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

[oldbadger]

STURP team members, Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori, took various photographic images of the TS in 1977. UV photographs revealed the blood stains more clearly than compared to normal photographs.

Blood stains?

Do you think that Magdalene and others would have completely washed the body of Jesus....clean?
Do bodies bleed after death?

All these stains........ have these questions been addressed?

[brunumb]

STURP team members, Vernon Miller and Samuel Pellicori, took various photographic images of the TS in 1977. UV photographs revealed the blood stains more clearly than compared to normal photographs.

Blood stains?

Do you think that Magdalene and others would have completely washed the body of Jesus....clean?
Do bodies bleed after death?

All these stains........ have these questions been addressed?

My thoughts too!
Bodies do not bleed after death as the heart has stopped pumping blood around the body. One would expect that preparation of the body before burial would have involved washing. In the case of Jesus , the body was apparently smothered in "a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight" and wound in linen. One would not expect any bleeding from the corpse resulting in the stains claimed to be on the shroud.

[otseng]

The only question I asked was:

"Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390, it still leaves several questions unanswered -- who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?"

And I'm not really expecting an answer to this question because no skeptic has an answer.

Is the cloth a linen? Woven from spun flax possibly? After 700 years you won't find out who made that...true?

Are you saying it's critical to find out who made the linen fabric? No, I don't know who made the grew the linen, harvested the linen, spun the yarns, and weaved the fabric. How is that even relevant?

I didn't have an opinion either way, but I do think that you are losing ground imo.

If you think I'm losing ground, then you must understand what I've been arguing for and what the skeptics have been arguing for. What do you see are the strongest and weakest positions of both sides so far?

Now that would be interesting........ maybe the material might help?

Using the linen material to determine the shroud's provenance? The only thing I can think of so far that would be relevant is the herringbone weave.

I cannot see how an individual cloth can be connected to Jesus. If you can offer some evidence then I'll read it.

I'll be getting into those arguments soon.

Actually, I'm willing to write up a paper. Are you willing to do the same for the skeptical position?

No! I am a spectator, or reader actually, taking notice of your claims and not finding much evidence within them.

It's easy to simply claim someone else is not producing evidence. But, when put to the test, your claim does not stand. I'm willing to put all my arguments under the analysis of shroud professionals. Yet, no skeptics are willing to do the same. This observation alone shows who has more evidence.

I haven't seen any of your ideas that were based upon scientific research, is all. In my opinion all you're left with is faith.

Please provide the link to where I've used faith to support my arguments instead of evidence.

OK. I'm quite happy to accept that you have not declared any faith about the Turin Shroud being real. No problem there.

Then are you willing to retract your statement, "I haven't seen any of your ideas that were based upon scientific research, is all. In my opinion all you're left with is faith"?

Do you think it's a fake?

The totality of the shroud has to be its material, it's method of production (weaving) and any marks upon it.
The material in the shroud is of extreme importance in this matter, surely?

I'm just expecting a yes or no answer. It's either it's a fake or it's not a fake.

I believe the material itself has little relevance. The materials used could hypothetically have been the same whether the TS is legit or a fake.

I haven't had a strong opinion, nor any evidence either way. I see no evidence, either way.

All the evidence I've been producing is simply to argue the image on the shroud is not artwork and a real body was involved. Are you saying I've produced no evidence to support this claim?

But a shroud carbon dated to the thirteenth century by recognized laboratories does have quite a lot of impact.

I've also argued against the C-14 result. Are your saying I've produced no evidence for my arguments?

I've been listening to your ideas; they just don't seem to be very strong.

Not sure if you've been reading all my posts on the TS if you claim "I see no evidence, either way." In all of my arguments, I've been providing evidence with references.

Of course. Not only that, I claim the TS is evidence of his resurrection.

Ah... well, you'll be trying to produce a Christian Certitude, rather than a Christian Faith. I have never met a Christian who has total certitude as far as I recall.

In any debate, each side should have a position. And it's each sides' role to defend that position and attack the other position. I'm simply stating what is my position.

Blood stains?

Do you think that Magdalene and others would have completely washed the body of Jesus....clean?

They did not complete their burial preparation, so don't know how much they accomplished.

Do bodies bleed after death?

There's no bleeding that occurs from blood vessel circulation, since obviously a dead person has no heart beating. But there can be bleeding if blood filled a body cavity and the body was moved to release that blood (like what happened at the side wound). For stains such as the scourge marks, they are not a result of blood per se, but from exudate.

All of the medical forensic examinations of the blood images are in agreement that they were exudates from clotted wounds transferred to the cloth by its being in contact with a wounded human male body.

Proposed mineral compositions simulating blood are not consistent with these various measured chemical and physical parameters. That these are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring agreeing with the earlier observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/T ... 0eed83e007

[otseng]

In depictions of crucifixion, nail wounds in the hands are necessarily shown from the front and the assumption is that the nails were driven horizontally. If the nails were driven at an angle, however, they could have been driven into the lower palms and come out through the backs of the wrists.

I also believe that is what actually happened. But, how would the TS artist have known that is how it should've been done? If all the artistic depictions were at the center of the palm, why would the TS artist go at an angle through the wrist instead of straight through to the back of the hand? There is no prior artist that painted the nail at such an angle.

A sampling of paintings is in post 1603 and post 1613.

Since scripture negates John's claim that it was prophetic fulfillment, such corroboration means nothing.

Here's the passage that corroborates with the TS on the side wound.

[Jhn 19:34 KJV] But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

It's not about the image; it's about what a gospel writer says about why something happened. According to the scripture that gospel writer misquotes, he gets it wrong.

Which verse are you then referring to?

.....which leaves no plausible explanation for the absence of wrap-around distortion over the top of the head.

You can't have it both ways.

The imaging method not only encoded depth information, but also angle information. More details in post 1698.

Actually, I don't have any major problems with your line of reasoning. But, it's still possible to believe Jesus was depicted on the TS and not believe he was the Jewish Messiah. Case in point is Barrie Schwortz...

"Now, the problem I have is that I’m not really a scientist myself, I’m a technical photographer, so I cannot speak for the world of science in general and addressing this issue."
---Barrie Schwortz

Schwortz was on the original STURP team that went to Turin in 1978. He also runs the largest TS website in the world. If you ask any shroud professional (authenticist or skeptic), they all have high regards for Schwortz.

Can you quote him as ever stating a belief that the image on the cloth was supernaturally produced?

No. He has no idea how the image got there. The 1978 STURP team conclusions only showed how the image could not have been done.

And where do their rabbis get their view of their Messiah? They get it from their Bible.

Of course. And there are scriptural evidence from the OT that Jesus fulfilled as the Messiah. We'll get more to this later after discussing the resurrection.

[otseng]

"Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390, it still leaves several questions unanswered -- who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?"

If that date was established, then the shroud becomes a mere curiosity and the answers to the questions would only be of interest to those who care about such things.

I've argued at length against the C-14 dating and summarized it in post 1984. What counter-arguments do you have against my arguments?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2084]

It's not about the image; it's about what a gospel writer says about why something happened. According to the scripture that gospel writer misquotes, he gets it wrong.

Which verse are you then referring to?

Zechariah 12:10 states: "And they shall look to Me whom they have pierced; then they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son." In John 19:37 this verse is quoted with a significant change: "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ariah-1210

The shroud would've covered the top of the head since it was one piece. Yet, there is no image there. There is nothing between the depictions of the front and back of the head.

This rules out the image being created by some sort of vapor, otherwise the vapor would've also created an image at the top of the head. It also is evidence against a bas-relief technique since it would not create a separate front and back image at the top of the head.

The top of the head is close to the cloth, but has no imaging. It is perpendicular to the ground at that point and there is no imaging.

Since the top of the head would have been close to the cloth, there should be imaging there. In fact, if the body was bent forward the cloth would have been in contact with even more of the head before dropping perpendicular to the ground behind the body. This means that there should be a distortion image of the top of the head on the cloth. There isn't, and that is actually evidence that the images are not those of a three-dimensional head but are, rather, bas-relief images. The front and back images couldn't be made from one relief, but they could be made from two.

And where do their rabbis get their view of their Messiah? They get it from their Bible.

Of course. And there are scriptural evidence from the OT that Jesus fulfilled as the Messiah. We'll get more to this later after discussing the resurrection.

You can get into it later. I'll get into it now.

Some form of the Hebrew word moshiach is used over 150 times in the Jewish bible. Christians consistently translate this word as anointed, except in the ninth chapter of Daniel. In this chapter missionaries deviate from this and other correct translations in an attempt to prove that the messiah came before the destruction of the Second Temple. Rather than speaking about “the messiah,” when read in context and with a correct translation this chapter clearly speaks about two different “anointed” subjects hundreds of years apart. The first is the anointed King Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1) who granted permission to the Jews to return and build the Second Temple 52 years “7 weeks of years” after the destruction of the First Temple. The second is the anointed priesthood (Leviticus 4:3) that was terminated 434 years “62 weeks of years” later.

An examination of the contradictory accounts of Jesus’ genealogy demonstrates a number of difficulties with the fulfillment of the second criterion. Specifically, the New Testament claims that Jesus did not have a physical father. The Jewish Scriptures, however, clearly states that a person’s genealogy and tribal membership is transmitted exclusively through one’s physical father (Numbers 1:18, Jeremiah 33:17).

There are even further problems with any attempts to use the Jewish Scriptures to prove Jesus’ genealogy through Joseph, the husband of Mary (Jesus’ mother).

For the New Testament claims that Joseph was a descendant of King Jeconiah, who in the Hebrew Bible was cursed to never have a descendant “sitting on the throne of David and ruling any more in Judah” (Jeremiah 22:30). Joseph’s genealogy, even if it were transmittable to Jesus, would only serve to further disqualify Jesus as the Messiah.

Finally, there is the problem of the contradictory accounts of Jesus’ genealogy in Matthew, Chapter 1 and Luke, Chapter 3. The common Christian explanation of this contradiction claims that Luke’s genealogy is that of Jesus’ mother, Mary. However, this is unfounded, even according to the Greek original.

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... he-messiah

[brunumb]

"Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390, it still leaves several questions unanswered -- who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?"

If that date was established, then the shroud becomes a mere curiosity and the answers to the questions would only be of interest to those who care about such things.

I've argued at length against the C-14 dating and summarized it in post 1984. What counter-arguments do you have against my arguments?

HUH? Your response has nothing to do with what I said or the comment you made that I was responding to.

[oldbadger]

My thoughts too!
Bodies do not bleed after death as the heart has stopped pumping blood around the body. One would expect that preparation of the body before burial would have involved washing. In the case of Jesus , the body was apparently smothered in "a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight" and wound in linen. One would not expect any bleeding from the corpse resulting in the stains claimed to be on the shroud.

Myrrh and Aloes? Of course, so why haven't I read a line about any such residues? I have not read any of the lab reports from the 80's, did these refer to such residues?

[brunumb]

Are you saying it's critical to find out who made the linen fabric? No, I don't know who made the grew the linen, harvested the linen, spun the yarns, and weaved the fabric. How is that even relevant?

Provenance is everything. A piece of cloth appears around 1354. Claims are made about it being the burial cloth of Jesus. There is no chain of custody or connection back to the alleged corpse of Jesus. All we have is a possibly contested age for the cloth which does nothing to fill in any of the gaps. Unanswered questions are not evidence for anything.

[oldbadger]

Are you saying it's critical to find out who made the linen fabric? No, I don't know who made the grew the linen, harvested the linen, spun the yarns, and weaved the fabric. How is that even relevant?

I cannot answer your ever sentence..... I don't have so much time, but please let me answer these points that you have made.
The material that is the shroud will hold crucial forensic evidence! Specialists may be able to discover where the flax crop (or whatever) was grown, the fineness (or not) of the weave, the type of weave, the dating of this material etc.......... all crucial! So far I have read that this item dates back about 700 years so it is short by One thousand Three hundred years....no?

What do you see are the strongest and weakest positions of both sides so far?

Dating of the item points towards it being false.
No connection between Jerusalem and Turin.
No connection between Magdalene and the other ladies and and line of handling all the way to Turin.
That so many artifacts were fashioned in order to attract pilgrims or increase faith in people........ It is claimed that the King's (Henry VIII) secretary Cromwell received scores of such items for officials who were busting down English monasteries. So we are used to hearing about such stuff.

I'll be getting into those arguments soon.

Is this because you are still researching for straws, or because you are holding them back for some debating climax?

Then are you willing to retract your statement, "I haven't seen any of your ideas that were based upon scientific research, is all. In my opinion all you're left with is faith"?

Yes. If your opinion is not based upon any faith then you won't have much to grasp at all......at this rate. So I take it back..... you will not be left with anything imo, if you cannot prepare a clear and concise list of evidence.

I'm just expecting a yes or no answer. It's either it's a fake or it's not a fake.

You need to show a clear conclusion showing your evidence before any such opinion could be arrived at. You tell us that haven't shown all your evidence yet.... you'll be getting to various evidences soon....yes?