How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1501

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Fri Oct 21, 2022 8:25 am Much to consider
I need a bit more time to give your response the respect it deserves.

I'm used to picking the low hanging fruit :wave:

It's been a schooling though, so thanks.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1502

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 12:54 pm So when the bible says the universe is a creation, this thread isn't about that? This thread isn't about what the bible says?
Yes, this thread is about what the Bible says, not what "Simulation Theory" says. Again, if you want to argue for that, it belongs in a separate thread.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1503

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #1502]

Does the Bible claim that we exist within a creation?

Yes it does.

Does the Bible say that YHVH created the creation?

Yes it does.

So okay - you don't want to discuss what that means...I understand.

Perhaps we can have that one on one debate once you are finished tying up the loose end of this thread...

:wave:

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1504

Post by otseng »

Astronomers most often use redshift to determine the distance of galaxies.

"Astronomers also use redshift to measure approximate distances to very distant galaxies. The more distant an object, the more it will be redshifted."
https://lco.global/spacebook/light/redshift/

"Astronomers use redshifts to measure how the universe is expanding, and thus to determine the distance to our universe’s most distant (and therefore oldest) objects."
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentia ... -redshift/

But, there's an interesting anomaly with this. Most of the galaxies we measure using the redshift technique shows they are farther than it would take for light to travel for the entire age of the universe.

In other words, if the redshift measurement technique is correct, galaxies must be moving faster than the speed of light.

"Eventually, you'll start viewing galaxies that are so far away that the light from them will be so severely redshifted that they'll appear to approach, reach, and even exceed the speed of light beyond a certain distance."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 5de02172a2
Most of the Universe we can see is already racing away at faster than the speed of light.
https://www.universetoday.com/122768/ho ... han-light/
97% of the galaxies in the observable universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.


So, why do most of the galaxies we observe appear to be moving faster than the speed of light?
If those galaxies are moving away from Earth at nearly the speed of light, you would expect they could only be about 26 billion light-years from Earth when we detected their light of 13 billion years ago. So, those galaxies moved at least an ADDITIONAL 22 billion light-years away in the 13 billion years it took their light to reach us. Is space expanding 1.7 times (or more) the speed of light? I thought the expansion of space itself only exceeded the speed of light during inflation at the very beginnings of the big bang.

This is a really good question, and one that a lot of people – including professional astronomers – have a hard time wrapping their head around.
https://askanastronomer.org/bhc/faq/201 ... han-light/

So, how can cosmologists resolve this? Of course, they add another ad hoc explanation, that the space-time fabric is expanding.

Later, I'll post arguments why I believe the space-time fabric cannot be expanding.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1505

Post by William »

[Replying to otseng in post #1504]
So, how can cosmologists resolve this? Of course, they add another ad hoc explanation, that the space-time fabric is expanding.

Later, I'll post arguments why I believe the space-time fabric cannot be expanding.
What is it that the bible says about this, which can be trusted?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1506

Post by otseng »

William wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:45 pm What is it that the bible says about this, which can be trusted?
Later I'll present an interpretation of the six days of creation that I believe better explains the anomalies that we see.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15182
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 972 times
Been thanked: 1793 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1507

Post by William »

otseng wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 11:02 pm
William wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 12:45 pm What is it that the bible says about this, which can be trusted?
Later I'll present an interpretation of the six days of creation that I believe better explains the anomalies that we see.
Okay.

I myself see no "anomalies" because I view the story through the idea we exist within a simulated reality.
But - as you say - such is for another thread.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1508

Post by otseng »

Before discussing more about the expansion of the space-time fabric, want to discuss what exactly is the space-time fabric?

Image
https://www.sciencephoto.com/media/7627 ... me-artwork
In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime
The fabric of space-time is a conceptual model combining the three dimensions of space with the fourth dimension of time.

Nowadays, when people talk about space-time, they often describe it as resembling a sheet of rubber. This, too, comes from Einstein, who realized as he developed his theory of general relativity that the force of gravity (opens in new tab) was due to curves in the fabric of space-time.

Although we can discuss space-time as being similar to a sheet of rubber, the analogy eventually breaks down. A rubber sheet is two dimensional, while space-time is four dimensional. It's not just warps in space that the sheet represents, but also warps in time.
https://www.livescience.com/space-time.html

This rubber sheet model allows us to visualize how light is bent by gravity due to the curvature of the sheet.
One common way to visualize the geodetic effect is to think of Earth as a bowling ball and spacetime as a trampoline. Earth's gravity warps spacetime the same way a bowling ball weighs down the middle of a trampoline.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... ce-science
According to Einstein's General Relativity Theory,light will be affected in the same way matter is affected by gravity. This is because under this theory, we should think of gravity not in terms of vector like forces, but as a consequence of the "shape" of the universe.
https://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae661.cfm

Image
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... k_hole.jpg

But, though we can model and understand space-time as a "fabric", it does not mean there is actually a "fabric". It is only a mathematical model.
When Einstein concocted his general theory of relativity, one of the great advances was to recognize that space and time were combined into a single entity: spacetime. Another was that the presence of matter and energy curved the very fabric of this spacetime, and that curved spacetime, in turn, dictated how matter moved.

As ubiquitous as pictures of bent sheets or coordinate systems are, they aren't exactly reflective of the reality we inhabit.

But under no circumstances should you conceive of space as though it's a material, physical thing; it isn't. This is only a mathematical structure that we can write down equations to describe: the equations of Einstein's General Relativity. The fact that matter and radiation respond to that curvature in the exact ways that the equations predict validates this theory, but it doesn't mean that space is actually a fabric.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 41bf5f97fc

"The space time fabric is a mathematical abstraction which doesn't exist as such."
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is- ... made-up-of

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1509

Post by otseng »

I had defined natural as "something as part of our 3 dimensional space-time that is empirically detectable". Extranatural is something that is not part of our 3 dimensional space-time or something that is not empirically detectable.

With the idea of the space-time fabric expanding, there are multiple levels of the extranatural being introduced.

One is if our 3-D space fabric is expanding, it must be "expanding" into something. There must be a higher order dimension for it to expand into. There must be 3 higher order dimensions for each of our 3-dimensional space to expand into. So, there must exist at least 6 dimensions total. Of course, these additional dimensions would be extranatural.

With the expansion of our space-time fabric, there would exist parts of the universe that would be beyond any way for us to empirically detect it. This is called the unobservable universe. By its very nature, the unobservable universe is impossible to access. Since the unobservable universe cannot be empirically measured, it would fall under being extranatural.
Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term "universe" to mean "observable universe". This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from the Earth, although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

There are various estimates to the size of the unobservable universe. All of them are massive.
This means the unobservable Universe, assuming there's no topological weirdness, must be at least 23 trillion light years in diameter, and contain a volume of space that's over 15 million times as large as the volume we can observe.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... b0d405df80
at present the entire universe's size is at least 1.5×10^34 light-years—at least 3×10^23 times the radius of the observable universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
Based on what we currently think about inflation, this means that the Universe is at least 10^(10^30) times the size of our observable Universe!
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithaban ... ervable-un

Even to an infinite size.
The size of the whole universe is unknown, and it might be infinite in extent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

So, our natural world (the observable universe) would be vastly smaller than the extranatural world (the unobservable universe).

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20737
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 355 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1510

Post by otseng »

Image
Image of "Pillars of Creation" from Webb telescope.
https://webbtelescope.org/contents/medi ... ?news=true
otseng wrote: Fri Oct 28, 2022 10:00 am Later, I'll post arguments why I believe the space-time fabric cannot be expanding.
Summary of arguments why space-time fabric is not expanding:

1. The space-time fabric is a model. It is not something that actually exists.
otseng wrote: Sat Oct 29, 2022 4:13 pm But, though we can model and understand space-time as a "fabric", it does not mean there is actually a "fabric". It is only a mathematical model.
When Einstein concocted his general theory of relativity, one of the great advances was to recognize that space and time were combined into a single entity: spacetime. Another was that the presence of matter and energy curved the very fabric of this spacetime, and that curved spacetime, in turn, dictated how matter moved.

As ubiquitous as pictures of bent sheets or coordinate systems are, they aren't exactly reflective of the reality we inhabit.

But under no circumstances should you conceive of space as though it's a material, physical thing; it isn't. This is only a mathematical structure that we can write down equations to describe: the equations of Einstein's General Relativity. The fact that matter and radiation respond to that curvature in the exact ways that the equations predict validates this theory, but it doesn't mean that space is actually a fabric.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 41bf5f97fc

"The space time fabric is a mathematical abstraction which doesn't exist as such."
https://socratic.org/questions/what-is- ... made-up-of
2. It introduces more unknowns than it solves.
otseng wrote: Sun Oct 30, 2022 7:46 am One is if our 3-D space fabric is expanding, it must be "expanding" into something. There must be a higher order dimension for it to expand into. There must be 3 higher order dimensions for each of our 3-dimensional space to expand into. So, there must exist at least 6 dimensions total. Of course, these additional dimensions would be extranatural.
What would cause the expansion of our space-time fabric into other dimensions?

Not only is the universe expanding, it is accelerating in expansion. What would cause that?

3. We do not see any artifacts of the space-time fabric expansion.

I believe this is the strongest evidence against the expansion of the space-time fabric.

Unless each point in the universe was expanding at exactly the same rate, then we would see refraction effects when observing distance objects. This is similar to seeing distant objects over a hot desert or a hot highway.

Image

Because light bends when it goes through different temperatures, we do not have a clear image of distant objects. Likewise, if light bends because of space-time fabric distortions, we would not be able to see a clear image of distant objects. But, as the Hubble and Webb telescopes reveal, we do see clear images of the remotest objects.

The only way the expansion of space-time fabric could allow for clear images is that the expansion was perfectly uniform down to the last location of each subatomic particle in the universe and expanding at exactly the same rate with zero deviation. This would be impossible. It would mean information would have to move instantaneously to all points of the universe simultaneously. This information is not only moving faster than light, it would be moving at infinite speed.

Post Reply