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]

If you have nothing to examine (that is you have no evidence), on what basis do you believe language existed 50,000 to 150,000 years ago?

I don't actually know. I am only repeating what I have read about the subject written by people who are experts in the field and whose endeavors it is to try and determine how language evolved.

If you have read this, then it's possible to cite it.

There are numerous theories floating around, some of them relating to how other animals communicate by making sounds. That may have been how humans began communicating and with the growth of intelligence so did the sophistication of oral communication.

OK, please provide your evidence that human language originated from animal sounds.

I am not claiming that is how human language evolved. As I said above, I am only relating a little of what I have read about the subject.

Actually, there is no evidence of language evolving from animals.

"A major stumbling block for the comparative analysis of language evolution is that, so far, there is no evidence for human-like language syntax in any nonhuman species."
https://chomsky.info/20140826/

[otseng]

But, I do believe the earth is on the order of thousands/tens of thousands years old and not on the order of millions/billions of years old. Likewise, I do not believe humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but several orders magnitude less than that.

As for C14-dateable remains, what evidence are you referring to?

The latest Neanderthals are dated to ∼34,000–30,500 BP (∼38,800–35,400 cal BP). They probably coexisted with the first modern humans at ∼36,200–30,200 BP (∼42,500–32,800 cal BP) in the western and central parts of Europe. The earliest direct 14C dates on modern humans in Eurasia are ∼34,950–33,300 BP (∼40,400–37,800 cal BP).

It doesn't significantly impact what I've claimed. I allow humans to have lived tens of thousands of years ago. If you could prove humans live hundreds of thousands of years ago, then it would be more relevant.

Science firmly accepts the validity of Radiocarbon dating for organic material and (e.g) potassium argon dating for mineral remains. One either accepts the science or not.

Well, let's take a look at this...

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products. The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

How does it explain C14 in deposits that are supposedly 300 million years old? It presents an ad hoc explanation by claiming surrounding material is producing C14.

"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment."

[TRANSPONDER]

But, I do believe the earth is on the order of thousands/tens of thousands years old and not on the order of millions/billions of years old. Likewise, I do not believe humans have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, but several orders magnitude less than that.

As for C14-dateable remains, what evidence are you referring to?

The latest Neanderthals are dated to ∼34,000–30,500 BP (∼38,800–35,400 cal BP). They probably coexisted with the first modern humans at ∼36,200–30,200 BP (∼42,500–32,800 cal BP) in the western and central parts of Europe. The earliest direct 14C dates on modern humans in Eurasia are ∼34,950–33,300 BP (∼40,400–37,800 cal BP).

It doesn't significantly impact what I've claimed. I allow humans to have lived tens of thousands of years ago. If you could prove humans live hundreds of thousands of years ago, then it would be more relevant.

Science firmly accepts the validity of Radiocarbon dating for organic material and (e.g) potassium argon dating for mineral remains. One either accepts the science or not.

Well, let's take a look at this...

Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years. Though this result is still too old to fit into any young-earth creationist chronology, it would also seem to represent a problem for the established geologic timescale, as conventional thought holds that coal deposits were largely if not entirely formed during the Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago. Since the halflife of carbon-14 is 5,730 years, any that was present in the coal at the time of formation should have long since decayed to stable daughter products. The presence of 14C in coal therefore is an anomaly that requires explanation.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

How does it explain C14 in deposits that are supposedly 300 million years old? It presents an ad hoc explanation by claiming surrounding material is producing C14.

"The short version: the 14C in coal is probably produced de novo by radioactive decay of the uranium-thorium isotope series that is naturally found in rocks (and which is found in varying concentrations in different rocks, hence the variation in 14C content in different coals). Research is ongoing at this very moment."

Well, 'ad hoc' has some traction there. An anomalous date in Coal deposits is a problem and various suggestions are made as to an answer, requiring further research. I trust that you are not trying the old Creationist ploy of 'this is a problem - so all the science is wrong'.

However the point here is not pointing to various 'problems' in methods of the dating of particular objects, substances or deposits but in showing the human cultures with which hand -axes are associated to be far too old for stone tools to have anything to do with Babel, which means we are just back to ziggurats and pyramids. I trust that you can accept that dating (250 -1200 Ad) is a much bigger problem for your suggestion that Maya temples are related to ziggurats, by any dating that you appear prepared to accept.

[TRANSPONDER]

Just in case some people out there haven't read Genesis and don't get just how it sets out plainly why these mud -brick towers came to be and why God had a problem with it, it's all explained in this entertaining little video, which incidentally also explains just where heaven actually is. Who knew?

[otseng]

Well, 'ad hoc' has some traction there. An anomalous date in Coal deposits is a problem and various suggestions are made as to an answer, requiring further research. I trust that you are not trying the old Creationist ploy of 'this is a problem - so all the science is wrong'.

I'm glad you agree that it has the qualifications of an ad hoc nature.

Where have I said "all the science is wrong"? What I am doing is revealing the inconsistency of claiming whether one "accepts the science or not".

"Science firmly accepts the validity of Radiocarbon dating for organic material and (e.g) potassium argon dating for mineral remains. One either accepts the science or not."

If the science is to be accepted of the validity of C14 dating, then fossil fuel deposits are young. Without adding ad hoc explanations to it, the science clearly confirms a young earth.

So, in actuality, I am the one affirming the science of C14 dating since I have no disagreement with any of the dating, whether it be humans or coal dating to 40,000 BC. Whereas it is the skeptics that disagrees with the dating of C14.

I trust that you can accept that dating (250 -1200 Ad) is a much bigger problem for your suggestion that Maya temples are related to ziggurats, by any dating that you appear prepared to accept.

Sure, I accept that dating. Why would it be a problem? As I stated:

Mesoamerican peoples built pyramids from around 1000 B.C. up until the time of the Spanish conquest in the early 16th century."
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient- ... in-america

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, 'ad hoc' has some traction there. An anomalous date in Coal deposits is a problem and various suggestions are made as to an answer, requiring further research. I trust that you are not trying the old Creationist ploy of 'this is a problem - so all the science is wrong'.

I'm glad you agree that it has the qualifications of an ad hoc nature.

Where have I said "all the science is wrong"? What I am doing is revealing the inconsistency of claiming whether one "accepts the science or not".

"Science firmly accepts the validity of Radiocarbon dating for organic material and (e.g) potassium argon dating for mineral remains. One either accepts the science or not."

If the science is to be accepted of the validity of C14 dating, then fossil fuel deposits are young. Without adding ad hoc explanations to it, the science clearly confirms a young earth.

So, in actuality, I am the one affirming the science of C14 dating since I have no disagreement with any of the dating, whether it be humans or coal dating to 40,000 BC. Whereas it is the skeptics that disagrees with the dating of C14.

I trust that you can accept that dating (250 -1200 Ad) is a much bigger problem for your suggestion that Maya temples are related to ziggurats, by any dating that you appear prepared to accept.

Sure, I accept that dating. Why would it be a problem? As I stated:

Mesoamerican peoples built pyramids from around 1000 B.C. up until the time of the Spanish conquest in the early 16th century."
https://www.history.com/topics/ancient- ... in-america

C14 dating has has its' ups and downs. Coal is particularly open to substance contamination, leading to misleading dates. If science throws up its' hands and says 'we can't rely on it for any dates, even broad ones' I'd have to accept that, but it isn't anywhere near there, especially with other dating methods as a check.

https://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/ev ... dating.php

It certainly is better than trying to use the Bible dating methods. And your effort to use 'ad hoc' explanations as to why particular coal deposits may have given wrong dates - which only means they are hypothetical possibilities to be researched, does not in any way justify your claim that without these particular suggestion for ONE problem, you want to throw all the dating in the bin by craftily suggesting that ad hoc for one particular problem implies ad hoc for everything. That's just dishonest - just as if I said that a few mistakes in the Bible invalidated the whole thing. Even if Genesis was shown mythical that wouldn't in itself invalidate the rest of it Thoughit might call into question God's overseeing of it). Which is a point relevant to the topic.

Finally, where do you get a date for Maya pyramids from about 1,000 BC? The date is actually about 250 AD - just for the earlier platforms even before raised up temples I trust that you aren't going to dismiss all dating and just make up whatever suits you.

[TRANSPONDER]

You may yet have a point on Maya architecture as the preclassic was from about 2,000 .BC to around 300 AD. Your date of 1,000 BC might coincide with the 'monumental buildings' some sources spoke of. But then, there's the problem we get in Egypt - a previous civilisation from the first settlements, developing architecture of a monumental kind - evolved and developed by itself.

I didn't access your site (I tend not to say yes to demands for permission to infect my computer with malware) but it looked like a picture of classic period temples (250 -1200 AD,) which wouldn't help your case. Again, what ziggurat or pyramid -like structures do the (preclassic) Maya have at this 1,000 BC date of yours?

[TRANSPONDER]

p.s I'm still looking but one site 'Pre-classic' says:

"The Early Preclassic period indicates the moment in which the Mayan societies were provided with proper cultural features that distinguish them from other Middle American groups. The societies are already sedentary agricultural villages, by what the ceramics appear for the first time. On the Pacific Coast this period initiates about 1,800 B.C., but in the rest of the Mayan area it is defined from 1,000 or 1,200 B.C.

It is early Middle Preclassic, around 800 BC, when the first complex societies appear in the Maya area, in the form of chiefdoms or headquarters. These settlements show signs of a hierarchical organization, with the presence of a dignitary who enjoys privileges, represented in the first examples of monumental architecture and the presence of imported high-value objects,"

There's a matter of the spread of Meso-American settlement from West to east rather than a landing on the West. But you wouldn't be the first to suggest Mesopotamians migrating across the Pacific bringing monumental architecture and I suppose you could think up some excuses as to why they left it 1,000 years before they started doing ziggurats. It suggests they just started piling stones up as humans to do to make impressive buildings.

There's still the 3 -tier problem. Assuming dispersal of Mesopotamian influence of ziggurats, the 2nd problem is why Babel rather than just the ziggurats we know of? Babel - as I suggested - could just be a made - up Biblical story borrowing the ziggurat of Babylon. And even if one conceded the collapse of a tower of Babel, why would that have to be the Jewish god rather than the Gods of Mesopotamia, or any gods at all?

You have several problems before Babel as per the Bible becomes credible.

[TRANSPONDER]

p.p. s I got quite into the pre -classic and preceramic of Peru and the origins of the Chavin culture or the Olmecs and what preceded the Maya. I've had to revise my view that Maya 'ziggurats' were too late to relate to Mesopotamia. The pre -classic was more monumental that I'd realised.

So I'm going to have to put on my Theist hat here and make the sort of case I might expect otseng to make.

"Look, even going with the historically accepted dates, which could be wrong, we have the origins of monumental buildings at most 3,000BCE through 2,00 to 1800 BCE. That is perfectly in line with influence of ziggurats and pyramids from Mesopotamia and Egypt."

(Trans) "But what about the Chavin culture? (1)It was long before the Ziggurats and their temple was nothing like that!"

"Stop whining, man. Of course, Noah's descendants had spread to China and to Peru as well Their culture was nothing like Mesopotamia - yet. Collapse of Babel and the culture spread to Mesoamerica, Peru, even China. That's when we see imitations of pyramids being built."

(trans) "Not really, they often had three temples on the top with the Mesopotamian Temples didn't and the distribution..you have the Olmecs on the north coast of Yucatan while the proto Maya arrives on the East. It looks like what you'd expect with the rise of indigenous people just building stuff - as you seem to accept the Chavin did."

"What's to stop them arriving from both directions?"

(trans) "But....but the proto Mayas just started off with platforms, just as the Egyptinas did. And the Mesopotamians didn't have ball -parks, and the art looks totally different. "

"You wouldn't expect them to start building ziggurats right away. They'd start with platforms .."

(Trans) "But in Egypt the platforms long predate the supposed time of Babel."

"Nobody is sure of the dates."

(trans) "but...if you don't accept any of the dates..how can you work out anything at all?"

" I told you - stop Whining, man. "

(1) When in Peru I actually visit the Chavin de Huantar temple complex.

[otseng]

C14 dating has has its' ups and downs. Coal is particularly open to substance contamination, leading to misleading dates. If science throws up its' hands and says 'we can't rely on it for any dates, even broad ones' I'd have to accept that, but it isn't anywhere near there, especially with other dating methods as a check.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I am saying we can rely on the dating of C14. It's like the table has turned in which you stated:

Science firmly accepts the validity of Radiocarbon dating for organic material and (e.g) potassium argon dating for mineral remains. One either accepts the science or not.

I accept the dating. But, you do not accept the dating of C14 in fossil fuels. But, rather reject the dating because it conflicts with the assumption of deep time. And in order to make it fit deep time, ad hoc explanations are added.

And your effort to use 'ad hoc' explanations as to why particular coal deposits may have given wrong dates

I'm not the one using ad hoc explanations.

which only means they are hypothetical possibilities to be researched, does not in any way justify your claim that without these particular suggestion for ONE problem, you want to throw all the dating in the bin by craftily suggesting that ad hoc for one particular problem implies ad hoc for everything.

C14 in fossil fuels is not the only evidence of a young earth.

Another evidence is soft tissue remains in dinosaur fossils.

A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

"Tissue fragments from a Tyrannosaurus rex femur are shown at left, when it is flexible and resilient and when stretched (arrow) returns to its original shape. The middle photo shows the bone after it is air dried. The photo at right shows regions of bone showing fibrous character, not normally seen in fossil bone."
https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7285683

Does it even make sense for something 70-million years old to have soft tissue remains? I have things in my kitchen that have hardened solid just after a few years.

it looked like a picture of classic period temples (250 -1200 AD,) which wouldn't help your case. Again, what ziggurat or pyramid -like structures do the (preclassic) Maya have at this 1,000 BC date of yours?

My point about ziggurats around the world is not to present a detailed chronological explanation of how it spread all around the globe (which I doubt anyone could do). But I'm simply presenting a data point where disparate cultures share a common similarity. The question is why would there be similarities? Either it was from a common source or they evolved independently.