How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

Well, that was a waste of everyone's time. The negative image alone plus the light discoloration of the upper fibres really rules out an 'artist' . So apart from producing an impressive image to awe potential doubters, the 3d image is adding nothing. If fact it looks more like a bas -relief than a body, doesn't it now?

If you accept that the image has 3 dimensional information in it, then it's not a waste of time. I'm not proposing how the spatial information got encoded into it (whether by a forger or a resurrection), but I'm simply just presenting the data. Also, I'm not presenting the data just for you, but for readers of this thread and for future readers as well.

The thing is that what we have here is either a real body or a sculpted one (or possibly 2 bas -reliefs,since you posted the 3d image) both would still give a convincing negative and a 3d image.

It could be a possibility that a forger used a real body to encode 3D info on the cloth. But how? You've already ruled out paint, so what other method did he use?

But then it came to me that it was not wrap around. (John's wrappings were out from the start as well as face cloth; image on the face cloth, no image on the shroud).

We'll spend time later on the facecloth, but that'll be after the shroud.

I think because of some book that tried to argue a flat sheet over a sort of coffin made of bricks of solid spices.

No, that's not the theory I had in mind.

There's also the absence of bloodstains in early representation

Artwork doesn't have to identical to the original.

which might be significant, as well as the ambiguity about what these stains are - blood or quasi -'photographic image', which shouldn't have red color but brown like the rest of the image, right? Not to mention the nagging suspicion that evidence is being manipulated so it's like the data of what the bloodstains actually are is changed, quite apart from the result.

Blood stains is a very complicated topic as well, as evidenced that even McCrone didn't think it was blood.

[otseng]

Or if you only want to answer one question, answer this with a simple agree or disagree:
All I'm saying now is if no natural explanations are viable, then a non-natural explanation can be entertained. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

What is going on here? If Dark Matter and energy turn out to be valid (at the moment they are still - so far as I know -unvalidated), then they will be natural. Just as the weirdest stuff with quantum is 'natural'. Multivereses are also 'natural' as would be the holographic universe and the counter -universe with reverse time. Any scientific hypothesis is 'natural' in nature, even if not validated Depending on how one uses the term, I suppose. The 'supernatural' is also potentially natural, once given a hypothetical explanation. The point about god did a miracle as a faithclaim is, they do not have an hypothetical mechanism. We merely have a miracle -claim.

What is going on is you are not answering the question with a simple agree or disagree and equivocating by saying that natural and non-natural are the same thing. How exactly are you defining what is natural and non-natural? Is it simply that whatever science proposes as an explanation is natural? How do you define non-natural? Whatever theology proposes as an explanation is non-natural?

You certainly implied that I needed to understand 'how science work'. |I suggest you drop it, rather than coumpounding by extra accusations of ad Hom. Would you like me to repost your remark?

No problem with me, provided you give the full context in which you repeatedly ask for how the image was created and I also repeatedly had to answer that it will be provided later.

You areeither losing the plot or being crafty.This is about your equating miracles with science -based hypothese, not about the shroud image.

False dichotomy fallacy. It's neither. Rather, you are avoiding answering my questions and again doing false attribution. And why avoid the questions I asked above? It's not that hard to answer. And why should I keep on answering your questions when you don't answer mine?

Now, you might be wondering why I'm pressing this matter. It is because this repeatedly has been brought up throughout the forum and in this thread by many posters. And it will undoubtedly be brought up again when I bring up the resurrection. So, we'll need to hash this out now while we're on this topic.

BTW, anybody else reading this can also join in, esp those that do not accept supernatural explanations.

While the opinions of experts in the field are worth listening to, we are not obliged to agree, but question.That's how science works. As you will know.

Questions are fine. But claims made without evidential support are not. So, please start providing references, and hopefully better quality than sillybeliefs.

As I recall, you attempted to pass off the distortions as some undulations in the cloth. That is utterly inadequate. I will look and see whether you had anything better, but don't embarrass yourself or insult our intelligence. Like for instance you try to tell us that we can't trust what our eyes plainly see (the cloth is at best draped over and the arms seem wrong). And then you are inviting us to see 'matted hair' as though carved hair couldn't look like that. Weren't you the one who accused me of special pleading?

There was a reason I spent so much time discussing projection methods of the globe. I believe what you have in your mind is one particular projection method that caused the shroud image. There can be many possible projection methods. Just because the image doesn't conform to your projection method doesn't mean others are all wrong too. It only means your method is wrong.

No. the zigzags in the Pray manuscript are supposed to represent a herringbone pattern, according to what the apologists say. You seriously try to pass that off as the bloodstains?

Here's the Pray manuscript illustration:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 2-1195.jpg

The bottom figure shows the shroud with the herringbone pattern and red crosses, which is what I was referring to with the artistic representation of the blood stains (" The red crosses on the lower image would represent the blood").

While we're discussing this, do you think the Pray manuscript illustration was inspired from the shroud?

Shoulder dislocated? Both shoulders? And how does that explain the elongated hands IF I'm right about that just visible lower wrist?

As the article that I posted states:

The Man of the Shroud “underwent an under glenoidal dislocation of the humerus on the right side and lowering of the shoulder, and has a flattened hand and enophthalmos; conditions that have not been described before, despite several studies on the subject. These injuries indicate that the Man suffered a violent blunt trauma to the neck, chest and shoulder from behind, causing neuromuscular damage and lesions of the entire brachial plexus.”

https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider ... .35751980/

[otseng]

All evidence for an historical Jesus comes up fake, otseng. Why do you suppose that is?

What evidence are you talking about? Are you referring to the shroud?

[neverknewyou]

All evidence for an historical Jesus comes up fake, otseng. Why do you suppose that is?

What evidence are you talking about? Are you referring to the shroud?

I just hope you realize that if you purchase an unverified piece of the cross from an unlicensed piece of the cross dealer, you could very well end up buying a fake. Same for shrouds.

[otseng]

But when it is described as a curvature of spacetime it suddenly becomes a lot less understandable. I'd argue that spacetime is "real" in the sense that what it describes is real and it allows gravity to be better understood within GR's mathematics. The word "fabric" also doesn't help as most people make the analogy to cloth fabric and think it means some kind of physical thing. The "metric" is what is really changing in spacetime expansion or curvature, and is described in GR by the metric tensor. A general article on metric space is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space

It is the metric that is changing, and the metric is real, but not a physical fabric-like "thing."

According to wikipedia:
"In mathematics, a metric space is a set together with a notion of distance between its elements, usually called points."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_space

It is not presenting metric space as some actual entity, but as a mathematical concept.

As for metric tensor, wikipedia is describing it as a mathematical concept as well:
"In general relativity, the metric tensor (in this context often abbreviated to simply the metric) is the fundamental object of study. It may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential of Newtonian gravitation.[clarification needed] The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as time, distance, volume, curvature, angle, and separation of the future and the past."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_te ... elativity)

The article lists other metrics as well as being mathematical models:
- Alcubierre metric
- de Sitter/anti-de Sitter metrics
- Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric
- Lemaître–Tolman metric
- Peres metric,
- Gödel metric.

How can one objectively demonstrate spacetime or metric tensor or whatever is carrying light along to be real and not simply a conceptual model?

[otseng]

All evidence for an historical Jesus comes up fake, otseng. Why do you suppose that is?

What evidence are you talking about? Are you referring to the shroud?

I just hope you realize that if you purchase an unverified piece of the cross from an unlicensed piece of the cross dealer, you could very well end up buying a fake. Same for shrouds.

Of course. But that's not relevant to the discussion. You'll need to present evidence/counter-evidence on what we're talking about - the Shroud of Turin.

[neverknewyou]

All evidence for an historical Jesus comes up fake, otseng. Why do you suppose that is?

What evidence are you talking about? Are you referring to the shroud?

I just hope you realize that if you purchase an unverified piece of the cross from an unlicensed piece of the cross dealer, you could very well end up buying a fake. Same for shrouds.

Of course. But that's not relevant to the discussion. You'll need to present evidence/counter-evidence on what we're talking about - the Shroud of Turin.

Sorry osteng, but that's about all the advice I can offer.

[brunumb]

If you accept that the image has 3 dimensional information in it, then it's not a waste of time.

Perhaps it is the algorithm that creates the 3D information based on shading present in the original image that is used.

[TRANSPONDER]

Well, that was a waste of everyone's time. The negative image alone plus the light discoloration of the upper fibres really rules out an 'artist' . So apart from producing an impressive image to awe potential doubters, the 3d image is adding nothing. If fact it looks more like a bas -relief than a body, doesn't it now?

If you accept that the image has 3 dimensional information in it, then it's not a waste of time. I'm not proposing how the spatial information got encoded into it (whether by a forger or a resurrection), but I'm simply just presenting the data. Also, I'm not presenting the data just for you, but for readers of this thread and for future readers as well.

The thing is that what we have here is either a real body or a sculpted one (or possibly 2 bas -reliefs,since you posted the 3d image) both would still give a convincing negative and a 3d image.

It could be a possibility that a forger used a real body to encode 3D info on the cloth. But how? You've already ruled out paint, so what other method did he use?

But then it came to me that it was not wrap around. (John's wrappings were out from the start as well as face cloth; image on the face cloth, no image on the shroud).

We'll spend time later on the facecloth, but that'll be after the shroud.

I think because of some book that tried to argue a flat sheet over a sort of coffin made of bricks of solid spices.

No, that's not the theory I had in mind.

There's also the absence of bloodstains in early representation

Artwork doesn't have to identical to the original.

which might be significant, as well as the ambiguity about what these stains are - blood or quasi -'photographic image', which shouldn't have red color but brown like the rest of the image, right? Not to mention the nagging suspicion that evidence is being manipulated so it's like the data of what the bloodstains actually are is changed, quite apart from the result.

Blood stains is a very complicated topic as well, as evidenced that even McCrone didn't think it was blood.

The 3d argument is only useful to refute a claim of a painted image, but that was already done with a negative. It is adding nothing to the argument. I'll be interested to hear your ideas on the face-cloth, but it can only be that it went over the should as, (aside from magic -wand -waving) if it went under there would be no face on the shroud. Apart from which is ther shroud is (as the image indicates) it was just draped over the figure, there is no need for a facecloth. I am sure that you have another explanation than a stack of bricks, but still it can't be tight in to the shroud as there is no image of that contact, aside from appeal to convenient miracles.

As I say, the lack of bloodstain in early representations may bot be significant, but it might be. It is certainly more interesting than a 3d image that would give no more information than if it was a carved image, or even discussing the chemistry or C14 date as both really require more testing, which is not likely to happen.

I think that researching the image itself is yielding some interesting lines.

[TRANSPONDER]

Or if you only want to answer one question, answer this with a simple agree or disagree:
All I'm saying now is if no natural explanations are viable, then a non-natural explanation can be entertained. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

What is going on here? If Dark Matter and energy turn out to be valid (at the moment they are still - so far as I know -unvalidated), then they will be natural. Just as the weirdest stuff with quantum is 'natural'. Multivereses are also 'natural' as would be the holographic universe and the counter -universe with reverse time. Any scientific hypothesis is 'natural' in nature, even if not validated Depending on how one uses the term, I suppose. The 'supernatural' is also potentially natural, once given a hypothetical explanation. The point about god did a miracle as a faithclaim is, they do not have an hypothetical mechanism. We merely have a miracle -claim.

What is going on is you are not answering the question with a simple agree or disagree and equivocating by saying that natural and non-natural are the same thing. How exactly are you defining what is natural and non-natural? Is it simply that whatever science proposes as an explanation is natural? How do you define non-natural? Whatever theology proposes as an explanation is non-natural?

You certainly implied that I needed to understand 'how science work'. |I suggest you drop it, rather than coumpounding by extra accusations of ad Hom. Would you like me to repost your remark?

No problem with me, provided you give the full context in which you repeatedly ask for how the image was created and I also repeatedly had to answer that it will be provided later.

You areeither losing the plot or being crafty.This is about your equating miracles with science -based hypothese, not about the shroud image.

False dichotomy fallacy. It's neither. Rather, you are avoiding answering my questions and again doing false attribution. And why avoid the questions I asked above? It's not that hard to answer. And why should I keep on answering your questions when you don't answer mine?

Now, you might be wondering why I'm pressing this matter. It is because this repeatedly has been brought up throughout the forum and in this thread by many posters. And it will undoubtedly be brought up again when I bring up the resurrection. So, we'll need to hash this out now while we're on this topic.

BTW, anybody else reading this can also join in, esp those that do not accept supernatural explanations.

A problem in that you are losing the plot. It is not a false dichotomy to point up that faithclaims without any mechanism but magic are not the equivalent of science -based hypotheses, even if unverified. You are equivocating, I am not special plaeding nor doing false dichotomy. And that did not relate to the shroud image but Cosmology, as I recall. And as to unanswered questions, weren't you undertaking to show that Byzantine art was based on the shroud rather than the other way around?

While the opinions of experts in the field are worth listening to, we are not obliged to agree, but question.That's how science works. As you will know.

Questions are fine. But claims made without evidential support are not. So, please start providing references, and hopefully better quality than sillybeliefs.

As I recall, you attempted to pass off the distortions as some undulations in the cloth. That is utterly inadequate. I will look and see whether you had anything better, but don't embarrass yourself or insult our intelligence. Like for instance you try to tell us that we can't trust what our eyes plainly see (the cloth is at best draped over and the arms seem wrong). And then you are inviting us to see 'matted hair' as though carved hair couldn't look like that. Weren't you the one who accused me of special pleading?

There was a reason I spent so much time discussing projection methods of the globe. I believe what you have in your mind is one particular projection method that caused the shroud image. There can be many possible projection methods. Just because the image doesn't conform to your projection method doesn't mean others are all wrong too. It only means your method is wrong.

No. the zigzags in the Pray manuscript are supposed to represent a herringbone pattern, according to what the apologists say. You seriously try to pass that off as the bloodstains?

Here's the Pray manuscript illustration:


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 2-1195.jpg

The bottom figure shows the shroud with the herringbone pattern and red crosses, which is what I was referring to with the artistic representation of the blood stains (" The red crosses on the lower image would represent the blood").

While we're discussing this, do you think the Pray manuscript illustration was inspired from the shroud?

Shoulder dislocated? Both shoulders? And how does that explain the elongated hands IF I'm right about that just visible lower wrist?

As the article that I posted states:

The Man of the Shroud “underwent an under glenoidal dislocation of the humerus on the right side and lowering of the shoulder, and has a flattened hand and enophthalmos; conditions that have not been described before, despite several studies on the subject. These injuries indicate that the Man suffered a violent blunt trauma to the neck, chest and shoulder from behind, causing neuromuscular damage and lesions of the entire brachial plexus.”

https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider ... .35751980/

There is no point in referencing what it already known - that experts that got involved with the shroud make claims about the chemistry, but I already pointed up some dubious claims about uncolored fibres under the blood and/or serum. Since the only relevant point in the location of the serum (claimed), demanding references from me is pointless.

On a 2nd look at the Pray image, the lower image is claimed to represent the weave of the shroud. It doubtfully looks like that but even less like bloodstains with no image. It is that the crosses are red

It is the body being laid on the cloth that looks akin to the shroud image, but then that may be why the image looks like that. the hands have to be arranged modestly. I'm beginning to rethink whether the Pray cloth represents the shroud at all. Sure that the crosses are red and are there at all may tempt one to see themas the blood, but then why not just show it like the image above, that one matched the other? I'm doubtful. I recall that three dots are supposed to match three holes in the shroud, but I couldn't see them even using me magnifier.
Oh, and what 'silly beliefs' of mine did you refer to? That the body was more likely taken than got up an walked? Which is the 'sillier' belief, I wonder.

I'll look at that article on the dislocation but it does not at all explain why the arms both seem wrong. Perhaps the Pray manuscript does. They had to reach, even if they normally couldn't. Sorry. I got a quick look then was blocked by a demand to sign up to something. An annoying feature of current Googling of info. But I glimpsed that both arms are supposedly dislocated. Presumably from crucifixion, not from carrying the cross, which would only affect one shoulder (quite apart from the 'patibulum' argument with Jesus just bearing the cross - piece, not dragging the whole cross. But why would crucifixion dislocate the shoulders at all? And it doesn't account for why the hand from wrist to fingers is elongated, with or without the 'x - ray' theory. Which would make make the one above too long, rather than an x-ray effect, also with the first finger looking more like a thumb.

I might be wrong, but these are things that (as Poirot said) 'leap to the eye'. At lest, it seems, if one is not a Shroud - authority.