity. So, an unconformity cannot be used as support for SG, otherwise it would be circular logic.

No, an unconformity is some difference between layers below and layers above regardless of the explanation. The explanation relies on deep time, but the unconformities themselves are just observations. They're facts as you've used the term in this thread.

You've told us that because of a certain property of the Grand Canyon, the Flood was real. The problem I'm addressing now is that the Grand Canyon doesn't have that property even if the Flood happened.

Through the course of the discussion, I've provided you with scientific sources supporting each of these points.

Just because it's from a scientific source does not mean it's a fact. Actually, it's more a theory than a fact.

Is your argument that those sources are invalid or is this a non sequitur?

But, if we can see the photographic evidence, it is stronger evidence since it is a fact. This is why I've been posting primarily photographic evidence.

You've been providing photographs, but using them to support statements that apply to anywhere from hundreds of thousands of square miles to the entire world.

If your argument for the Flood is independent of science, say that now and I'll know that I'm not the intended audience. If it's not, reference the data.

Your response each time has been some variation of "except those features." I asked you to provide either a description of or a source that describes the pattern you see in a way that's not vague, not ambiguous, and not hyperbolic. You've completely ignored those requests.

I think the number of questions I've asked that has not been addressed has far outnumbered any I've left unaddressed. Note also I'm only one person that is addressing multiple questions from many people, yet there are many of you to answer my questions.

I'd suggest that "please explain what your claim actually means" is important to the conversation regardless of what other questions remain unanswered. If your tu quoque is justified and you've asked an unanswered question of similar importance, however, I invite you to repeat it because I missed it.

Please point out all the posts where "Your response each time has been some variation of except those features" and we can address those.

I don't know if this is complete, but I think it's sufficient.

• So, for over a billion years, we have a building up of all the layers, from unknown remote mountains that was able to uniformly deposit layers, with practically no geologic activity occurring during the billion years.

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

  Yes, there are some signs of geologic activity, never claimed there are none. But, my point is there should be plenty of evidence of geologic activity, in particular erosion since that should be going on all the time.

• 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.

  When I say pattern, I'm talking about majority of cases, not all the cases.

• Shouldn't we see faults like this?

  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.
  

  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.

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

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

  I don't see how your example demonstrates your point if we agree if it's recent it's easily explainable. 10-20 MYA would represent the most recent layers of the entire Grand Canyon strata. So, for your example that you gave, from the FM perspective, it would've occurred after the flood.

As I've told other posters before and wouldn't have expected to have to tell you, "lol nope" isn't much of a response.

Please point out where I've said "lol nope".

If you thought I meant literally, I didn't, but didn't expect that to be confusing. I meant it figuratively as you dismissing supported arguments without presenting any support of your own. If you don't think you figuratively did that, either, here is an example:

I presented you with this:

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.

Your entire response was this:

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

Not only did you not actually engage with any of the examples I gave you, but they directly addressed your single-question response. The "old erosional valleys, caves, and karst collapse structures" are buried in 325-million-year-old rock. That's the lower layers. That was in the quote I gave you and you didn't even have to look it up.

If you want us to understand what you mean by things like "flat," "general pattern," and "around the world," you either need to detail exactly what you mean by those or link to someone else that does.

I've assumed it's common knowledge what these terms mean. If necessary, I can define these terms.

Just offer scientific sources that together describe the Grand Canyon in a way that you agree with and think can only be explained by the Flood. If you need to add to the description as part of your argument, add another source.