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]

And to pick up another point you mentioned, yes of course these layers that once were sea beds have been raised up.

What is the mechanism to raise these layers up? If you say a force from below pushing these layers up, then why would it still be completely flat? What force would lift a vast section straight up so that everything remains parallel? For example, looking at the Grand Canyon, if it was all underwater at one point, and the entire Grand Canyon was raised up above thousands of feet above sea level, how did the entire Grand Canyon go straight up without any signs of deformation in the strata?

p.s To quote from Talk origins again,
Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.

Radiometric dating is also interesting and a huge topic in itself. We can cover that after explaining the strata pattern.

I recall one photo otseng posted showing strata layers. But it also showed the tilted strata with one corner sheared off flat (indicating ancient and long time geological processes and erosion) as had been argued in a diagram I recall was posted here.

Yes, occurrences like these can be seen, but they are rare. If SG is true, then should we not see things like this all the time in the rock strata?

From the inside looking out, one has to believe that the bible is inerrant IF one also has to believe that the bible is the word of god.

No, it's not necessary. I've already argued against it in much of this thread. I ask you to read through the thread and to respond to one of my previous arguments and counter them.

Seriously, if not the Dunning-Kruger effect, what else could explain the lack of intellectual humility and almost arrogant confidence implied by your poorly informed objections to the principles of geology which are rigorously and routinely tested by experts in the field? I am not asking this question rhetorically as an ad hominem attack either. I am genuinely perplexed by the attitude you appear to be exhibiting in this regard, and I would like to understand it better. I'm both puzzled and concerned because you seem to realize that you lack the prerequisite knowledge and capabilities in the field of geology, yet you express a disproportionate amount of confidence in your objections to the explanations provided by the expert geologists who have the necessary prerequisite knowledge and capabilities in the field. Please explain to me how you are justifying your confidence in those objections given your lack of qualifications and capabilities in the field of geology?

An ad hom is when you want to discuss about the poster instead of the topic. This is descriptive of your post above and it is a fallacious argument.

I do not believe answering the questions should be so difficult. As everyone should be aware, I ask these questions because the FM will be able to answer all of the questions I've been posing. And I'm giving you guys a chance to answer them first. If answers are not given by anybody, then I will consider the questions unanswerable by SG.

[TRANSPONDER]

And to pick up another point you mentioned, yes of course these layers that once were sea beds have been raised up.

What is the mechanism to raise these layers up? If you say a force from below pushing these layers up, then why would it still be completely flat? What force would lift a vast section straight up so that everything remains parallel? For example, looking at the Grand Canyon, if it was all underwater at one point, and the entire Grand Canyon was raised up above thousands of feet above sea level, how did the entire Grand Canyon go straight up without any signs of deformation in the strata?

p.s To quote from Talk origins again,
Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.

Radiometric dating is also interesting and a huge topic in itself. We can cover that after explaining the strata pattern.

I recall one photo otseng posted showing strata layers. But it also showed the tilted strata with one corner sheared off flat (indicating ancient and long time geological processes and erosion) as had been argued in a diagram I recall was posted here.

Yes, occurrences like these can be seen, but they are rare. If SG is true, then should we not see things like this all the time in the rock strata?

From the inside looking out, one has to believe that the bible is inerrant IF one also has to believe that the bible is the word of god.

No, it's not necessary. I've already argued against it in much of this thread. I ask you to read through the thread and to respond to one of my previous arguments and counter them.

Seriously, if not the Dunning-Kruger effect, what else could explain the lack of intellectual humility and almost arrogant confidence implied by your poorly informed objections to the principles of geology which are rigorously and routinely tested by experts in the field? I am not asking this question rhetorically as an ad hominem attack either. I am genuinely perplexed by the attitude you appear to be exhibiting in this regard, and I would like to understand it better. I'm both puzzled and concerned because you seem to realize that you lack the prerequisite knowledge and capabilities in the field of geology, yet you express a disproportionate amount of confidence in your objections to the explanations provided by the expert geologists who have the necessary prerequisite knowledge and capabilities in the field. Please explain to me how you are justifying your confidence in those objections given your lack of qualifications and capabilities in the field of geology?

An ad hom is when you want to discuss about the poster instead of the topic. This is descriptive of your post above and it is a fallacious argument.

I do not believe answering the questions should be so difficult. As everyone should be aware, I ask these questions because the FM will be able to answer all of the questions I've been posing. And I'm giving you guys a chance to answer them first. If answers are not given by anybody, then I will consider the questions unanswerable by SG.

The mechanism for entire continents being raised up is (as I understand it - I am no geology expert) continental plate tectonics and subduct movement of the earth's mantle. That is, entire land areas can raised up and it is not surprising if entire level areas are raised, still more or less level. I also understand that tilting and rolling over and shearing of strata is not at all uncommon. As I mentioned, the grand canyon itself has an example of tilted strata sheared off by erosion and newer strata deposited over the top.

Now in turn I would ask how the Flood -scenario accounts for the tilted strata and newer strata over the top? I can anticipate 'Oh, the flood rose above those present levels and deposited the strata'. But then the water would have has to reduce somewhere in order to leave those flood levels 'thousands of feet' as you said above the present sea -levels. Where did all that water go? Hunt - do not reach for the magic wand.

[bluegreenearth]

An ad hom is when you want to discuss about the poster instead of the topic. This is descriptive of your post above and it is a fallacious argument.

I do not believe answering the questions should be so difficult. As everyone should be aware, I ask these questions because the FM will be able to answer all of the questions I've been posing. And I'm giving you guys a chance to answer them first. If answers are not given by anybody, then I will consider the questions unanswerable by SG.

It is not logically fallacious to identify the necessary prerequisite education when a prerequisite education is a required component of the requested explanation. The answers to your questions include but are not limited to interactions between the principles of plate tectonics, geophysics, sedimentology, surficial processes, geomorphology, stratigraphy, climatology, hydrology, etc. The complex and nuanced answers to your questions can only be found by conducting a comprehensive study of those scientific disciplines. Therefore, it is logically fallacious for you to only accept summarized answers to your questions when more complex and nuanced answers are necessary. It is also logically fallacious for you to presume that the answers provided by the global-flood model are acceptable just because they are more conveniently available to you.

[Difflugia]

I do not believe answering the questions should be so difficult.

OK. I'll bite.

As everyone should be aware, I ask these questions because the FM will be able to answer all of the questions I've been posing.

To the detail that you're expecting scientific answers? Not a chance.

As an aside, whether it's intentional or not, I can't quote the "Global Flood" thread in the standard way (there's no double quote icon), so if any quote links don't work, it's because I'm crafting them myself. For reference, I've quoted statements from that thread that impact on geology. I'm intentionally ignoring for now anything related to the biosphere.

The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today.

The flood probably occurred around 2400 BC. There are several indirect evidences for this, but the number is generally inferred from genealogies from the Bible.

Practically the entire rock strata (especially since the Cambrian layer) were created during the flood, so using one specific layer to point to the flood is meaningless.

We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).

Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.

This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.

The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.

During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.

Actually, practically all the underwater ridges were formed as a result of the crust splitting. So, where you see a mountain range, the crust cracked at that point. As the water gushed out of the cracks, the hydrodynamic forces formed a mountain range.

The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.

Notice that the major mountain ranges of the Americas (Rockies, Andes) run parallel to the western coastline. Why is that? It is consistent with what should happen if the entire land mass was moving westward, then abruptly stopped. Sort of like what happens when a car crashes into a wall. If a car runs into a brick wall, the front of the car would buckle up.

As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.

The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.

I cannot give any exact dates of the flood. It doesn't really matter if it was 2500 BC, 3500 BC, 5000 BC, or 8000 BC. It could be any of these. The point is that it occured quite recently.

...

As the land masses receded and eventually stopped, the land mass buckled, causing the formation of mountains and hills.

For one thing, the mountain range appears to have been formed by horizontal forces, not vertical forces. Another thing is that layers are quite distinct. The layers must have been somewhat "flexible" otherwise the layers would've simply crumbled. Also, the layers must have formed first, then in one point in time, the mountain range must have formed after the layers were formed.

That about sums up that thread, so now your questions:

So, every layer that accumulated was underwater, flat, and extended across a very large area. Each layer is reputedly spanning thousands/millions of years. During this entire time, all the layers were flat. Sediment from some remote mountain erosion was able to be deposited relatively evenly across miles. This is done for each layer. For each successive layer, there is little to no erosion, no tectonic activity, no folding, no uplift, Repeat this for several thousand feet of strata.

If we accept the entire Colorado Plateau as the area in question, "very large" is 130,000 square miles according to Wikipedia. For comparison, the Black Sea is slightly than this at 168,500 square miles and the Mediterranean Sea is 970,000 square miles.

According to NOAA, the sediment layers at the bottom of the black sea and parts of the Mediterranean are over five miles deep. The bottom of the Black Sea and multiple large areas of the Mediterranean are flatter than any comparable land areas.

The oldest sedimentary layer is around 1.25 billion years. 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.

This is wrong. 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. To explain this, the FM would at least need a mechanism for the lowest layers of sediment to become rock, shift, erode, and receive more sedimentary layers while the waters from the Flood were still atop them. Even the weirdest year doesn't explain any of this in a way that deep time does.

Then after all these layers are formed, it is eroded by water activity to form the exposed canyon. I mean, does this even sound reasonable?

I'm not sure that incredulity is persuasive when the alternative explanation is literal magic.

Why this particular sequence of steps? And why is this sequence of steps found everywhere around the world?

This is a lot of handwaving. What "sequence" are you describing? 1.8 billion-year-old schist at the bottom covered by a specific series of alternating deposition and uplift? Something more general, like "sedimentary rock?" What do you mean by "everywhere around the world?" There are several places that had broadly similar histories, but do you know of even one other place that's described with the same pattern of interrupted periods of deposition? The stratigraphic history isn't even uniform within the Colorado Plateau itself. Even looking through titles in the search results suggests to me that "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" is grossly inaccurate. Is the link enough or do I need to curate a short list of papers myself to prove that?

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #281]

From the inside looking out, one has to believe that the bible is inerrant IF one also has to believe that the bible is the word of god.

No, it's not necessary. I've already argued against it in much of this thread. I ask you to read through the thread and to respond to one of my previous arguments and counter them.

I am up to page #24 at present, and picked out the following parts which you wrote that interested me.

By choosing to believe it is.
►In Christian theology, God has revealed himself to man through general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is primarily the revelation of God through nature. And special revelation is primarily through the Bible. There is no need for either of these to be "perfect" in order to point to God.

►But, can Mary still be the mother of Jesus even though she was sinful? I think so. Can the Bible still reveal God, even if it's not perfect? I also think so.

►There is no objective definition of perfection and there is no requirement for perfection.

►It is the underlying message under these facts that the author is trying to convey. I'm not saying facts presented are all false, but contradictions can occur, just like they can occur in a courtroom.

►Well, not even a paper atlas. I was using Apple Maps to get to a destination and it was just plain wrong. It wanted me to drive in the wrong direction in a one-way road. And this was not the only time it has had a mistake. But, I still use the app.

►The Bible is actually quite consistent in the basic message that God created us sinless, mankind has sinned, sin is a barrier to God, God has removed that barrier through Jesus Christ, and we can have a relationship with God through faith in Him.

►Is there anything in the Bible that contradicts this core message?

►The fact of the imperfections and contradictions only proves the writings are not the work of a perfect or omniscient god.

►I also agree the Bible is not the work of a perfect God.

►So, contradictions are to be expected.

►To Christians I'll say, it's OK. It's alright to throw away the belief of inerrancy; everything will still be the same. God is still on the throne and worthy of our trust and allegiance. Jesus is still Savior and Lord. The Holy Spirit still lives in us. The Bible is still authoritative and our rule in faith and practice. We should still keep the law. We should study the scriptures. Jesus rose from the dead. God created the cosmos. The flood was still a literal worldwide flood. Adam and Eve were real people. God's kingdom will be established. Jesus will judge all the nations.

►There's a lot of things that have brought me to the point of rejecting inerrancy. It hasn't been a simple journey and it can't be faulted on "the enemy", whether it be atheists or the devil or the antichrist. But, one thing for sure is it's the result of much study and contemplation. And I'm still on this road. One reason I created this thread is to go deeper on this path by debating others about this.

►Sure, it's possible the flood and Adam and Eve are allegorical. I have no problem with people believing that. Though personally I believe in a literal worldwide flood and a literal first human couple that were supernaturally created.

►I believe the Bible is a work written by humans with God involved through secondary causation and not primary causation. God used fallible people with their skills, intellect, personalities, weaknesses, limited memory to write down things. God did not create the Bible so that it'll be defect free and everything to be factually correct.

►The model I currently view the Bible is like the sun. It has a core, but as you go farther out, it becomes less defined. It is not something that can be defined with clear boundaries. It is not like a rock where you can say this is part of the rock and not part of a rock. Like the sun is central to the solar system, it is central to the Christian faith and gives life and light. But, it is not something to be worshipped like we should not worship the sun.

►We carry our own assumptions and perspective when we read the Bible. But it could be our viewpoints are wrong. For example, we assume God needs to have created a "perfect" book, but what if that assumption is wrong? Or we assume God needs to prove his existence. What if that assumption is wrong?

►Studying the history of the origin of the Bible has also been enlightening and given greater understanding of the context of the books.

►But with all this study, I feel like I'm just scratching the surface.

►There are a few groups to address. The first are Christians. By faith, Christians should accept the Bible is authoritative. The second are skeptics. They do not need to accept the Bible as authoritative. The third are seekers. These accept God exists, but have a problem with accepting the Bible as something they can trust. I'll address this third group in future posts.

►Let's start with the assumption that theism is true. A person believes God exists and it interacts with mankind. Without some sort of written material, how would you know it is like? How would you even know about its characteristics? It would either be someone else told you or you heard from it, But, that would not be very objective. A book would be an objective way to transmit information. So, the best way for God to reveal specifics would be through some sort of book.

►Without a Bible, how would you even know there was an Adam and Eve? Or a worldwide flood? Or even about Jesus for that matter?

►I'm not discounting the possibility of God speaking directly to people. And it certainly does happen. But on what basis can we judge what they say is true?


The way that I process information I receive is to first focus on why the information presented as it did.

Q: Why was the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" asked? Who asked the question? What more does the persona asking the question add to the information that might help me ascertain the answer to my question.

The way one views the bible has everything to do with whether it becomes an act of worship or not.

The way I view the bible is to acknowledge that any one individual can have a relationship with The Father without having to believe a word that is written in the bible, because whether the bible is true, false, or a mix of both is beside the point re that relationship with The Mind behind Creation, which BJ refers to as "The Father".

It is all about what one focuses upon and why they focus upon it, which determines what it is that one is worshiping.

The very idea that a book is a necessary addition to Nature as a means of seeing The Mind must exist and connecting with said Mind, is an act of worship.

I prefer to preface The Mind with Evidence and the idea that creation was done through the processes that Science has shown us.
Fireside storytelling attempts involving first-humans in a paradise and folklore about angels and demons and dragons and talking serpents and floods and fatal bear-attacks on cheeky children and blood sacrifices and other mythological beasties, flies in the face of our actual reality and makes the God of The Great Apes look like something the Greeks and Romans would have thought up, rather than an actual creator Mind of this reality before us, which we call Nature.

So the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" *appears to be asked, because the desire to continue worshiping the bible as 'the word of god' is strong in the one asking the question.

*Note: When using the word 'appears' I am not accusing anyone of actually doing what it appears they are doing. There is still much room for debate...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to otseng in post #281]

From the inside looking out, one has to believe that the bible is inerrant IF one also has to believe that the bible is the word of god.

No, it's not necessary. I've already argued against it in much of this thread. I ask you to read through the thread and to respond to one of my previous arguments and counter them.

I am up to page #24 at present, and picked out the following parts which you wrote that interested me.

By choosing to believe it is.
►In Christian theology, God has revealed himself to man through general revelation and special revelation. General revelation is primarily the revelation of God through nature. And special revelation is primarily through the Bible. There is no need for either of these to be "perfect" in order to point to God.

►But, can Mary still be the mother of Jesus even though she was sinful? I think so. Can the Bible still reveal God, even if it's not perfect? I also think so.

►There is no objective definition of perfection and there is no requirement for perfection.

►It is the underlying message under these facts that the author is trying to convey. I'm not saying facts presented are all false, but contradictions can occur, just like they can occur in a courtroom.

►Well, not even a paper atlas. I was using Apple Maps to get to a destination and it was just plain wrong. It wanted me to drive in the wrong direction in a one-way road. And this was not the only time it has had a mistake. But, I still use the app.

►The Bible is actually quite consistent in the basic message that God created us sinless, mankind has sinned, sin is a barrier to God, God has removed that barrier through Jesus Christ, and we can have a relationship with God through faith in Him.

►Is there anything in the Bible that contradicts this core message?

►The fact of the imperfections and contradictions only proves the writings are not the work of a perfect or omniscient god.

►I also agree the Bible is not the work of a perfect God.

►So, contradictions are to be expected.

►To Christians I'll say, it's OK. It's alright to throw away the belief of inerrancy; everything will still be the same. God is still on the throne and worthy of our trust and allegiance. Jesus is still Savior and Lord. The Holy Spirit still lives in us. The Bible is still authoritative and our rule in faith and practice. We should still keep the law. We should study the scriptures. Jesus rose from the dead. God created the cosmos. The flood was still a literal worldwide flood. Adam and Eve were real people. God's kingdom will be established. Jesus will judge all the nations.

►There's a lot of things that have brought me to the point of rejecting inerrancy. It hasn't been a simple journey and it can't be faulted on "the enemy", whether it be atheists or the devil or the antichrist. But, one thing for sure is it's the result of much study and contemplation. And I'm still on this road. One reason I created this thread is to go deeper on this path by debating others about this.

►Sure, it's possible the flood and Adam and Eve are allegorical. I have no problem with people believing that. Though personally I believe in a literal worldwide flood and a literal first human couple that were supernaturally created.

►I believe the Bible is a work written by humans with God involved through secondary causation and not primary causation. God used fallible people with their skills, intellect, personalities, weaknesses, limited memory to write down things. God did not create the Bible so that it'll be defect free and everything to be factually correct.

►The model I currently view the Bible is like the sun. It has a core, but as you go farther out, it becomes less defined. It is not something that can be defined with clear boundaries. It is not like a rock where you can say this is part of the rock and not part of a rock. Like the sun is central to the solar system, it is central to the Christian faith and gives life and light. But, it is not something to be worshipped like we should not worship the sun.

►We carry our own assumptions and perspective when we read the Bible. But it could be our viewpoints are wrong. For example, we assume God needs to have created a "perfect" book, but what if that assumption is wrong? Or we assume God needs to prove his existence. What if that assumption is wrong?

►Studying the history of the origin of the Bible has also been enlightening and given greater understanding of the context of the books.

►But with all this study, I feel like I'm just scratching the surface.

►There are a few groups to address. The first are Christians. By faith, Christians should accept the Bible is authoritative. The second are skeptics. They do not need to accept the Bible as authoritative. The third are seekers. These accept God exists, but have a problem with accepting the Bible as something they can trust. I'll address this third group in future posts.

►Let's start with the assumption that theism is true. A person believes God exists and it interacts with mankind. Without some sort of written material, how would you know it is like? How would you even know about its characteristics? It would either be someone else told you or you heard from it, But, that would not be very objective. A book would be an objective way to transmit information. So, the best way for God to reveal specifics would be through some sort of book.

►Without a Bible, how would you even know there was an Adam and Eve? Or a worldwide flood? Or even about Jesus for that matter?

►I'm not discounting the possibility of God speaking directly to people. And it certainly does happen. But on what basis can we judge what they say is true?


The way that I process information I receive is to first focus on why the information presented as it did.

Q: Why was the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" asked? Who asked the question? What more does the persona asking the question add to the information that might help me ascertain the answer to my question.

The way one views the bible has everything to do with whether it becomes an act of worship or not.

The way I view the bible is to acknowledge that any one individual can have a relationship with The Father without having to believe a word that is written in the bible, because whether the bible is true, false, or a mix of both is beside the point re that relationship with The Mind behind Creation, which BJ refers to as "The Father".

It is all about what one focuses upon and why they focus upon it, which determines what it is that one is worshiping.

The very idea that a book is a necessary addition to Nature as a means of seeing The Mind must exist and connecting with said Mind, is an act of worship.

I prefer to preface The Mind with Evidence and the idea that creation was done through the processes that Science has shown us.
Fireside storytelling attempts involving first-humans in a paradise and folklore about angels and demons and dragons and talking serpents and floods and fatal bear-attacks on cheeky children and blood sacrifices and other mythological beasties, flies in the face of our actual reality and makes the God of The Great Apes look like something the Greeks and Romans would have thought up, rather than an actual creator Mind of this reality before us, which we call Nature.

So the question "How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?" *appears to be asked, because the desire to continue worshiping the bible as 'the word of god' is strong in the one asking the question.

*Note: When using the word 'appears' I am not accusing anyone of actually doing what it appears they are doing. There is still much room for debate...

Rather nice to get back to the Topic even though it's actually Genesis literalism being defended because having to say 'Genesis is wrong; science is right' is a battle lost for the Bible.

I can appreciate the view that the God thing can work without the insistence on Dogma that doesn't make sense never mind being obviously false. unending sinlessness makes no sense as even Adam sinned and so (thus) did Noah and all of his descendants. Mary's Sinlessness is religious dogma and not sense. Just as Biblical inerrancy is false and either you get bonehead denial or arguing that 'inerrant doesn't actually mean 'without any errors'. Or as you have it, a human work (if "Inspired" by God) but telling us facts about God and Jesus.

I appreciate your journey through your own efforts and not through the arguments of atheists (to whom you would never have listened anyway). Presumably you asked the questions of yourself and perhaps more questions will come. Like why in the name of wonder God had to do the Jesus thing at all. 'God has his reasons' makes no more sense in the end than 'Mary was sinless in some way only God knows'. It's how the proverbial half the atheists ended up atheists.

That'll do, except that I just loved your remark: 'Let's start with the assumption that theism is true'. I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that. And it's hilarious that Theist apologists truly see no problem with that (1). Let's try the assumption it isn't Then every human religion and all their holy books and what they tell us are false, rather than all of them...except One. The core value is intact..if you keep it to the basics - 'believe!' and, starting with 'let's assume it's all true' (at core) never ask why one Should believe.

Oh I know why .. because, understandable inaccuracies, the Bible tells us what's true. Even if it's only the central core claim. No, not God...after all, Jews and Muslims believe in God. No it's Jesus. And what about him? That he taught reform Judaism? That he taught social empathy? No. It is that the Son of Man hath the power to forgive sins and the essential proof is the resurrection. And that is the most Errant part of the Bible, after the Nativities.

P.s Is it the case that spellcheck thinks that sinlessness and inerrancy are not valid words? Or am I doing something wrong?

(1) Damn...I'm going to have to do this... ' What's wrong with that? It's just a rhetorical starting place for a logical argument'. 'But it's an unjustified a priori assumption. So even if your argument was valid it would be based on an invalid assumption'. But you don't know it's invalid.' 'I don't know it isn't'. 'So you can't prove theism isn't true'. 'Actually I can - if evidence counts, but you mean I can't disprove the basic a -prori god -claim'. 'Well, yes.' But the logic is the burden of proof is on the claimant - and the claim is the assumption of a god to begin with, even aside which one.'

'Errrm...' wondering whether to deny logic as mere human rules or deny the 'evidence' (science).

[TRANSPONDER]

An ad hom is when you want to discuss about the poster instead of the topic. This is descriptive of your post above and it is a fallacious argument.

I do not believe answering the questions should be so difficult. As everyone should be aware, I ask these questions because the FM will be able to answer all of the questions I've been posing. And I'm giving you guys a chance to answer them first. If answers are not given by anybody, then I will consider the questions unanswerable by SG.

It is not logically fallacious to identify the necessary prerequisite education when a prerequisite education is a required component of the requested explanation. The answers to your questions include but are not limited to interactions between the principles of plate tectonics, geophysics, sedimentology, surficial processes, geomorphology, stratigraphy, climatology, hydrology, etc. The complex and nuanced answers to your questions can only be found by conducting a comprehensive study of those scientific disciplines. Therefore, it is logically fallacious for you to only accept summarized answers to your questions when more complex and nuanced answers are necessary. It is also logically fallacious for you to presume that the answers provided by the global-flood model are acceptable just because they are more conveniently available to you.

It is easy enough for a Creationist to pose a lot of questions that most people don't know the answers to unless they are experts. However, I noted 'mountains cause by horizontal forces not vertical. Well yes and no, or rather, both. In tectonic plate movements (which is the mechanism for America splitting from Africa) one land mass pushes (horizontally) against another, causing sometimes faults (we know all about those, on land or undersea) or pushing up mountains (vertical).

The point being that the mechanism in both deep time and a flood scenario seem to be the same, except that today while events are often quick (a few days, weeks or months) the tectonic process is so slow we don't see it. So how would these mechanisms speed up to mere days without God's magic wand? That's what we should be asking otseng who is getting away with murder by posing all the 'explain geology to me' questions and never has to explain anything himself. Creationists do the same with evolution, trying to find questions the atheist can't answer, even if the experts can.

[brunumb]

That was an amazing scenario that otseng presented. When one considers the time-frame, the extraordinary forces and the colossal amount of energy involved, it's hard to imagine a home-made wooden boat loaded to the max as a floating zoo possibly surviving. If it was God's plan to send the flood to destroy all living things, then why the need to find all sorts of natural, scientific explanations for what transpired? A miracle is a miracle, and that's the only way one can get all the events in the pseudo-geological version to transpire. As a natural event, no God is necessary and our knowledge of nature tells us that none of the catastrophic events presented as an explanation of the biblical flood are possible.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #286]

'Mary was sinless in some way only God knows'. It's how the proverbial half the atheists ended up atheists.

Oh I don't know...Mary gets a hard time like Eve.

I think if the story were true Mary was perfect for what the god intended her for, and in that, what humans think about 'perfect' is beside the point.

Only God knows why Mary was good enough...even if that one time she did try a bit of pork out of curiosity. I can live with that without resorting to Atheism...

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #286]

'Mary was sinless in some way only God knows'. It's how the proverbial half the atheists ended up atheists.

Oh I don't know...Mary gets a hard time like Eve.

I think if the story were true Mary was perfect for what the god intended her for, and in that, what humans think about 'perfect' is beside the point.

Only God knows why Mary was good enough...even if that one time she did try a bit of pork out of curiosity. I can live with that without resorting to Atheism...

Far be it from me to cast nastushiums at either of the Marys. But of course the end answer of the Theist apologist is 'it may not make sense to any of us, but it makes sense to God'. That is (or will be when the Theist -English dictionary gets onto Google translate) "Just have Faith and ignore Doubt and question". No charge for that.