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

[POI]

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?

I always find it fascinating, regarding the believers use of the word/concept of the term 'eyewitness'. Would you agree that to 'verify' a one-time passed event from antiquity, the 'evidence' most heavily weighs upon 'eyewitness' testimony? If so, I then ask...

What is the basic definition of 'eyewitness'? It looks to be: "a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it."

If we agree to the basic definition above, let us proceed. If you disagree, please correct where you feel applicable....

How many first-hand accounts do we have, regarding the witness of a risen Jesus?

I would argue we have zero. How about you?

Further, if this is to be the most important event recorded in history, was it God's intent for believers to rely upon faith alone, as the Bible may even suggest itself, or, do we have actual eyewitness 'evidence' to comport with this expressed necessary 'faith'?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Yes, erosion over millions of years will cause the erosion you see in the picture you posted. Massive sudden erosion such as a flood cause something similar over a shorter period, though I wonder whether a year would be enough. I don't know about the grand canyon but by definition metamorphic rock is hardened and compressed sedimentary rock. That it exists at all is reason to propose deep time, not geology done in a few thousand years never min a year of Flood.

No, you didn't claim any rock was molten, but perhaps you should have done, because that is what causes the tectonic plates to shift about.

Never mind your evasion about horizontal compression and not upthrust.I talked about crumpling at the edge of tectonic plates which is making the horizontal pressure which causes the upthrust. No. Land masses floating above this supposed subterranean water (one would suppose it would sink) is not what we get, but tectonic plate movement above a hot rock mantle which is still going on today. Land masses floating on water will not do to explain even the tectonic pressure and you still have to explain how rocks could fold into mountains. If the strata was soft I wouldn't expect it to retain the regular strata including rolling over. It would collapse and get jumbled.

While core doctrines may be important to you, you ought at least to recognise that contradictions in the stories that mean that both cannot be true is a significant point. If we use a court case as an analogy, what's important is whether the witnesses'stories contradict and the 'core doctrine' of their motives for lying in court can be left to after the perjury sentences have been handed down.

As to what witness testifies that he did (not) rise from the dead? All four, effectively because they can't get their stories straight. If they were at least in agreement to the extent that they agree on the crucifixion, we'd be having a different conversation.

[TRANSPONDER]

Here's a handy primer on metamorphic rocks.
If we find a rock that formed at high temperatures (such as marble), we know that the rock must have been heated up. This often occurs deep in the Earth or near magma underground.
We often find metamorphic rocks in mountain ranges where high pressures squeezed the rocks together and they piled up to form ranges such as the Himalayas, Alps, and the Rocky Mountains. Metamorphic rocks are forming deep in the core of these mountain ranges. As the mountain ranges are eroded away over millions of years, the metamorphic rocks are eventually uncovered. A good example of where this has happened is the Appalachian Mountains in the Eastern United States.

[otseng]

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?

I always find it fascinating, regarding the believers use of the word/concept of the term 'eyewitness'. Would you agree that to 'verify' a one-time passed event from antiquity, the 'evidence' most heavily weighs upon 'eyewitness' testimony? If so, I then ask...

Didn't claim there was an "eyewitness". We're using the term "witness" here in the context of how Transponder and I have been using it:

While core doctrines may be important to you, you ought at least to recognise that contradictions in the stories that mean that both cannot be true is a significant point. If we use a court case as an analogy, what's important is whether the witnesses'stories contradict and the 'core doctrine' of their motives for lying in court can be left to after the perjury sentences have been handed down.

As to what witness testifies that he did (not) rise from the dead? All four, effectively because they can't get their stories straight. If they were at least in agreement to the extent that they agree on the crucifixion, we'd be having a different conversation.

That is, we're using "witness" as the gospel authors providing a "courtroom witness testimony" of the accounts of Jesus.

Yes, erosion over millions of years will cause the erosion you see in the picture you posted. Massive sudden erosion such as a flood cause something similar over a shorter period, though I wonder whether a year would be enough.

If it was a flood according to SG, note that the entire section would've been solid rock prior to the erosion. What would cause the erosion to leave a large flat area, as opposed to river channels? How can it form sheer cliffs? How can there exist buttes and mesas? Why erosion only after all the layers have been deposited?

As for the FM, a short time period is enough because it was not solid rock, but still wet sediment at the time of the erosion.

No, you didn't claim any rock was molten, but perhaps you should have done, because that is what causes the tectonic plates to shift about.

In the FM, plate movement is along top of water, not molten rock.

In the SG, actually, plate movement is not on molten rock either. But, on solid rock. So, it's yet another ad hoc claim of plates being able to move on top of solid rock.

The continents do not float on a sea of molten rock. The continental and oceanic crusts sit on a thick layer of solid rock known as the mantle.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/0 ... lten-rock/

So, which is more plausible? The crust moving because it's on top of water or on top of solid rock?

As to what witness testifies that he did (not) rise from the dead? All four, effectively because they can't get their stories straight. If they were at least in agreement to the extent that they agree on the crucifixion, we'd be having a different conversation.

Exactly what point do you refer to that their stories aren't straight?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

I always find it fascinating, regarding the believers use of the word/concept of the term 'eyewitness'. Would you agree that to 'verify' a one-time passed event from antiquity, the 'evidence' most heavily weighs upon 'eyewitness' testimony? If so, I then ask...

Didn't claim there was an "eyewitness". We're using the term "witness" here in the context of how Transponder and I have been using it:

While core doctrines may be important to you, you ought at least to recognise that contradictions in the stories that mean that both cannot be true is a significant point. If we use a court case as an analogy, what's important is whether the witnesses'stories contradict and the 'core doctrine' of their motives for lying in court can be left to after the perjury sentences have been handed down.

As to what witness testifies that he did (not) rise from the dead? All four, effectively because they can't get their stories straight. If they were at least in agreement to the extent that they agree on the crucifixion, we'd be having a different conversation.

That is, we're using "witness" as the gospel authors providing a "courtroom witness testimony" of the accounts of Jesus.

Yes, erosion over millions of years will cause the erosion you see in the picture you posted. Massive sudden erosion such as a flood cause something similar over a shorter period, though I wonder whether a year would be enough.

If it was a flood according to SG, note that the entire section would've been solid rock prior to the erosion. What would cause the erosion to leave a large flat area, as opposed to river channels? How can it form sheer cliffs? How can there exist buttes and mesas? Why erosion only after all the layers have been deposited?

As for the FM, a short time period is enough because it was not solid rock, but still wet sediment at the time of the erosion.

No, you didn't claim any rock was molten, but perhaps you should have done, because that is what causes the tectonic plates to shift about.

In the FM, plate movement is along top of water, not molten rock.

In the SG, actually, plate movement is not on molten rock either. But, on solid rock. So, it's yet another ad hoc claim of plates being able to move on top of solid rock.

The continents do not float on a sea of molten rock. The continental and oceanic crusts sit on a thick layer of solid rock known as the mantle.

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/0 ... lten-rock/

So, which is more plausible? The crust moving because it's on top of water or on top of solid rock?

The crust moving on top of molten rock. This is what is happening today, along with rock -scoring with glaciation,exposure of old strata by erosion; this all happens today where we can see it. Show me one example of land masses merrily floating on water. I'm pretty sure that tectonic plate movement (in fact I think I posted this) is not on solid rock but on the molten mantle. Again I am surprised that you appear to dismiss the research, publications, questioning and verification as 'ad hoc, which if you don't use my meaning of 'making up explanations as you go along' is dismissing geological science as just the hypotheses and guesses of scientists.

Wet sediment? Then you explain why some parts are swept away and why some stand up for all the world as though they were solid rock mesas, buttes and cliffs that had gradually been eroded away over millions of years? In the Flood Model, we have a relatively flat globe (I gather you conceded at least the scientists have that right) because the mountains hadn't been pushed up by the water pushing the continental plates about in a way that is not happening today, and I would doubt that you can show me any example of a land mass floating on water. Why if all that strata is 'wet'is it not all flat? Why is there tilted strata under the 'Unconformity' that you seem to claim is the Flood activity. Apart from the new mountains pushed up in order to make it look like the water was going down, though I doubt that the present mountains would be enough to make the land masses appear,which according to your explanation, were floating on the water anyway so there would be no Flood. Have you really thought this through?

I haven't even touched on Pangaea which is supposed to have split apart so would be colliding together anyway - unless you don't buy Pangaea splitting up, which is a basis of other Flood scenarios. But this is what happens with the ad hoc guesses of Creationism, their theories conflict.

You're saying the mantle is solid? I'll check that. Also your objection to the standard geological model apply equally to the Flood model. It's just that the Flood model had it happen all in one go and again, how can that account for the strata bending if a 'softy strata' explanation won't work? Again, how does a flood account for river channels at all, not just the grand canyon with it's meanders (excluding a sudden cutting of the canyon), but the old buried river valleys under new strata that you asked for.

As to what witness testifies that he did (not) rise from the dead? All four, effectively because they can't get their stories straight. If they were at least in agreement to the extent that they agree on the crucifixion, we'd be having a different conversation.

Exactly what point do you refer to that their stories aren't straight?
[/quote]

Effectively, yes, the Gospel-writers are in court telling their tale as eyewitness. Though also we are evaluating them as historians because they (secondarily) could be relating that they've been told. Either way their stories aren't straight as in the Testcase nativity where the stories conflict so totally that one at least has to be false.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok I checked your reference. I am corrected that the mantle is not liquid. But it doesn't alter the matter of tectonic plate movement on a base that Acts as though it was liquid.

"The tectonic plates do not slowly drift over time because they are floating on a layer of liquid rock. They drift because they are sitting on a layer of solid rock (the upper mantle or "asthenosphere") that is weak and ductile enough that it can flow very slowly under heat convection, somewhat like a liquid."

That is the geological and Deep Time explanation for mountain formation both today and in the past and continental plates floating on top of and being pushed about by a global flood is not. I had a layman confusion of a liquid mantle with a mantle that acts as liquid and am corrected, but your point is irrelevant as the geological mechanism is still the same and does not help your Flood scenario.

[TRANSPONDER]

and a p.s the cause of mesas and buttes by erosion, not by a Flood.

"The top layer of a mesa and a butte is a hardened layer of rock that is resistant to erosion, which is the gradual wearing away of Earth surfaces through the action of wind and water. Sometimes this top layer, called the cap rock, is not sedimentary rock but is cooled and hardened lava that had spread out across the landscape in repeated flows from fissures or cracks in the ground. Beneath this flat protective cap of rock are horizontal layers of softer sedimentary rock. To varying degrees, these layers are not as resistant to erosion.

These landforms are found in arid and semiarid regions. Arid regions are defined as those that receive less than 10 inches (25 centimeters) of rain per year; semiarid regions receive 10 to 20 inches (25 to 50 centimeters) of rain per year. Precipitation in these regions often comes in the form of sudden, heavy rainfalls. Because water evaporates quickly in these normally dry environments, plants and other ground cover are scarce. Left exposed to the action of running water, the bare sides of the softer rock layers of mesas and buttes are eroded away over time. The base of these landforms is often gently sloped, contrasting with the almost-vertical sides leading down from the top. Rock material that has been eroded from the sides is carried downward, forming this sloping base." (science clarified)

[otseng]

Ok I checked your reference. I am corrected that the mantle is not liquid. But it doesn't alter the matter of tectonic plate movement on a base that Acts as though it was liquid.

That is the geological and Deep Time explanation for mountain formation both today and in the past and continental plates floating on top of and being pushed about by a global flood is not. I had a layman confusion of a liquid mantle with a mantle that acts as liquid and am corrected, but your point is irrelevant as the geological mechanism is still the same and does not help your Flood scenario.

This just confirms the ad hoc nature of SG. First you insist it's molten rock, then it's confirmed it's solid rock, then it's claimed it doesn't matter if it's molten rock or solid rock. Pretty much can claim anything in SG and it doesn't matter.

The crust moving on top of molten rock. This is what is happening today, along with rock -scoring with glaciation,exposure of old strata by erosion; this all happens today where we can see it.
I'm pretty sure that tectonic plate movement (in fact I think I posted this) is not on solid rock but on the molten mantle. Again I am surprised that you appear to dismiss the research, publications, questioning and verification as 'ad hoc, which if you don't use my meaning of 'making up explanations as you go along' is dismissing geological science as just the hypotheses and guesses of scientists.

Show me one example of land masses merrily floating on water.

FM posits there was subterranean water before the flood. This explains where all the water came from to flood the entire globe. Water receding into the oceans as the mountains and continents formed explains where all the water went. Though there could be pockets of subterranean water now, most all the water is now on the surface, not underground.

Then you explain why some parts are swept away and why some stand up for all the world as though they were solid rock mesas, buttes and cliffs that had gradually been eroded away over millions of years?

Mesas and buttes are the result of water erosion similar to what we see off of beaches.

I haven't even touched on Pangaea which is supposed to have split apart so would be colliding together anyway - unless you don't buy Pangaea splitting up, which is a basis of other Flood scenarios. But this is what happens with the ad hoc guesses of Creationism, their theories conflict.

Feel free to present Pangaea and we can compare it to the FM.

Effectively, yes, the Gospel-writers are in court telling their tale as eyewitness. Though also we are evaluating them as historians because they (secondarily) could be relating that they've been told. Either way their stories aren't straight as in the Testcase nativity where the stories conflict so totally that one at least has to be false.

Suppose we have two witnesses recount a car accident. Witness A says the Ford car ran the red light. Witness B says the GM car ran the red light. This would be a significant discrepancy.

Now suppose witness A and witness B both says the Ford car ran the red light. Witness A says there were 2 people in the Ford. Witness B says there was 1 person in the Ford. This would be a minor discrepancy and does not invalidate the the Ford running the red light.

Matthew and Luke both claim Jesus resurrected. If they claimed something different, then it would be a significant discrepancy.

Matthew implies there was only one angel at the tomb. Luke says there were two angels. This would be an insignificant discrepancy and would not invalidate the resurrection claim.

[2ndpillar2]

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.

Your term "bible", in itself worth investigation. The current canon of the most commonly used NT was first published in 367 AD by Athanasius, a church leader, who was also partly responsible for the false Trinity dogma at the 325 AD Council of Nicaea, which was convened by the Roman emperor Constantine, who was the "another king" of Daniel 7:25, who was to try and change the law and the times, and who in Revelation 13, is referred to as the beast with "two horns like a lamb", those two Christlike leaders, the shepherds of Zechariah 11:7, who were the shepherd the "flock doomed for slaughter". Nothing is holy about the Roman church or its leaders, initiated by the Roman emperor Constantine, including their canon, which heavily relies on the writings of the false prophet Paul, the first of the two "horns like a lamb", and which was edited by the Roman church. I would dare say, that the writings of the false prophet Paul and his minions is suspect, and that the rest was edited by the Roman church, and must also be suspect, especially whereas all the original versions to not coincide, such as the last paragraph of Matthew, not being in all the early versions. As for what is trustworthy, that would be the Law and the prophets, which was taught by Yeshua. The teachings of Yeshua were simply to shed a light on those Scriptures. Both the devil and the false prophet Paul quoted from that source, so in themselves, they do not provide a sufficient foundation, without the Comforter (Holy Spirit) to provide understanding.

[2ndpillar2]

Ok I checked your reference. I am corrected that the mantle is not liquid. But it doesn't alter the matter of tectonic plate movement on a base that Acts as though it was liquid.

That is the geological and Deep Time explanation for mountain formation both today and in the past and continental plates floating on top of and being pushed about by a global flood is not. I had a layman confusion of a liquid mantle with a mantle that acts as liquid and am corrected, but your point is irrelevant as the geological mechanism is still the same and does not help your Flood scenario.

This just confirms the ad hoc nature of SG. First you insist it's molten rock, then it's confirmed it's solid rock, then it's claimed it doesn't matter if it's molten rock or solid rock. Pretty much can claim anything in SG and it doesn't matter.

The crust moving on top of molten rock. This is what is happening today, along with rock -scoring with glaciation,exposure of old strata by erosion; this all happens today where we can see it.
I'm pretty sure that tectonic plate movement (in fact I think I posted this) is not on solid rock but on the molten mantle. Again I am surprised that you appear to dismiss the research, publications, questioning and verification as 'ad hoc, which if you don't use my meaning of 'making up explanations as you go along' is dismissing geological science as just the hypotheses and guesses of scientists.

Show me one example of land masses merrily floating on water.

FM posits there was subterranean water before the flood. This explains where all the water came from to flood the entire globe. Water receding into the oceans as the mountains and continents formed explains where all the water went. Though there could be pockets of subterranean water now, most all the water is now on the surface, not underground.

Then you explain why some parts are swept away and why some stand up for all the world as though they were solid rock mesas, buttes and cliffs that had gradually been eroded away over millions of years?

Mesas and buttes are the result of water erosion similar to what we see off of beaches.

I haven't even touched on Pangaea which is supposed to have split apart so would be colliding together anyway - unless you don't buy Pangaea splitting up, which is a basis of other Flood scenarios. But this is what happens with the ad hoc guesses of Creationism, their theories conflict.

Feel free to present Pangaea and we can compare it to the FM.

Effectively, yes, the Gospel-writers are in court telling their tale as eyewitness. Though also we are evaluating them as historians because they (secondarily) could be relating that they've been told. Either way their stories aren't straight as in the Testcase nativity where the stories conflict so totally that one at least has to be false.

Suppose we have two witnesses recount a car accident. Witness A says the Ford car ran the red light. Witness B says the GM car ran the red light. This would be a significant discrepancy.

Now suppose witness A and witness B both says the Ford car ran the red light. Witness A says there were 2 people in the Ford. Witness B says there was 1 person in the Ford. This would be a minor discrepancy and does not invalidate the the Ford running the red light.

Matthew and Luke both claim Jesus resurrected. If they claimed something different, then it would be a significant discrepancy.

Matthew implies there was only one angel at the tomb. Luke says there were two angels. This would be an insignificant discrepancy and would not invalidate the resurrection claim.

Your problem is that the second witness "B", didn't recognize who they were talking to (Luke 24:16).