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]

[Replying to otseng in post #1618]

Interesting. So there is evidence that this is two sheets jointed together. You know, that would aswer a problem for the contact print. Two done separately and joined together later.

And no, wrap around it is not. Evidently not. That is simply not a viable claim. And I'm afraid you again doing the old apologetic of 'if naturalism can't provide the answer,it must be God', argument. No.If there is no explanation of the mechanism now, we wait until there is one. I know, especially with something like this, it is tempting to insist that there can be no other explanation. But that isn't how logic and reason work. But if you want to invest belief in the crucifixion -account, I can sympathize, with this curious image.
[Replying to otseng in post #1619]

In the contact -print theory, the 'blood' would be painted on later. As clearly this is not 'scorching' Examination shows the image is cause by a light browning or discoloration of the upper fibres, and not seepage into the cloth, as in painting. But the blood marks do look like paint. Or Blood, as you say. But is it?

This shroud was apparently given a laundering during it's life. What traces of blood or paint would be left? And the owners have been very cagey about investigation. Just how did they get the material to check what the 'bloodstains'were? I'm not saying that is a lie, but I am aware or recall that it was disputed that the traces really were blood.

[otseng]

I reckon we don't have an x - ray here. You can bet on that because there is no skull, but a face.

No x-ray was involved per se. But, we do see a superficial x-ray effect with the teeth and finger bones. Again, this is a clue as to how the image got formed.

The eyelids are closed, and the image of the the eyes open and looking at you is imagination, old mate.

Again, please do not call me "old mate". You can just refer to me by my username.

I didn't say the eyelids were open. Of course the eyelids would be closed on a dead person. I'm simply saying the effect is like it is looking at you. Really the only way you can tell is if eyelids were depicted on the shroud to signify if the eyes are open or closed. Since there are no eyelids depicted, it can be interpreted either way.

Now, what it resembles to me is a contact print, and in fact a cloth lightly laid over a very hot metal or perhaps clay image producing light scorch marks.

Evidence please to support the method you are suggesting.

I get the point about the nail through the wrist. You don't need to keep telling me. But you need to explain why it isn't a wrap - around image and also refute the idea of the body, still in the shroud, being removed by human agency. Oh and a case for Byzantine art being based on this shroud, rather than the art of the time (including the shroud - face) taking the cue from Byzantine art.

However, I do need to keep telling you that I'll get to it later?

And I'm afraid you again doing the old apologetic of 'if naturalism can't provide the answer,it must be God', argument. No.If there is no explanation of the mechanism now, we wait until there is one. I know, especially with something like this, it is tempting to insist that there can be no other explanation. But that isn't how logic and reason work.

Well, you should bring this up with cosmologists then and not just me. If cosmologists can invoke extranatural explanations, why can't I? However, note I have not invoked any non-natural causations yet. I'm simply asking questions, which nobody is able to adequately answer.

In the contact -print theory, the 'blood' would be painted on later.

Are you saying the blood got painted on after an image was formed by contact? Evidence please.

[TRANSPONDER]

I reckon we don't have an x - ray here. You can bet on that because there is no skull, but a face.

No x-ray was involved per se. But, we do see a superficial x-ray effect with the teeth and finger bones. Again, this is a clue as to how the image got formed.

The eyelids are closed, and the image of the the eyes open and looking at you is imagination, old mate.

Again, please do not call me "old mate". You can just refer to me by my username.

I'll keep that in mind.

I didn't say the eyelids were open. Of course the eyelids would be closed on a dead person. I'm simply saying the effect is like it is looking at you. Really the only way you can tell is if eyelids were depicted on the shroud to signify if the eyes are open or closed. Since there are no eyelids depicted, it can be interpreted either way.

And I'm simply saying that it doesn't look like it's looking at you, but the eyes are closed. In fact the eyelids,if the other marks are seen as contact marks, then eyelids is just what they are.

Now, what it resembles to me is a contact print, and in fact a cloth lightly laid over a very hot metal or perhaps clay image producing light scorch marks.

Evidence please to support the method you are suggesting.

Microscopic analysis seems to show that the disoloration resembles a light singeing or scorching up the upper fibres of the weave .This was noted quite early and was considered to be an argument against it being a painting. That could be done in various ways. You've probably heard the hypothesis about the camera obscura adapted to produce an image by sunlight. That could do this 'scorching' effect. I'm suggesting that another migt be by actual brief contact with a very hot surface. A third might be ascribed to a resurrection -effect, though a miracle by it's nature would not have a Method. You mentioned the 'x -ray' idea. As i said, upper surface contact is what we appear to have, not images of finger -bones., because none of the rest of the image suggests x -rays. And the 'finger -bones' are alternatively explicable.

I get the point about the nail through the wrist. You don't need to keep telling me. But you need to explain why it isn't a wrap - around image and also refute the idea of the body, still in the shroud, being removed by human agency. Oh and a case for Byzantine art being based on this shroud, rather than the art of the time (including the shroud - face) taking the cue from Byzantine art.

However, I do need to keep telling you that I'll get to it later?

Of course, every time I need to keep reminding you that there are points you haven't addressed and you keep finding other ones to put to me.

And I'm afraid you again doing the old apologetic of 'if naturalism can't provide the answer,it must be God', argument. No.If there is no explanation of the mechanism now, we wait until there is one. I know, especially with something like this, it is tempting to insist that there can be no other explanation. But that isn't how logic and reason work.

Well, you should bring this up with cosmologists then and not just me. If cosmologists can invoke extranatural explanations, why can't I? However, note I have not invoked any non-natural causations yet. I'm simply asking questions, which nobody is able to adequately answer.

Please do not send me off to debate with scientists about matters I put to you. I'm making the point that, if an explanation for an object like the shroud as a painting, for instance, is apparently discounted, that does not automatically make a miracle the go -to argument. Youymentioned an x- ray image effect as a possiblemechanism. That one doesn't stand up any more than a painted image'

In the contact -print theory, the 'blood' would be painted on later.

Are you saying the blood got painted on after an image was formed by contact? Evidence please.

That would also have to come later. I would need to microscopic images of the bloodstain areas as I have seen of the body -contact areas. The bloodstains appear to be more heavily applied than the body image. Of course that could have other explanations, but you mentioned reasons why the body image could not be applied paint. By appearance (pending a microscopic close up) I could expect a deeper application that is found with the body - contact image. I'll mention that 'body contact' applies whether the theory is of contact with the actual Jesus or with some kind of manufactured image, given that a medieval painted image doesn't convince either of us.

[Shem Yoshi]

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?

Here is the definition for Inerrancy "lack of error; infallibility. the belief that the Bible is free from error in matters of science as well as those of faith."

So this topic is asking how can one consider the Bible authoritative and inspired without believing it is free from error in matters of science. Or that the Bible can be "contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times" but at the same time is authoritative and inspired.

To answer the question, I guess you could believe whatever you want, and consider it as authoritative and inspired on faith, and rationalize it however you want.

I suppose also God could make a book that contains errors, and is contradictory, and He could make that book authoritative and inspired. It would be kind of an odd way to work, however, its possible. I take a skeptical side to life anyways, I am convinced no one knows the truth, so why not God make an authoritative book, inspired, that could reflect the absurdity of truth itself.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #1624]


I suppose what it comes down to is whether we believe the Bible is reliable enough to credit what it tells us. Not that it is perfect in every detail, but the record is as reliable as any any other record from the past. Other histories are broadly credited as telling us something real, while they are debated, in the detail. I have been watching a few videos on the times of Akhenaten, and while almost everything believed is open to debate, we have a credible picture of what happened and who were the major players.

Which is why Innerrancy is simply not an issue. Errancy that doesn't matter is accepted. Errancy that can be excused (if not explained) is not a serious issue. But things that are just plain wrong are a problem and challenge to the credibility of the Bible. There are three responses:

Denial (science is wrong, Genesis is right)
adaptation (science is right, Genesis actually agrees with it)
damage limitation (Ok Genesis is wrong;the rest is right).

Right from the start, the 'biggies' - serious errors that cause real doubts about Bible credibility, not details that refute inerrancy, has been my line. And particularly the Gospels, as Christians can say that the OT doesn't matter, since Jesus made the new covenant and the OT is only useful for being hung up in schools, courthouses and state admin. buildings. And particularly the resurrection accounts, as if they fail, the case for Christianity fails.

[2ndpillar2]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #1624]


I suppose what it comes down to is whether we believe the Bible is reliable enough to credit what it tells us. Not that it is perfect in every detail, but the record is as reliable as any any other record from the past. Other histories are broadly credited as telling us something real, while they are debated, in the detail. I have been watching a few videos on the times of Akhenaten, and while almost everything believed is open to debate, we have a credible picture of what happened and who were the major players.

Which is why Innerrancy is simply not an issue. Errancy that doesn't matter is accepted. Errancy that can be excused (if not explained) is not a serious issue. But things that are just plain wrong are a problem and challenge to the credibility of the Bible. There are three responses:

Denial (science is wrong, Genesis is right)
adaptation (science is right, Genesis actually agrees with it)
damage limitation (Ok Genesis is wrong;the rest is right).

Right from the start, the 'biggies' - serious errors that cause real doubts about Bible credibility, not details that refute inerrancy, has been my line. And particularly the Gospels, as Christians can say that the OT doesn't matter, since Jesus made the new covenant and the OT is only useful for being hung up in schools, courthouses and state admin. buildings. And particularly the resurrection accounts, as if they fail, the case for Christianity fails.

We are in the Christmas season, and the stories of Christmas are almost all false. The historical pedigree of Christ in Mt 1 doesn't match with the pedigree listed in Luke, whereas "Christ" is listed as direct descendant of David, nor is there a lineage of 42 sires (3 x 14) when one actually counts the sires listed, much less that Joseph is listed among them, and apparently "Mary" was a virgin. The Christmas story was centered on David (star of David), as David was supposed to return to lead the combined house of Judah and Ephraim (Ez 37) on the land given to Jacob. Herod the Great, who killed the children under the age of 3 in Judea, died around 4 B.C., and the 3 kings (astrologers from Persia) came around the time of the star of David, an alignment of 3 planets which happened around 6 B.C. in the fall, whereas the 25 of December is the birth date of Constantine's sun god, Sol Invictus, and it was Constantine's Council of Nicaea, which set up Easter (pagan feast of Astarte) in place of Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was the date of the last supper and the Crucifixion. The Gentile church is simply a daughter of Babylon" (Rev 17), and as is shown in Hosea 3, was the "adulteress" bought with the equivalence of 30 shekels of silver for "many days", until the sons of Israel/Jacob return. They seem to adhere to the "abominations of the earth", versus truth of the moment. Constantine's Roman church was built on the "worthless shepherd" Peter (Zech 11:16-17) and the false prophet Paul (Zech 11:10), whose dead bodies are supposedly buried under the basilicas that Constantine originally built for both.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #1624]


I suppose what it comes down to is whether we believe the Bible is reliable enough to credit what it tells us. Not that it is perfect in every detail, but the record is as reliable as any any other record from the past. Other histories are broadly credited as telling us something real, while they are debated, in the detail. I have been watching a few videos on the times of Akhenaten, and while almost everything believed is open to debate, we have a credible picture of what happened and who were the major players.

Which is why Innerrancy is simply not an issue. Errancy that doesn't matter is accepted. Errancy that can be excused (if not explained) is not a serious issue. But things that are just plain wrong are a problem and challenge to the credibility of the Bible. There are three responses:

Denial (science is wrong, Genesis is right)
adaptation (science is right, Genesis actually agrees with it)
damage limitation (Ok Genesis is wrong;the rest is right).

Right from the start, the 'biggies' - serious errors that cause real doubts about Bible credibility, not details that refute inerrancy, has been my line. And particularly the Gospels, as Christians can say that the OT doesn't matter, since Jesus made the new covenant and the OT is only useful for being hung up in schools, courthouses and state admin. buildings. And particularly the resurrection accounts, as if they fail, the case for Christianity fails.

Ya i suppose small details could be wrong, or the OT itself could be wrong, however if the Resurrection fails, like if it never took place then Christianity is false, and worse it is a lie (as Paul himself admitted)

1 Cor 15
"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. "

So we are still appealing to a supernatural God, who can do things beyond what is normal, unless we conclude that Jesus Resurrection was natural, but if not, either God can do things that go beyond science and normal things, or Christianity is false.

And if God can go against science and raise a dead man, then could God go against the science that tells us Genesis is wrong?

Seems to me that the error would be irrelevant if God actually exists, and can actually do thing that go agianst how we would interpret errors to be possible.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #1624]


I suppose what it comes down to is whether we believe the Bible is reliable enough to credit what it tells us. Not that it is perfect in every detail, but the record is as reliable as any any other record from the past. Other histories are broadly credited as telling us something real, while they are debated, in the detail. I have been watching a few videos on the times of Akhenaten, and while almost everything believed is open to debate, we have a credible picture of what happened and who were the major players.

Which is why Innerrancy is simply not an issue. Errancy that doesn't matter is accepted. Errancy that can be excused (if not explained) is not a serious issue. But things that are just plain wrong are a problem and challenge to the credibility of the Bible. There are three responses:

Denial (science is wrong, Genesis is right)
adaptation (science is right, Genesis actually agrees with it)
damage limitation (Ok Genesis is wrong;the rest is right).

Right from the start, the 'biggies' - serious errors that cause real doubts about Bible credibility, not details that refute inerrancy, has been my line. And particularly the Gospels, as Christians can say that the OT doesn't matter, since Jesus made the new covenant and the OT is only useful for being hung up in schools, courthouses and state admin. buildings. And particularly the resurrection accounts, as if they fail, the case for Christianity fails.

Ya i suppose small details could be wrong, or the OT itself could be wrong, however if the Resurrection fails, like if it never took place then Christianity is false, and worse it is a lie (as Paul himself admitted)

1 Cor 15
"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. "

So we are still appealing to a supernatural God, who can do things beyond what is normal, unless we conclude that Jesus Resurrection was natural, but if not, either God can do things that go beyond science and normal things, or Christianity is false.

And if God can go against science and raise a dead man, then could God go against the science that tells us Genesis is wrong?

Seems to me that the error would be irrelevant if God actually exists, and can actually do thing that go agianst how we would interpret errors to be possible.

Anything is possible, it is often said, and that's the case even with science. With the supernatural it is even more possible to postulate the impossible as possible. Though Religious apologetics seems to like to claim the possible (such as abiogenesis) impossible. But even I as an atheists don't consider it reasonable to expect God to make a square circle. So reason would have it that what does not comport with what science has shown to be so (aside the debate about that) is possible, like a square circle.

Yes, God could raise a body from the dead to life, if he wanted, but the evidence is that this didn't happen (or that's my argument, and by no means everyone or anyone agrees with me. And if the resurrection accounts are not true, then on reason, it didn't happen and (like Genesis being wrong) you can't have God make what didn't happen true, no more than a square circle.

Genesis is debated, as is the resurrection. That's only fair, but the parameters have to be fair, too. A win cannot be conceded on the basis of waving a magic wand to make what is untrue on the evidence, true.

Or the apologist can do it, but nobody reasonable should buy it.

[Shem Yoshi]

[Replying to Shem Yoshi in post #1624]


I suppose what it comes down to is whether we believe the Bible is reliable enough to credit what it tells us. Not that it is perfect in every detail, but the record is as reliable as any any other record from the past. Other histories are broadly credited as telling us something real, while they are debated, in the detail. I have been watching a few videos on the times of Akhenaten, and while almost everything believed is open to debate, we have a credible picture of what happened and who were the major players.

Which is why Innerrancy is simply not an issue. Errancy that doesn't matter is accepted. Errancy that can be excused (if not explained) is not a serious issue. But things that are just plain wrong are a problem and challenge to the credibility of the Bible. There are three responses:

Denial (science is wrong, Genesis is right)
adaptation (science is right, Genesis actually agrees with it)
damage limitation (Ok Genesis is wrong;the rest is right).

Right from the start, the 'biggies' - serious errors that cause real doubts about Bible credibility, not details that refute inerrancy, has been my line. And particularly the Gospels, as Christians can say that the OT doesn't matter, since Jesus made the new covenant and the OT is only useful for being hung up in schools, courthouses and state admin. buildings. And particularly the resurrection accounts, as if they fail, the case for Christianity fails.

Ya i suppose small details could be wrong, or the OT itself could be wrong, however if the Resurrection fails, like if it never took place then Christianity is false, and worse it is a lie (as Paul himself admitted)

1 Cor 15
"14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. "

So we are still appealing to a supernatural God, who can do things beyond what is normal, unless we conclude that Jesus Resurrection was natural, but if not, either God can do things that go beyond science and normal things, or Christianity is false.

And if God can go against science and raise a dead man, then could God go against the science that tells us Genesis is wrong?

Seems to me that the error would be irrelevant if God actually exists, and can actually do thing that go agianst how we would interpret errors to be possible.

Anything is possible, it is often said, and that's the case even with science. With the supernatural it is even more possible to postulate the impossible as possible. Though Religious apologetics seems to like to claim the possible (such as abiogenesis) impossible. But even I as an atheists don't consider it reasonable to expect God to make a square circle. So reason would have it that what does not comport with what science has shown to be so (aside the debate about that) is possible, like a square circle.

Yes, God could raise a body from the dead to life, if he wanted, but the evidence is that this didn't happen (or that's my argument, and by no means everyone or anyone agrees with me. And if the resurrection accounts are not true, then on reason, it didn't happen and (like Genesis being wrong) you can't have God make what didn't happen true, no more than a square circle.

Genesis is debated, as is the resurrection. That's only fair, but the parameters have to be fair, too. A win cannot be conceded on the basis of waving a magic wand to make what is untrue on the evidence, true.

Or the apologist can do it, but nobody reasonable should buy it.

It is a good point that Religious apologetics consider abiogenesis impossible (at least in the ways proposed). However that is a theory based on science, and they are saying it is scientifically impossible. The Resurrection would be based on a miracle of God.

Also it is worth pointing out that God is bound to some kind of parameter, just like science is bound to the perimeters of science, God would be bound to the perimeters of God. For example, if God (assuming God is real) said there would be a Messiah to come in the future, God would be bound to that Word or else it God has failed.

[otseng]

Well, you should bring this up with cosmologists then and not just me. If cosmologists can invoke extranatural explanations, why can't I? However, note I have not invoked any non-natural causations yet. I'm simply asking questions, which nobody is able to adequately answer.

Please do not send me off to debate with scientists about matters I put to you. I'm making the point that, if an explanation for an object like the shroud as a painting, for instance, is apparently discounted, that does not automatically make a miracle the go -to argument.

I'm not literally saying for you to talk to cosmologists. I'm referring to the discussions earlier in this thread in cosmology where I've demonstrated modern cosmology has already left naturalistic explanations and invoke non-naturalistic explanations. Why do they need to invoke curved spacetime, multiverse, dark energy, dark matter, unobservable universe, etc? All of these explanations are not detectable. Why can cosmologists invoke extranatural explanations and theists cannot?

In the contact -print theory, the 'blood' would be painted on later.

Are you saying the blood got painted on after an image was formed by contact? Evidence please.

That would also have to come later. I would need to microscopic images of the bloodstain areas as I have seen of the body -contact areas.

There is no way the blood stains could've been painted on after the image was imprinted on the cloth. It's because there is no image under the blood stains. That means the blood was on the cloth first and then the image was formed. And if you think about, it must've happened this way if Jesus was wrapped and then was resurrected. So, if it was a forgery, how was the artist able to put on blood stains perfectly first and then depict the image? And how was the artist smart enough to do this?

This absence of body image on the wound image margins suggests that the blood images were present on the cloth before the body image was "placed," "appeared," or perhaps "developed." This suggestion is consistent with the chemistry of the body-only image, because this thinner fluid could have coated these margin fibrils sealing them and preventing the advanced decomposition reaction. This conclusion is supported by microscopic examination of the fibrils from the blood areas after removing the serum coating by protease digestion. Fibrils, so treated, more closely resemble those from the off-image olear areas than those from the body-only image areas when viewed by phase contrast microscopy.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ba-1984-0205.ch022

Further, if blood was placed on the cloth first and then the cloth was subject to high heat to scorch an image, it would burn/char the blood. We see this near the burn area marks in the fire of 1532. However, where there is the image that is not affected by the fire, the blood is not charred.

The most obvious marks are those resulting from a fire in AD 1532. These can be classified as burns, marks actually composed in part of charred linen, and scorches where the linen is noticeably discolored but not actually reduced to char.

https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/ba-1984-0205.ch022

There is no image under the bloodstains on the Shroud[2]. Therefore the blood was on the cloth before the image[3].

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... hroud.html

Yellow-colored fibers forming the image were not found beneath blood or serum, indicating the image formed after the blood adhered to the cloth.

https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/voice ... -the-cloth

This also refutes the Fisher King image hypothesis, where it says the blood was painted on after the image was formed.

There is another interesting hypothesis involving the material being used to wrap an alabaster pillar with the Fisher King’s image carved on it. This helps explain the traces of gypsum found and the appearance of the image. Fascinating theory.
https://tinyurl.com/yc7s4ck5

“It is possible that the statue of the Fisher King was destroyed at the same time – just in case someone spotted the likeness between it and the supposed image of Christ. With the statue gone and the cloth being promoted as the Holy Shroud, the monks would have had in their possession a unique - but accidentally created - relic that they could easily pass off as genuine.

“However, there was a twist. The outline of the statue needed enhancing – there were no traces of blood on the head where the crown of thorns would have sat, no blood traces where the spear had pierced his side and, critically, no nail wounds visible on the cloth.

“To remedy this the monks of Burton Abbey almost certainly enhanced the image of the Fisher King - using their own blood! This would have been easy for them to obtain as Burton Abbey was famous for bloodletting.”

https://www.staffordshire-live.co.uk/ne ... ly-6796336