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]

How could a flood do that unless the geological convulsion and the (postulated) destructive torrent of the Flood caused super erosion in a mere matter of months.

That is, in fact, the argument, though it's "hours" instead of "months." Earlier in this thread, otseng mentioned that he found many of Walt Brown's arguments persuasive. If this is one of them, Walt's description of the formation of the Grand Canyon is here.

If you haven't (I'm not sure exactly how much creationist apologetics you're familiar with), you may also want to read some of the Mount Saint Helens stuff from Answers in Genesis. The idea is that the volcanic ash created distinct strata that were then eroded by running water into canyons. The argument is then, "if these were allowed to compact into rock, evolutionists couldn't tell the difference between them and rocky canyons." Therefore, that must be what happened.

[bluegreenearth]

How could a flood do that unless the geological convulsion and the (postulated) destructive torrent of the Flood caused super erosion in a mere matter of months.

That is, in fact, the argument, though it's "hours" instead of "months." Earlier in this thread, otseng mentioned that he found many of Walt Brown's arguments persuasive. If this is one of them, Walt's description of the formation of the Grand Canyon is here.

If you haven't (I'm not sure exactly how much creationist apologetics you're familiar with), you may also want to read some of the Mount Saint Helens stuff from Answers in Genesis. The idea is that the volcanic ash created distinct strata that were then eroded by running water into canyons. The argument is then, "if these were allowed to compact into rock, evolutionists couldn't tell the difference between them and rocky canyons." Therefore, that must be what happened.

Do you find it suspicious that these creationist arguments are almost never submitted for peer review by the consensus of experts in the field? If they were submitted for peer review but subsequently rejected, do you think it would be helpful for these creationists to publish the justifications those professional and widely respected scientific journals gave them for dismissing their papers for publication? Furthermore, even if they were provided with a justification for having their papers rejected, would that lower your confidence in the creationist belief or would you presume there was a massive conspiracy by the consensus of experts in the field to suppress all supporting evidence for creationist ideas?

[brunumb]

Where did the sediment come from to form successive layers? Why didn't erosion occur while these layers were formed? What caused the erosion to expose the strata only after all these layers were formed?

Erosion of mountains with particles being washed into seas.
Layers building up over eons under water.
Uplifting caused by tectonic movement to produce new mountains.
Erosion resulting in the exposure of strata in the rock.

The briefest of summaries. I'm sure a quick search would provide a more detailed and far better explanation.

[Difflugia]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #242]

I assume you know that you're preaching to the choir, but don't think I should present the material I did without also giving my honest opinion of it. In any case, I answered your questions, but went a little far afield and got a bit ranty, so I put it in Random Ramblings.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to bluegreenearth in post #242]

I assume you know that you're preaching to the choir, but don't think I should present the material I did without also giving my honest opinion of it. In any case, I answered your questions, but went a little far afield and got a bit ranty, so I put it in Random Ramblings.

Actually, I owe you an apology for misinterpreting the language in your post. That is what happens when my ADHD meds wear off too soon.

[TRANSPONDER]

How could a flood do that unless the geological convulsion and the (postulated) destructive torrent of the Flood caused super erosion in a mere matter of months.

That is, in fact, the argument, though it's "hours" instead of "months." Earlier in this thread, otseng mentioned that he found many of Walt Brown's arguments persuasive. If this is one of them, Walt's description of the formation of the Grand Canyon is here.

If you haven't (I'm not sure exactly how much creationist apologetics you're familiar with), you may also want to read some of the Mount Saint Helens stuff from Answers in Genesis. The idea is that the volcanic ash created distinct strata that were then eroded by running water into canyons. The argument is then, "if these were allowed to compact into rock, evolutionists couldn't tell the difference between them and rocky canyons." Therefore, that must be what happened.

The case for the Grand Canyon being evidence of a global flood over some 2 years (according to how I add it up) has been rebutted, not to say debunked. I recall that the meanders is characteristic of erosion over a long time, whereas a flash flood (so to speak) leaves a straight channel, but don't quote me. Mount St Helens has also be rebutted. I have herd enough to know this though I can't produce all the science out of my head. It would have to looked up and the rival arguments considered. Obviously volcanic layers are easy to tell from say sandstone or liimestone though I suppose the Creationist side use those as analogies of how layers could be formed. Of course even if the Creationist model is valid, it only leaves an 'agree to differ' situation, which could of course be presented as controversy that could be taught. Not of course in the areas of expertise but in schools where the 'evilooshunist' theory would be given short shrift.

But it is the dating of the rocks by ...not radiocarbon (which only works on organic material) but argon or some other radioactive decay. We can consider all of this. It was done on my previous board and I know the outcome already.

We should be beware beforehand that cutting and posting beforehand from sites with scientific rebuttals may be prone to dismissal out of hand, and the arguments would probably have to be summarises to as to be readably brief anyway. Shortish explanatory videos might be more entertaining. but video battle leands nowhere and a Rule on my previous haunt and Fane was 'no videos without some kind of case and explanation'.

To anticipate, dating, on top of rebuttal of the Flood -explanation of the geology, would say how old the fossils were, rather than the common misunderstanding that rocks are old because they have fossils in them.

[TRANSPONDER]

Here's a handy rebuttal of the 'Grand Canyon/St Helens argument from Talk origins. Responses to Creationist claims. Normally I prefer to present my own arguments rather than cut and paste, but I am not an expert in anything as the bogstandard apologist has to be able to field apologetics in everything from theological dogma and practice to First Cause arguments, and from what the Bible actually says (One firm apologetics Rule I learned is 'never accept what the Theist says without checking') to archaeology and history. So I have to rater be able to know where to find the answers I don't have to hand. After all, the denfrendors of the faith not infrequently lift their arguments from Creationist websites.

That reminds me of an opponent who was a bit bewildering. On the nativity particularly, he was a stout and clever opponent. But when (in the end) he lost the case he collapsed into repetition, denial and abuse. I was surprised that he never had a come -back. I later realised of course that he'd lifted all his argument from apologetics sites and had no come -back. I at least do try to understand the arguments and see where they fail.

So here it is.. 'Talk Origins'
Claim CH581.1:
Rapid erosion of sediments along the north fork of Toutle River, flowing out of Spirit Lake on Mount St. Helens, carved a canyon like a miniature Grand Canyon, showing that the Grand Canyon could form suddenly.
Source:
Austin, Steven A. 1986. Mt. St. Helens and catastrophism. Impact 157 (July). http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art ... iew&ID=261
Response:
The sediments on Mount St. Helens were unconsolidated volcanic ash, which is easily eroded. The Grand Canyon was carved into harder materials, including well-consolidated sandstone and limestone, hard metamorphosed sediments (the Vishnu schist), plus a touch of relatively recent basalt.

The walls of the Mount St. Helens canyon slope 45 degrees. The walls of the Grand Canyon are vertical in places.

The canyon was not entirely formed suddenly. The canyon along Toutle River has a river continuously contributing to its formation. Another canyon also cited as evidence of catastrophic erosion is Engineer's Canyon, which was formed via water pumped out of Spirit Lake over several days by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The streams flowing down Mount St. Helens flow at a steeper grade than the Colorado River does, allowing greater erosion.

The Grand Canyon (and canyons further up and down the Colorado River) is more than 100,000 times larger than the canyon on Mount St. Helens. The two are not really comparable.

[TRANSPONDER]

Here's a longer cut raising the meanders point I recalled. But maybe Otseng could open a dedicated 'Flood/Ark thread.
Claim CH581:
The Grand Canyon was created suddenly by the retreating waters of Noah's Flood.
Source:
Austin, Steve, 1995. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, CA: Inst. for Creation Research.
Response:
We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.

The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.

Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.

The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.

Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.

Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.

The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.

If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?

There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

[TRANSPONDER]

Here's the one on Radiometric (not radiocarbon (1) dating of rocks. It's a bit sketchy. And I feel a fraud cutting and pasting like this, but it's quick and easy.
Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

(1) It might be good to clarify Radiocarbon dating, often misunderstood. It relates only to organic materials and does not work on rocks nor indeed metal (unless it has uncontaminated in situ organic material contemporary with the metal.) in life the organism, an animal or plant, absorbs carbon (in food, or gas form) and a small amount of that is a radioactive isotope. Carbon 14. At decease, this radiates as usual but does not get replaced. The half life can then rate the decayed carbon and we get an indication of how old the thing is. Obviously on dating Chippendale furniture, we can get the decade by how it looks rather than C14, but on stuff that may be centuries old, or no archaeological context, C14 dating to just fifty years each way is great.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have to crave your -all indulgences and take advantage in posting this and the series is excellent and still relevant as, though some of the old creationist hands are either broke, jailed or banned from the Internet, the same arguments are being recycled.

This one is quite handy as it touches on the idea of rock -formation and whether the geology supports the Flood scenario or not. It's also rather entertaining.