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

[TRANSPONDER]

You did say that but obviously the secular sites you referenced didn't come up with the questions about geology suggesting a Flood has to be the explanation of the geology and you either made up those questions yourself or got them from Creationist sites.

If I copied them from the internet, should be easy to find.

And as I said above your hydroplate theory is Walt Browns, and I'm sure you aren't going to tell us you didn't know that made that up yourself.

Of course it's Walt Brown's theory. I mentioned this in post 113...

When I was a new Christian, the story of the global flood was one of my objections to the Bible. I thought if I can't accept this, what value really is the entire Bible? If it has one major fictitious story in it, what about all the other claims?

A short time later, Walt Brown came to Atlanta and gave a talk. Several of my friends and I from Georgia Tech went to go see it. And he made a really good case for the historicity of a global flood. He backed up his theory with one physical evidence after another. And to this day, I believe his theory is the strongest.

So I'l be considering your post on that hypothesis but how about addressing the problem with the fountain as well as how strata could fold into mountains in just a year or less?

Are you sure you want me to continue to discuss the flood?

I agree that it should be read like witnesses in a courtroom. Which is rather the way we read many historical accounts.

And the Bible should be read the same way.

If you haven't seen my comments that the 4 evangelists are like courtroom witnesses whose testimony should have been declatred unsafe,let alone getting perjury charges, you haven't been paying attention.

Well, your posts are a bit difficult to decipher and I am trying. Can you elaborate on this point?

If you don't believe in an omnipotent God I doubt that you can be called Fundamentalist, but (as an atheists and non -believer, it isn't for me to say.I would suggests rather that your interpretation is Literalist; that is, it means what it says.

I'm not exactly a literalist. That is, I don't always interpret everything literally. I call myself a fundamentalist that is more in line with the original meaning when the fundamentalist movement got started.

A remarkable literary project of the early 20th century, The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth, is soon approaching the 100th anniversary of its completion. The project was conceived and funded by Biola’s founder, Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith.

https://www.biola.edu/blogs/biola-magaz ... ndamentals

It is indeed clear that God cannot do 'anything' by which you mean he can't do everything, but can do some things. That would certainly fit Genesis and how God didn't know what would happen. But I'm sure that you see the implications for prophecy and God's Plan; he was trying to make things happen but He didn't know and neither did Jesus. The implication that God knew nothing of the Jewish war clobbers the prophecy.he didn't know that Judas would betray Jesus and he didn't know that Jesus would actually be executed. Thus the suspicion is that God intended Jesus to succeed and convert or reform Judaism. In other words Jesus is a Failed Messiah.

Your argument doesn't follow.

What do you mean God didn't know about God's plan?
Which Jewish wars are you referring to?
Why do you say God or Jesus didn't know Judas would betray Jesus?
Why do you say God didn't know Jesus would be executed?
Why do you say Jesus is a failed Messiah?

You cannot have ity both ways; the Bible is either written by men in which case it is not Divine, or is written (at least managed), by God, in which case errors are Hod responsibility.

Actually, I'm not arguing the Bible is divine. Where did I say that? All I'm arguing is the Bible should be considered authoritative for Christians.

To argue that our modern view is 'skewed' is dismissive.

Please show why then our modern western perspective on interpreting the Bible is then more correct than the ancient Jewish perspective that was held by the original authors.

Unless you are going to argue metaphor or symbolism, which as I have said, you don't seem to want to do (and that would debunk the Bible if you did as 'metaphorically true' means "Not true at all") what happened either happened or it didn't.

We've already discussed two examples where I argue the Bible is factual - the siege of Jerusalem and a global flood. Neither of these are simply metaphorical or symbolic.

To reiterate the test case that should have Luke and Matthew thrown into the gutter, if not in jail - the nativities, there is no way both of those can be true and arguably,neither of them.

Though above you seem to be trying to use all manner of wriggles to try to argue authority for the Bible while preparing to dismiss any errors.

As I've mentioned many times, I'm certainly willing to discuss challenges to the credibility of the Bible. But, it has to be serious challenges that affect core doctrine or is a significant issue. Like for me, the claim of a global flood is not a small claim. And as I've argued, the empirical evidence does indeed support this.

So I see you (as with another who hath taken the path of rejecting a Bible that doesn't stand up and believing an a non religious creator) of one who has had to shift from belief to sidelining what isn't believable and clutching
onto as much as you can. I've seen believers have to let go of more than that and been left with nothing but their hatred of non -belief.

I see myself as a skeptic. I'm willing to challenge Christian doctrine and even willing to abandon a Christian doctrine, even if it is held by many smarter people than me. If any people have strong evidence and a convincing argument to attack any Christian doctrine, I'm willing to listen. But for minor things that have practially no value (like the details of the nativity), it's of little consequence to me.

I have better things to do than trawl through pages of creationist website material looking for evidence of cut and paste. And I am always suspicious of the other side looking to misdirect me into irrelevant heaps of work.In any case you fessed up that the water fountain was Walt Brown's theory anyway. So you went to a one sided lecture and was persuaded. Now you have seen explanations that debunk all your arguments, either as invalid or based on unknowns. So why not at least concede that the Flood - hypothesis might be wrong as well as right?

I don't mind whether you continue with the Flood or not. I'm happy to leave you wanting to drop it when you ran into trouble. If you do continue, the question posed will stand and I won't entertain more questions until you answer some. The fact is, otseng, mate, you can argue on anything relating to Bible reliability and you can expect an equally tough time.

I may say incidentally, that it shows flawed reasoning and truncated understanding of Bible belief and apologetics if you thought that not taking the flood literally invalidated the reliability of the rest of the Bible. It only raises the question of 'what do we take as literal and what as myth or fabrication?' While having rejected Genesis I was prepared to credit Exodus, but I now put that in the same box as Genesis: essentially mythical.

You were the one to argue that The Bible should be read as witness testimony and I agreed and it was otiose of you to say that you agreed too. I'm sorry if you find my posts hard to read. I find yours off -puttingly over - long, but I don't complain about it. But if you aver that you don't get why I say the witnesses for the Bible should have their testimony declared unsafe at least, you haven't been listening as my arguments on the gospels as even if you disagree, you should understand my point.

I don't much want to get into a discussion of the meaning of 'fundamentalist' and Literalist'. I'll just say a fundamentalist is,to me, someone who interprets their doctrines and dogmas as taken from their Holy Book as a literally reliable work, literal means that what's in it is taken as relating actual events, though as I said, some believers can dismiss some parts of it but claim that other parts are literally true. Indeed, I have been called a Bible literalist as I credit what it says as what it means (obvious metaphor apart).

Where did you say the Bible was divine? I don't recall that I said that you did.I said that it was either written by men or was divine that is God being involved it is His responsibility for errors. I assert that it isn't credible to argue for divine authority where there are serious errors involved. That said you posted:
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 12:26 pm
I came across an interesting video by Tim Mackie about the origin and authority of the Bible. As co-founder of The Bible Project, he has demonstrated more than a little knowledge of the Bible.
"The Bible is both a human book and a divine book. It's a human book it that was written by people."

You approval suggests that you are attempting to argue for a divine authority (if not credibility) for the Bible, while blaming men for any mistakes. This isn't a new apologetic by any means and is not an honest one. If written by fallible humans, it has only as much authority and credibility as what's in it is valid.

I don't care whether the modern perspective on the Bible is as literally factual or something else. Metaphorically true means 'not true at all' in which case the authority/credibility of the Bible is gone. However, you posted thereafter that you consider the Siege of Jerusalem literally true (presumably the Assyrian one, in which case I agree but pointed out the evidence that it was given a polemical spin by the Bible) and you take the Bible as to be factual as read, so it seems that you contradict your own claim that reading the Bible with such a mindset is invalid. And don't pull the 'where did I claim that?'trick as if you weren't putting forward such a claim as a valid one, why make it?

As I've mentioned many times, I'm certainly willing to discuss challenges to the credibility of the Bible. But, it has to be serious challenges that affect core doctrine or is a significant issue. Like for me, the claim of a global flood is not a small claim. And as I've argued, the empirical evidence does indeed support this.

I see myself as a skeptic. I'm willing to challenge Christian doctrine and even willing to abandon a Christian doctrine, even if it is held by many smarter people than me. If any people have strong evidence and a convincing argument to attack any Christian doctrine, I'm willing to listen. But for minor things that have practially no value (like the details of the nativity), it's of little consequence to me.

Generally I don't care about core doctrine. If the events of the Bible aren't true, then Christianity goes down the tube and take the doctrines with it. The Flood in fact is of little value other than as denting the factual credibility of the Bible, and I regard the Nativity as even more significant because it dents the credibility of the Jesus story. Of course the resurrection is the biggest biggie as that does take down the core doctrine if it fails. The significance of the nativity is that it establishes the doubt about the gospels on the legal'clean hands' principle.

I recall that I established serious reasons to doubt the literal truth of the resurrection account. I regard that thread as still continuing. It's up to you whether you want to drop in and try to prop the resurrection - account up.

But your above post was all good. It was phase 2 - no arguing on the evidence but wriggling about how one should argue.

Your argument doesn't follow.

What do you mean God didn't know about God's plan?
Which Jewish wars are you referring to?
Why do you say God or Jesus didn't know Judas would betray Jesus?
Why do you say God didn't know Jesus would be executed?
Why do you say Jesus is a failed Messiah?

If you understood logic you would know that my argument Does follow, even if you disagree with the premises. If God does not know everything He won't know what is going to happen in the future. The outcome of His plan is not known in advance. That should have 'followed' from your point about God not being omnipotent. Thus he wouldn't know that Judas would betray Jesus, he wouldn't know that Jesus would be executed or that the Jewish war would destroy Jerusalem. If all this was not planned in advance it is a valid argument that it wasn't intended and thus a failure of what was intended - to 'redeem Israel'.

It is at least an alternative to present doctrine, IF one accepts you idea that God is not omnipotent (including omniscient). This seems to me obvious enough but maybe it does need explaining. I trust I won't have to do it again.

[otseng]

I have better things to do than trawl through pages of creationist website material looking for evidence of cut and paste.

To get to the point, I have not been cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

And I am always suspicious of the other side looking to misdirect me into irrelevant heaps of work.

I'm more than willing to end the discussion on the flood. It's not me trying to continue discussions on it.

In any case you fessed up that the water fountain was Walt Brown's theory anyway. So you went to a one sided lecture and was persuaded.

We have looked at both SG and the FM in this thread. Each side had a chance to answer the exact same set of questions.

Now you have seen explanations that debunk all your arguments, either as invalid or based on unknowns. So why not at least concede that the Flood - hypothesis might be wrong as well as right?

After the discussion here on the sedimentary strata pattern, I'm now actually even more convinced the FM is better than SG.

I don't mind whether you continue with the Flood or not. I'm happy to leave you wanting to drop it when you ran into trouble.

I'm not the one that dropped out during the flood debate. As a matter of fact, seems like you're the only one left at the end on the SG side that has been posting.

The fact is, otseng, mate, you can argue on anything relating to Bible reliability and you can expect an equally tough time.

Sure thing. If you post serious objections, it will be considered. I ask though that you challenge core doctrines, not ancillary issues.

I may say incidentally, that it shows flawed reasoning and truncated understanding of Bible belief and apologetics if you thought that not taking the flood literally invalidated the reliability of the rest of the Bible. It only raises the question of 'what do we take as literal and what as myth or fabrication?' While having rejected Genesis I was prepared to credit Exodus, but I now put that in the same box as Genesis: essentially mythical.

I only speak for myself. I believe for the Bible to make a claim of a global flood, it would severely weaken the authority of the Bible if that claim was falsified.

I find yours off -puttingly over - long, but I don't complain about it.

Well, yours are not so short either. So, it shouldn't be an issue with either of us.

But if you aver that you don't get why I say the witnesses for the Bible should have their testimony declared unsafe at least, you haven't been listening as my arguments on the gospels as even if you disagree, you should understand my point.

Even this sentence I have difficulty understanding. What do you mean by "unsafe"?

I'll just say a fundamentalist is,to me, someone who interprets their doctrines and dogmas as taken from their Holy Book as a literally reliable work, literal means that what's in it is taken as relating actual events, though as I said, some believers can dismiss some parts of it but claim that other parts are literally true.

Agreed.

I came across an interesting video by Tim Mackie about the origin and authority of the Bible. As co-founder of The Bible Project, he has demonstrated more than a little knowledge of the Bible.[/i]
"The Bible is both a human book and a divine book. It's a human book it that was written by people."

I posted that to show what Tim Mackie said. To be clear, I'm not claiming the Bible is a "divine book" in this thread. Part of the problem is what does it mean for the Bible to be "divine book". I don't think we can get a consensus view of what that would mean.

If written by fallible humans, it has only as much authority and credibility as what's in it is valid.

Sure. But a document can still be considered authoritative, even if it contains errors.

I don't care whether the modern perspective on the Bible is as literally factual or something else. Metaphorically true means 'not true at all' in which case the authority/credibility of the Bible is gone. However, you posted thereafter that you consider the Siege of Jerusalem literally true (presumably the Assyrian one, in which case I agree but pointed out the evidence that it was given a polemical spin by the Bible) and you take the Bible as to be factual as read, so it seems that you contradict your own claim that reading the Bible with such a mindset is invalid. And don't pull the 'where did I claim that?'trick as if you weren't putting forward such a claim as a valid one, why make it?

Sorry, I cannot understand what your point is here. If someone else can understand this, please rephrase what the point is here.

Generally I don't care about core doctrine. If the events of the Bible aren't true, then Christianity goes down the tube and take the doctrines with it.

OK, this is then the root of the problem in our debates between us.

My model of viewing the Bible like I said is like a sun, not a rock. If your view of the Bible is like a rock, then I see your point. So, we will have fundamental differences of what can falsify the Bible.

I recall that I established serious reasons to doubt the literal truth of the resurrection account. I regard that thread as still continuing. It's up to you whether you want to drop in and try to prop the resurrection - account up.

I only have time to participate in a single thread at a time. Feel free to summarize your arguments in that thread and post it here.

If you understood logic you would know that my argument Does follow, even if you disagree with the premises. If God does not know everything He won't know what is going to happen in the future. The outcome of His plan is not known in advance. That should have 'followed' from your point about God not being omnipotent. Thus he wouldn't know that Judas would betray Jesus, he wouldn't know that Jesus would be executed or that the Jewish war would destroy Jerusalem. If all this was not planned in advance it is a valid argument that it wasn't intended and thus a failure of what was intended - to 'redeem Israel'.

Still don't know what you're driving at. Let's go back a step, how does what you're claiming invalidate the authority of the Bible?

[TRANSPONDER]

I have better things to do than trawl through pages of creationist website material looking for evidence of cut and paste.

To get to the point, I have not been cutting and pasting from creationist websites.

And I am always suspicious of the other side looking to misdirect me into irrelevant heaps of work.

I'm more than willing to end the discussion on the flood. It's not me trying to continue discussions on it.

In any case you fessed up that the water fountain was Walt Brown's theory anyway. So you went to a one sided lecture and was persuaded.

We have looked at both SG and the FM in this thread. Each side had a chance to answer the exact same set of questions.

Now you have seen explanations that debunk all your arguments, either as invalid or based on unknowns. So why not at least concede that the Flood - hypothesis might be wrong as well as right?

After the discussion here on the sedimentary strata pattern, I'm now actually even more convinced the FM is better than SG.

I don't mind whether you continue with the Flood or not. I'm happy to leave you wanting to drop it when you ran into trouble.

I'm not the one that dropped out during the flood debate. As a matter of fact, seems like you're the only one left at the end on the SG side that has been posting.

The fact is, otseng, mate, you can argue on anything relating to Bible reliability and you can expect an equally tough time.

Sure thing. If you post serious objections, it will be considered. I ask though that you challenge core doctrines, not ancillary issues.

I may say incidentally, that it shows flawed reasoning and truncated understanding of Bible belief and apologetics if you thought that not taking the flood literally invalidated the reliability of the rest of the Bible. It only raises the question of 'what do we take as literal and what as myth or fabrication?' While having rejected Genesis I was prepared to credit Exodus, but I now put that in the same box as Genesis: essentially mythical.

I only speak for myself. I believe for the Bible to make a claim of a global flood, it would severely weaken the authority of the Bible if that claim was falsified.

I find yours off -puttingly over - long, but I don't complain about it.

Well, yours are not so short either. So, it shouldn't be an issue with either of us.

But if you aver that you don't get why I say the witnesses for the Bible should have their testimony declared unsafe at least, you haven't been listening as my arguments on the gospels as even if you disagree, you should understand my point.

Even this sentence I have difficulty understanding. What do you mean by "unsafe"?

I'll just say a fundamentalist is,to me, someone who interprets their doctrines and dogmas as taken from their Holy Book as a literally reliable work, literal means that what's in it is taken as relating actual events, though as I said, some believers can dismiss some parts of it but claim that other parts are literally true.

Agreed.

I came across an interesting video by Tim Mackie about the origin and authority of the Bible. As co-founder of The Bible Project, he has demonstrated more than a little knowledge of the Bible.[/i]
"The Bible is both a human book and a divine book. It's a human book it that was written by people."

I posted that to show what Tim Mackie said. To be clear, I'm not claiming the Bible is a "divine book" in this thread. Part of the problem is what does it mean for the Bible to be "divine book". I don't think we can get a consensus view of what that would mean.

If written by fallible humans, it has only as much authority and credibility as what's in it is valid.

Sure. But a document can still be considered authoritative, even if it contains errors.

I don't care whether the modern perspective on the Bible is as literally factual or something else. Metaphorically true means 'not true at all' in which case the authority/credibility of the Bible is gone. However, you posted thereafter that you consider the Siege of Jerusalem literally true (presumably the Assyrian one, in which case I agree but pointed out the evidence that it was given a polemical spin by the Bible) and you take the Bible as to be factual as read, so it seems that you contradict your own claim that reading the Bible with such a mindset is invalid. And don't pull the 'where did I claim that?'trick as if you weren't putting forward such a claim as a valid one, why make it?

Sorry, I cannot understand what your point is here. If someone else can understand this, please rephrase what the point is here.

Generally I don't care about core doctrine. If the events of the Bible aren't true, then Christianity goes down the tube and take the doctrines with it.

OK, this is then the root of the problem in our debates between us.

My model of viewing the Bible like I said is like a sun, not a rock. If your view of the Bible is like a rock, then I see your point. So, we will have fundamental differences of what can falsify the Bible.

I recall that I established serious reasons to doubt the literal truth of the resurrection account. I regard that thread as still continuing. It's up to you whether you want to drop in and try to prop the resurrection - account up.

I only have time to participate in a single thread at a time. Feel free to summarize your arguments in that thread and post it here.

If you understood logic you would know that my argument Does follow, even if you disagree with the premises. If God does not know everything He won't know what is going to happen in the future. The outcome of His plan is not known in advance. That should have 'followed' from your point about God not being omnipotent. Thus he wouldn't know that Judas would betray Jesus, he wouldn't know that Jesus would be executed or that the Jewish war would destroy Jerusalem. If all this was not planned in advance it is a valid argument that it wasn't intended and thus a failure of what was intended - to 'redeem Israel'.

Still don't know what you're driving at. Let's go back a step, how does what you're claiming invalidate the authority of the Bible?

I doesn't matter whether you cut and pasted or just used (existing - like the fountain -theory) creationist arguments. You will get nowhere trying to score a cheap point with that.

Your dismissal of the questions (if not rebuttal) of the geology supposedly indicating a Flood will do you no good (assuming an open -minded viewership) when you have not answered the questions, notably about how strata can fold like plastacine in a year or less. Your confused posts about whether you or I want to continue with the Flood (I don't mind either way - but you have to answer a question or two) will do you no good either. If I post serious objections, you will address them? Like folding strata, which you haven't and apparently will not address.

My posts are not short either? "Only as many notes as are needed, sire"

You don't know what 'unsafe testimony" means? I suggest you learn it (if you couldn't work it out) before you appeal to reading the Gospel testimony as law -court witness testimony. In any case, everyone who read and understood the point will be wondering about your failure to know what it means - or so you say.

I agree that a document can be considered 'authoritative' (in this context broadly reliable - especially in terms of recorded events) even if it contains errors. That's why I go for the Biggies, not how many angels there were. The significance is evidenced by your dismissal of the Nativities as not being important. That means (doesn't it? ) that you can't argue for it, so you have to dismiss it as irrelevant. It is very relevant, as it establishes story -fabrication on the part of either Matthew or Luke (and probably both) which is significant in court of law testimony. You should understand that, if indeed, you didn't already - which is why you waved it away. However, the resurrection falls very quickly and if you wave that away, you wave away a central doctrine.

Your metaphor of a 'Rock' is very apposite. So 'message' rather than factual reliability is what matters to you, hey? So tell me, otseng, chum, why were you battling to make the geological evidence support a Flood? I don't even think it important. I'm quite happy to see Genesis as a metaphor of the human condition and establishing the doctrine of Sin. Would you like to admit that the Flood never happened and it is (if I get your 'sun' metaphor correctly), is...metaphorical.

No, I am not going to post on the resurrection here (other than as an aside) because the resurrection -thread is still ongoing. Since I'd say you are done here, as you seem to be trying to score technical points rather than make any valid argument, I invite you to move there and try to support the core doctrine of Christianity. At the moment we seem to have a dearth of Christian voices doing that.

Well, if you want it spelled out in hyphenated syllables (since I believe that everyone else who read it got the point) if God did not know in advance that Jesus would end up crucified, it is valid to argue that it was not what was intended. Since God (arguably) does not intervene, since that would nullify Free Will, then it would make a valid alternative hypothesis that Jesus'mission was God's intent to reform Judaism, redeem Israel (Luke 24.21) and reform the covenant. But it failed as did other initiatives for Israel and Judah, both of which got defeated at times.

Another hypothesis is it was just a messianic attempt that failed and God had nothing to do with it. I can only say that the latter requires less logical entities than a failed plan by God and even less than the convoluted plan to sideline the Jews and transfer God's message to the gentiles. I do hope you won't embarrass yourself by complaining that you still don't get it

[otseng]

I doesn't matter whether you cut and pasted or just used (existing - like the fountain -theory) creationist arguments. You will get nowhere trying to score a cheap point with that.

Right, it actually doesn't matter whether I've cut and pasted (which I have not) or used creationist arguments. However, claiming I "tried to score a cheap point" is a meaningless argument. If you want to refute my arguments with the flood, you'll need to use evidence and rational argumentation instead.

Your dismissal of the questions (if not rebuttal) of the geology supposedly indicating a Flood will do you no good (assuming an open -minded viewership) when you have not answered the questions, notably about how strata can fold like plastacine in a year or less. Your confused posts about whether you or I want to continue with the Flood (I don't mind either way - but you have to answer a question or two) will do you no good either. If I post serious objections, you will address them? Like folding strata, which you haven't and apparently will not address.

OK, I'll take this as you want to continue the discussion about the flood. Do not complain later why I continue to talk about the flood.

The sedimentary strata folding is the result of the horizontal compression of the recently deposited layers. All the strata that was deposited was still wet and pliable and had not been dried and hardened yet. It is easier to account for all the erosion and folding with a muddy strata than a rock solid strata.

Let's take the Monument valley case.



Why would the area erode flat? It is because the only part that got eroded was the wet deposited layers. The floor underneath was the existing rock which was solid, so it experienced less erosion than the recent wet layers deposited on top of it. The existing solid rock was like a bathtub floor and the sediments were deposited on top of this bathtub floor. The plug was pulled (at the Grand Canyon location) and the wet strata eroded away until it reached the bathtub floor. According to SG, the entire strata was solid rock. Why would it erode so the valley floor becomes flat and what mechanism could do that?

We can also look at the case of folding.



In the above image, obviously all the layers were first deposited flat. Then folding occurred. If it was all solid rock, why could such a pattern be produced? The only way is if the rock was pliable. In the FM, the strata would not have solidified yet when the compression occurred to fold the layers. In SG, the layers would've all been solid rock, so how could such folding occur?

You don't know what 'unsafe testimony" means?

Not really. I can't find a definition of it and It doesn't seem to be a term to be widely used. Can you just give your definition of it and we can at least have a starting point on the discussion of it.

I agree that a document can be considered 'authoritative' (in this context broadly reliable - especially in terms of recorded events) even if it contains errors. That's why I go for the Biggies, not how many angels there were.

Very good.

The significance is evidenced by your dismissal of the Nativities as not being important.

Please specify the core doctrine affected by the nativity that you are thinking of.

However, the resurrection falls very quickly and if you wave that away, you wave away a central doctrine.

I've already stated the resurrection is a core doctrine, perhaps the most important doctrine.

So tell me, otseng, chum, why were you battling to make the geological evidence support a Flood?

Because certain people has kept clamoring for me to talk about it.

If I'm not mistaken, I attempted to travel the same road with this interlocutor, and it went nowhere If I recall, this poster stated that the more (s)he investigated this flood claim, the more it looked to be supported with evidence. I then asked for the presented evidence, and also asked that (s)he 'steelman' the already given counter arguments for these given 'evidences'. This is where we left off

Maybe you'll have better luck?

What examples can you present as "evidence and reason" that support either a world wide flood as depicted in Genesis or their creation story?

Another is it is a huge topic and I've spent a long time debating this in A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?. So, it's not like I'm unable to engage in this debate.

Well, this is not my first rodeo either I trust we can at least partially agree that one can streamline their points, the more you argue for the same position? Rather than me sifting through pages of a debate, give me some highlights? And in turn, why the counter arguments to these given highlights do not hold water for you?

But a worldwide flood with animals on a boat for a year? Nada. As for the general creation story, among other problems,

Diagoras has said discussing the flood is not necessary...

Of what relevance is it that Diagoras said it is not necessary to discuss the flood? You made a claim there is evidence for the Biblical creation and flood stories. I am asking you to support your claim.

You responded to "just as the evidence piles up that the Creation and Flood are not true"
with
"Well, of course I would highly disagree with this. IMO, evidence and reason would strongly support both of these."
According to your own rules, unsupported claims may be dismissed. I am asking for you to support your claims for the Creation and Flood as depicted in Genesis. Those claims include all land animals being kept on a boat for a year to allow re-population after a worldwide flood, and a talking serpent as well as contradictory orders of creation.

1. What points of contention remain compelling for you, regarding a claim for a global flood?
2. Why do the given counter arguments leave you unshaken in your current belief?

The reason I ask, and persist, is because logic would guide one to move towards the following... If the Bible is right about a global flood occurring, then the reader can simply move on to the next BIG claim. If the Bible is incorrect about a global flood claim, then the reader can render the Bible untrustworthy. Further, if it should turn out the Bible happens to be wrong about more than one BIG claim, what is the reader to do, by the time (s)he gets to the unfalsifiable claim of a resurrection -- (which is arguably the BIGGEST claim of them all)?

Oliver wrote, "I will eventually get to the creation and the flood. But, I ask everyone to stop repeatedly asking for us to cover these. I will get to it."
Will we have to wait until you translate Proto-Masoretic Hebrew from Second Temple period?

It's my personal belief that I believe in a global flood. I do not claim, nor believe, that belief in a global flood is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative. There are many Christians that do not believe in a global flood and still are saved. But, for myself, if the Bible makes such a large claim of a global flood and it is actually not true, then it makes the Bible more suspect. Judging from how many have clamored for me to debate these, it looks like we all feel the same way.

Yes, you and I agreed many posts ago.... You and I agree that if the flood claim turns out to be false, then the Bible becomes suspect. And rather than sending me a link to a prior debate about (the flood), I would like to know your conclusion/take-away from that debate... Hence, to streamline the process, when you get the chance, please address the following questions below:

1. What points of contention remain most compelling for you, regarding a claim for a global flood?
2. Why do the given counter arguments fail to debunk these points of contention for a global flood claim?

Maybe we can start with one at a time... Give me the best singular piece of evidence, and why it cannot be disputed?

Thank you

It's my personal belief that I believe in a global flood. I do not claim, nor believe, that belief in a global flood is necessary to accept the Bible as authoritative. There are many Christians that do not believe in a global flood and still are saved. But, for myself, if the Bible makes such a large claim of a global flood and it is actually not true, then it makes the Bible more suspect. Judging from how many have clamored for me to debate these, it looks like we all feel the same way.

Yes, you and I agreed many posts ago.... You and I agree that if the flood claim turns out to be false, then the Bible becomes suspect. And rather than sending me a link to a prior debate about (the flood), I would like to know your conclusion/take-away from that debate... Hence, to streamline the process, when you get the chance, please address the following questions below:

1. What points of contention remain most compelling for you, regarding a claim for a global flood?
2. Why do the given counter arguments fail to debunk these points of contention for a global flood claim?

Maybe we can start with one at a time... Give me the best singular piece of evidence, and why it cannot be disputed?

Thank you

I can see we'll have a Particular thread on this and the basic evidence will be (I promise you) Genesis says so. The apologetic will be 'You have to totally disprove the Flood and the Genesis -creation or the claim remains viable. That the Genesis -claim is not a 'given' at the outset and the evidence (Geology, biology) should be examined to see what the conclusion is, will not be the Theistic approach to the matter.

It will me (Prediction)

The evidence supports Genesis
Excuses as to why it apparently doesn't
Appeal to Faith.

Would you like to admit that the Flood never happened and it is (if I get your 'sun' metaphor correctly), is...metaphorical.

What are you talking about? I've spent the past dozens of pages arguing the flood is a literal event.

No, I am not going to post on the resurrection here (other than as an aside) because the resurrection -thread is still ongoing. Since I'd say you are done here, as you seem to be trying to score technical points rather than make any valid argument, I invite you to move there and try to support the core doctrine of Christianity. At the moment we seem to have a dearth of Christian voices doing that.

Just like I've made a summary point of the flood from other threads, I'm asking you to do the same with the resurrection in this thread. If your argument is so persuasive, why the hesitation in posting your argument here?

Well, if you want it spelled out in hyphenated syllables (since I believe that everyone else who read it got the point) if God did not know in advance that Jesus would end up crucified, it is valid to argue that it was not what was intended. Since God (arguably) does not intervene, since that would nullify Free Will, then it would make a valid alternative hypothesis that Jesus'mission was God's intent to reform Judaism, redeem Israel (Luke 24.21) and reform the covenant. But it failed as did other initiatives for Israel and Judah, both of which got defeated at times.
Another hypothesis is it was just a messianic attempt that failed and God had nothing to do with it. I can only say that the latter requires less logical entities than a failed plan by God and even less than the convoluted plan to sideline the Jews and transfer God's message to the gentiles. I do hope you won't embarrass yourself by complaining that you still don't get it

Doubtful anybody else got your point since nobody else rephrased and has posted.

But, again, the fundamental question is what does any of this have to do with the authority of scripture?

[TRANSPONDER]

okay.

otseng posted:

"In the above image, obviously all the layers were first deposited flat. Then folding occurred. If it was all solid rock, why could such a pattern be produced? The only way is if the rock was pliable. In the FM, the strata would not have solidified yet when the compression occurred to fold the layers. In SG, the layers would've all been solid rock, so how could such folding occur?
You don't know what 'unsafe testimony" means?
Not really. I can't find a definition of it and It doesn't seem to be a term to be widely used. Can you just give your definition of it and we can at least have a starting point on the discussion of it.
I agree that a document can be considered 'authoritative' (in this context broadly reliable - especially in terms of recorded events) even if it contains errors. That's why I go for the Biggies, not how many angels there were.
Very good.
The significance is evidenced by your dismissal of the Nativities as not being important.
Please specify the core doctrine affected by the nativity that you are thinking of.
However, the resurrection falls very quickly and if you wave that away, you wave away a central doctrine.
I've already stated the resurrection is a core doctrine, perhaps the most important doctrine.
So tell me, otseng, chum, why were you battling to make the geological evidence support a Flood?
Because certain people has kept clamoring for me to talk about it."

These (and your previous points) were already answered. Deposition whether under water or on land tend (through gravity) to form flat layers, with new layers on top. This happens in plain sight as archaeology find deposition of flat layers in historical contexts from the stone age up to the present day and we can date such occupation -levels. Prehistoric strata is no different.

The problem with the folded strata being soft is that you would need to explain how the pressure underneath (molten basalt) didn't simply burst through the soft layers rather than thrust them up into folded strata and that doesn't account for rolled over and inverted strata; tectonic plate movement does. Plus it takes more than a few thousand years for soft strata to turn into hard metamorphic rock. But millions of years of gradual movement (as in the deep time geology model) does account for how hard rock can appear to fold like putty, given such long and slow processes.

I don't recall that anyone was 'clamouring at you' to validate the Flood, but I could be wrong there. It (as part of Genesis) would come into question as part of the 'inerrancy' argument.

Unsafe testimony is of course, in a legal context a testimony that is not credible under examination. I'll look as I find it hard to believe the definition isn't there somewhere. Taking or treating the gospels as 'eyewitness testimony',means that serious contradictions in the stories undermines the credibility of the 'witness testimony'. That is why the nativities are a test case, and doctrine or dogma is not the point (tough you keep trying to argue that it should be,or the nativities don't matter), though it is an additional point with the resurrection.

[TRANSPONDER]

I had a look for 'unsafe testimony'and It seems you have a point; the term does not come up. This did, and is the most succinct summary of the matter of witness statements (testimony) that does not stand up to scrutiny (what I called 'unsafe')

"So, again, the way to discredit a witness is to bring up prior inconsistent statements that they made. The way to discredit a witness is to call other witness or cross-examine other witnesses and bring up key points about your main witness's testimony.."

So this is the way to relate the accounts of the gospels to witness statements in court. Of course there are many arguments about how the 'testimony' should be regarded, but I always have in mind the 'Jury' (those following the arguments) and it isn't a question of getting the lawyer for the other team to admit that his witness is not to be considered a reliable witness.

[otseng]

Deposition whether under water or on land tend (through gravity) to form flat layers, with new layers on top. This happens in plain sight as archaeology find deposition of flat layers in historical contexts from the stone age up to the present day and we can date such occupation -levels. Prehistoric strata is no different.

Yes, this is seen in the sedimentary strata. But it's circular logic to say flat layers in the strata is evidence layers can be eroded flat.

The point still remains, what mechanism can erode vast areas to be flat and not like river erosion patterns which is what we see now?

The problem with the folded strata being soft is that you would need to explain how the pressure underneath (molten basalt) didn't simply burst through the soft layers rather than thrust them up into folded strata and that doesn't account for rolled over and inverted strata; tectonic plate movement does.

What molten basalt are you referring to? The underlying base rock in the FM is solid rock, not molten.

Plus it takes more than a few thousand years for soft strata to turn into hard metamorphic rock.

Wet concrete dries in the order of days. So, it's doubtful thousands of years would be necessary.

But millions of years of gradual movement (as in the deep time geology model) does account for how hard rock can appear to fold like putty, given such long and slow processes.

That's doubtful. But even if that's true, why would it only happen after all the layers have formed?

I had a look for 'unsafe testimony'and It seems you have a point; the term does not come up.

OK, then another term that is in common usage should be used.

"So, again, the way to discredit a witness is to bring up prior inconsistent statements that they made. The way to discredit a witness is to call other witness or cross-examine other witnesses and bring up key points about your main witness's testimony.."

Perhaps "credible witness" should be used instead?

As for the witnesses in the Bible, trivial points would not discredit them. As you mentioned, it would have to be "key points" that contradict each other.

[JoeyKnothead]

Wet concrete dries in the order of days. So, it's doubtful thousands of years would be necessary.

Not that you're wrong, but...

Drying of concrete depends on various factors such specific mix, slump, heat (or cold), humidity, depth, length, and width.

The concrete in the Hoover dam woulda taken over a century to fully harden to the core were it not for the inclusion of pipework and ice to cool it down faster. On that note, cooling the mud introduces the risk of weakening the structure. But no fears, engineers estimate it should still stand a thousand years from now.

[TRANSPONDER]

Deposition whether under water or on land tend (through gravity) to form flat layers, with new layers on top. This happens in plain sight as archaeology find deposition of flat layers in historical contexts from the stone age up to the present day and we can date such occupation -levels. Prehistoric strata is no different.

Yes, this is seen in the sedimentary strata. But it's circular logic to say flat layers in the strata is evidence layers can be eroded flat.

The point still remains, what mechanism can erode vast areas to be flat and not like river erosion patterns which is what we see now?

The problem with the folded strata being soft is that you would need to explain how the pressure underneath (molten basalt) didn't simply burst through the soft layers rather than thrust them up into folded strata and that doesn't account for rolled over and inverted strata; tectonic plate movement does.

What molten basalt are you referring to? The underlying base rock in the FM is solid rock, not molten.

Plus it takes more than a few thousand years for soft strata to turn into hard metamorphic rock.

Wet concrete dries in the order of days. So, it's doubtful thousands of years would be necessary.

But millions of years of gradual movement (as in the deep time geology model) does account for how hard rock can appear to fold like putty, given such long and slow processes.

That's doubtful. But even if that's true, why would it only happen after all the layers have formed?

I had a look for 'unsafe testimony'and It seems you have a point; the term does not come up.

OK, then another term that is in common usage should be used.

"So, again, the way to discredit a witness is to bring up prior inconsistent statements that they made. The way to discredit a witness is to call other witness or cross-examine other witnesses and bring up key points about your main witness's testimony.."

Perhaps "credible witness" should be used instead?

As for the witnesses in the Bible, trivial points would not discredit them. As you mentioned, it would have to be "key points" that contradict each other.

I already said - weather erodes rock as well as water. The stuff on the flat gets blown about, the eroded material on slopes get moved by wind or gravity to the plains and strata build up. As explained, this process is observed today and is not a postulated theoretical of prehistory.

Wet concrete is made to harden in a short time. Seashells are not. It takes a long time to pack by weight and pressure into limestone and even longer for limestone to turn into hard metamorphic rock like marble. It does not happen after all layers are formed. Mountains when pushed up (if they are old) get eroded to reveal strata underneath. But flat plains strata just bet moved upwards by tectonic movement where not at the edges where they can buckle into new mountains (with folding and roll -over) or break off into faults. Again these eruptions of basalt (like volcanoes) happen at times and in particular locations but not everywhere, only where stresses happen with tectonic movement.

The underlying base rock is solid, after it cools. When it breaks through strata it is molten. I presume you are referring to the tilted strata in the Grand canyon. The subduct mantle tilted ALL the strata down to the base and perhaps the solidified basal rocks, too. They were eroded (suggested by glaciation) and new level strata on top.

And I think it's time I reminded you that you have questions to answer. How could your mountain upthrust cause the folded and inverted rocks? You suggested soft strata but basal upthrust debunks that. It would break through soft strata not fold it.

As to unsafe testimony, what other term for witnesses shown to be unreliable would you suggests. Hint 'Credible witnesses' would not do. I agree that trivial points won't suffice.As I have posted elsewhere, The 'Biggies' establish unreliability (not to say demonstrable fabrication), and that sets the scene for doubting other problems that have had apologetics, and in sequence more debatable contradictions have the credibility diminished and in the end, even the Two Angels look like yet another example of unreliability and fabrication.

I would observe that your dismissal of the Nativities as irrelevant or unimportant because they don't involve core doctrine appears to show that they stand up as one unreliable and non -credible story at least, and that sets the scene for the next big contradiction - the resurrection.

[otseng]

I already said - weather erodes rock as well as water. The stuff on the flat gets blown about, the eroded material on slopes get moved by wind or gravity to the plains and strata build up. As explained, this process is observed today and is not a postulated theoretical of prehistory.

What we are talking about is Monument valley. Stuff getting blown by the wind about does not explain the erosion pattern there. We are talking about massive erosion, not just some wind erosion. Also, the erosion leaves sheer cliffs. Wind just blowing around could not have caused this.

Wet concrete is made to harden in a short time. Seashells are not. It takes a long time to pack by weight and pressure into limestone and even longer for limestone to turn into hard metamorphic rock like marble.

What metamorphic rock are you referring to? In the Grand Canyon strata, there is no metamorphic rock in the sedimentary strata. And doubtful you can find it in any of the sedimentary strata anywhere in the world. Pretty much by definition, sedimentary strata only contains sedimentary rock. But, that leads to another question, if millions of years of pressure and weight would cause sedimentary rock to turn into metamorphic rock, why do we only see sedimentary rock in the layered stratas?

The underlying base rock is solid, after it cools. When it breaks through strata it is molten. I presume you are referring to the tilted strata in the Grand canyon.

I've never claimed any rock is molten when the tilted strata was formed in the GC.

The subduct mantle tilted ALL the strata down to the base and perhaps the solidified basal rocks, too. They were eroded (suggested by glaciation) and new level strata on top.

I'm not proposing subduction as the mechanism for the tilting. In the FM, there is no concept of subduction.

Also, even in SG, at the areas of subduction, there are no molten rocks at the faults, but solid rock.

How could your mountain upthrust cause the folded and inverted rocks? You suggested soft strata but basal upthrust debunks that. It would break through soft strata not fold it.

It's not upthrust motion that caused the mountains, but horizontal compression. Think of it more like a train along a track and crashing and causing a pileup. The upper crust above the water moved horizontally away from the oceanic ridge during the rupture. As the subterranean water erupted out onto the surface, eventually the hydroplate upper crust hit the basalt that was under the subterranean water. This would stop the horizontal movement. The momentum would cause the horizontal compression of the deposited sedimentary layers and form the mountains. This explains why mountains are parallel to oceanic ridges.

During the drift phase, as the mid-Oceanic ridge formed, the hydoplates slid down the ridge and the Americas and Eurasia/Africa moved away from each other. As the hydoplates moved, there was still some underground water under the hydroplates to allow for movement. But, when the water was gone, the hydroplates would stop moving when it hit the basalt underneath. The momentum of the moving hydoplates would cause the formation of the mountains. Brown believes this phase to have lasted 1 day, though I believed it lasted much longer, days/weeks.

even the Two Angels look like yet another example of unreliability and fabrication.

I would observe that your dismissal of the Nativities as irrelevant or unimportant because they don't involve core doctrine appears to show that they stand up as one unreliable and non -credible story at least, and that sets the scene for the next big contradiction - the resurrection.

Again, a biggie for me is a core doctrine. The number of angels at the tomb, how many wise men visited Jesus, etc are all inconsequential.

I think we agree though that the resurrection is a biggie. So, the question is - Did Jesus resurrect from the dead? If he did not, pretty much all of Christianity is falsified. What witness testifies he did not resurrect from the dead?