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]

Do you agree that if I cannot prove that the cloth is a fake, then you win the argument?

Do you believe the Shroud could have been forged? If not, please explain why not.

Alternatively, do you believe that the Shroud could have been the burial cloth of some random person?

I've already laid out my arguments it is burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth and it is not the work of an artist or the burial shroud of someone else.

If you have no rational counterarguments to my final argument, then yes I win the argument.

[otseng]

More ranting and baseless unsupported assertions.

What I'm expecting for a rational debate is logical argumentation supported by evidence. Why is this so hard to produce?

My evidence is thus:

You've not been able to present a contemporary picture of Jesus for comparison.

You've not been able to present a blood sample for comparison.

You've not been able to present a reliable record of ownership, so provenance can established.

You've not explained how a virgin pregnancy can be established, and how the y chromosome came about in that virgin pregnancy. Without such, Jesus, as claimed, can't be shown to've existed.

Call these problems a "rant", or "baseless unsupported assertions" all you want, the fact remains, there they sit.

Yes, I'll call this a rant and baseless unsupported assertions. Where exactly is your evidence? Here's the ironic thing, you ask for evidence from Christians all the time, yet when asked of you, you never produce any and only simply reassert your claims.

Further, you intentionally post impossible requests and assume that is a logical way to debate. Actually, that's not how it works. If this were the case, nothing in ancient history would ever be accepted. What I'm doing is using the standard accepted method of determining what could have happened in ancient history by providing textual evidence and artifact evidence. And then analyzing what are the major theories and seeing which one is the most viable.

[otseng]

When Edessa reverted to paganism after Abgar's death, the shroud was hidden in the city wall. Most likely this was stored in a jar.

After Abgar’s death in AD 50 his son Ma’nu V became king. However, the latter died soon afterward
and his brother or son Ma’nu VI came to the throne in 57. He reverted to paganism, persecuted
Christians, and sought to destroy all of the associated relics. Therefore, Edessa became hostile to
Christianity until the rule of King Lucius Abgar VIII 120 years later. The Shroud and the Keramion
were hidden within the city walls by church officials and forgotten for over 460 years.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Holy_Grail




The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in special jars. These jars were various sizes and were long and narrow with a lid.

The Dead Sea Scrolls, or Qumran Caves Scrolls, are parchment and papyrus scrolls that were found rolled-up inside special jars with tight-fitting covers, which helped preserve them. The jars were locally made in the Dead Sea area.

https://www.worldhistory.org/image/8468 ... olls-jars/

It is theorized the large water stains on the shroud is a result of being in a narrow jar such as the Qumran jars.

The theory of a safekeeping of the Shroud in a slightly curved slanted near vertical position,
incited us to try and find what kind of receptacle could have been used to store the Shroud in
this way. We had reasons to believe that it could have been an ancient earthenware jar like
those produced in quantity during antiquity.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/aldo3.pdf

The large water stains on the shroud support it was folded and placed into a long narrow jar and water at some point entered the jar.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2520

What evidence have you produced? I've only seen claims. Please present evidence that is backed by a source/reference and not just making assertions.

The absence of imaging over the head isn't just a "claim"; it's plainly there. It is self-evident.

Your assertion is "bas-relief is most strongly suggested". What evidence do you have that it is "the most strongly suggested" method to explain the imaging?

It's exactly the kind of imaging which bas-relief would produce. Here's an experiment for you to conduct:

Get a head-shaped wig stand and cover it with paint. Then lay a sheet of cloth over it while the paint is wet, pressing it down to conform to the shape. The paint coming off onto the cloth will represent some form of energy radiating from a head.

Now take bas-relief images of the front and back of a human head and lay them next to each other, head-tops inward, with about a foot between them. Cover the images with paint and lay another sheet of cloth over them, pressing it down to conform to the images.

When the paint has dried, look at the patterns it makes on the sheets. Then ask yourself which of the paint patterns resembles the image on the Turin cloth and which of them doesn't.

If you claim this, then you must've also compared it with the merits of all the other imaging theories. How does this stack up with all the other theories?

You mean all the other imaging theories explaining the absence of head-top image? To my knowledge you've offered only one, and it was so weak that it practically refuted itself.

[otseng]

The absence of imaging over the head isn't just a "claim"; it's plainly there. It is self-evident.

Never disputed the absence of imaging over the head. What I'm disputing is "bas-relief is most strongly suggested". You have yet to support this claim with any evidence.

Your assertion is "bas-relief is most strongly suggested". What evidence do you have that it is "the most strongly suggested" method to explain the imaging?

It's exactly the kind of imaging which bas-relief would produce.

Several theories explain the lack of imaging over the head. So, again, unless you also compare it with the others, you cannot support the statement "the most strongly suggested".

Here's an experiment for you to conduct:

Get a head-shaped wig stand and cover it with paint. Then lay a sheet of cloth over it while the paint is wet, pressing it down to conform to the shape. The paint coming off onto the cloth will represent some form of energy radiating from a head.

Now take bas-relief images of the front and back of a human head and lay them next to each other, head-tops inward, with about a foot between them. Cover the images with paint and lay another sheet of cloth over them, pressing it down to conform to the images.

When the paint has dried, look at the patterns it makes on the sheets. Then ask yourself which of the paint patterns resembles the image on the Turin cloth and which of them doesn't.

Your experiment uses 2 sheets of cloth? There is only 1 sheet with the TS.

To my knowledge you've offered only one, and it was so weak that it practically refuted itself.

I haven't even begun my discussion on imaging so I haven't even really offered one yet.

[otseng]

The Gospel of the Hebrews is a lost work that was quoted by early Church Fathers.

The Gospel of the Hebrews (Ancient Greek: τὸ καθ' Ἑβραίους εὐαγγέλιον), or Gospel according to the Hebrews, is a lost Jewish–Christian gospel. The text of the gospel is lost, with only fragments of it surviving as brief quotations by the early Church Fathers and in apocryphal writings.

The Gospel of the Hebrews is the only Jewish–Christian gospel which the Church Fathers referred to by name, believing there was only one Hebrew Gospel, perhaps in different versions.

Passages from the gospel of the Hebrews were quoted or summarized by three Alexandrian Fathers – Clement, Origen and Didymus the Blind; it was also quoted by Jerome, either directly or through the commentaries of Origen.

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

It was likely written in early 2nd century.

It was probably composed in Greek in the first decades of the 2nd century, and is believed to have been used by Greek-speaking Jewish Christians in Egypt during that century.

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

The origin of the Gospel of the Hebrews (GH) is obscure.
It has come down to us in fragments quoted or
paraphrased by various Church Fathers -- Jerome, Papias,
Hegesippus (cited by Eusebius), Clement of Alexandria,
Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and possibly Ignatius. It
has been dated to the first half of the second century. It
has proto-gnostic tendencies and a strong Jewish-
Christian character, not only as may be seen in the title,
but also in the emphasis on the figure of James.

http://www.acheiropoietos.info/proceedi ... antWeb.pdf

In the Gospel of Hebrews, it mentions a linen cloth given to the "servant of the priest" by Jesus after he rose from the dead and then appeared to James.

And when the Lord had given the linen cloth to the servant of the priest, he went to James and appeared to him. For James had sworn that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he had drunk the cup of the Lord until he should see him risen from among them that sleep. And shortly thereafter the Lord said: Bring a table and bread! And immediately it added: he took the bread, blessed it and brake it and gave it to James the Just and said to him: My brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from among them that sleep.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... s-ogg.html

This is most likely connected to 1 Cor 15:7:

[1Co 15:4-7 KJV] 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: 6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. 7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Who is the "servant of the priest" that the cloth was given to?

I believe it was Lazarus. The crux of my argument for this is it was Lazarus that wrote the book of John. See Who wrote the Gospel we call "John's"? Lazarus was the beloved disciple, not the apostle John.

The beloved disciple had inside access to the temple when Jesus was arrested and was known by the high priest.

[Jhn 18:15 KJV] 15 And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and [so did] another disciple: that disciple was known unto the high priest, and went in with Jesus into the palace of the high priest.

The beloved disciple was the only one who knew the name of the servant who had his ear cut off.

Jhn 18:10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus.

Lazarus would've then most likely be one of the servants of a temple priest.

Lazarus was the one who would take care of Jesus's mother.

Jhn 19:26-27
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.

If anybody would've had legal ownership of the shroud, it would've been the family of Jesus. Since Lazarus was the placed into authority of his family by Jesus himself, then he would've naturally been the person to have the authority to keep the shroud.

[earl]

From another source ,the Urantia Book, states a alternate description of events at page 190.1.2 the Captain of the temple guards was told by the high priest to go and remove the grave cloths from the tomb.This then would be the servant of the high priest.He then threw the cloths over a nearby cliff.Apparently retrieved later since he was the only one who knew where they were. Note,he did not take them back to the high priest as evidence to show him or to be destroyed by him.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2525

Your experiment uses 2 sheets of cloth? There is only 1 sheet with the TS.

Yes. My experiment uses two sheets, one with the wig stand and one with the bas reliefs, to compare/contrast to see which one reproduces the Turin cloth head image more closely. Get it?

I haven't even begun my discussion on imaging so I haven't even really offered one yet.

Then you can hardly criticize me for not yet addressing any other theories. To date, the bas-relief explanation stands alone.

[boatsnguitars]

No, you've made assertions that can't be confirmed.

Do you have a picture of Jesus in your pocket?
A blood sample?

Without such, the best we'll do is speculation.

[Replying to otseng in post #2503]
All this discussion of the Shroud seems to me to be a waste of time. Will those who think the Shroud might actually be the burial cloth of Jesus kindly help me understand why that particular piece of cloth is special? What makes it stand out among the uncountable other cloths that covered all or parts of persons who lived and died in the 700 years prior to the cloth's "discovery"?

Why do people think the image could be of Jesus, rather than that, say, of a village cobbler or candlemaker?

Help me understand this obsession.

More ranting and baseless unsupported assertions.

What I'm expecting for a rational debate is logical argumentation supported by evidence. Why is this so hard to produce?

That's not a response. You know this. Let's try again: How do you know it's a shroud that wrapped Jesus? Because the Church said so - and has no history of lying about relics?

[JoeyKnothead]

More ranting and baseless unsupported assertions.

What I'm expecting for a rational debate is logical argumentation supported by evidence. Why is this so hard to produce?

My evidence is thus:

You've not been able to present a contemporary picture of Jesus for comparison.

You've not been able to present a blood sample for comparison.

You've not been able to present a reliable record of ownership, so provenance can established.

You've not explained how a virgin pregnancy can be established, and how the y chromosome came about in that virgin pregnancy. Without such, Jesus, as claimed, can't be shown to've existed.

Call these problems a "rant", or "baseless unsupported assertions" all you want, the fact remains, there they sit.

Yes, I'll call this a rant and baseless unsupported assertions. Where exactly is your evidence? Here's the ironic thing, you ask for evidence from Christians all the time, yet when asked of you, you never produce any and only simply reassert your claims.

My evidence is found throughout a thread in which you've yet to produce the referenced material for analysis.

That you find my continued efforts to point out these problems "ranting", or "baseless", in a debate, is sound indication of the errancy of your conclusions in this matter.

I repeat these problems from time to time because I can't be certain if new folks ain't coming in part way through the thread.

Further, you intentionally post impossible requests and assume that is a logical way to debate. Actually, that's not how it works.

I intentionally point out, in debate, the flaws in your representation, or conclusions about it. That's kinda of exactly how debate works.

If a request for evidence confirmatory to your claims is "impossible" to produce, then we have a bit of data there for drawing our conclusions regarding the reliability of your claims. Notice here, that doesn't require we dismiss, or accept, your claims, just that you can't produce the key bits of evidence that'd put this fuss to rest.

If this were the case, nothing in ancient history would ever be accepted.

I'm not asking you to providence confirmatory evidence regarding anything other than for the stuff for which you've made claims.

What I'm doing is using the standard accepted method of determining what could have happened in ancient history by providing textual evidence and artifact evidence. And then analyzing what are the major theories and seeing which one is the most viable.

And what I'm doing is seeing what evidence can be presented that would support conclusions in this regard.

I point out that the most reliable methodology - contemporary images, contemporary blood samples, and reproductive genetics - can't be brought to bear on this shroud, or some of the claims folks'll tell about it.

With this in mind, I propose those claiming this thing is some miracle burial cloth of an ancient miracle birthed person are not able to show such is the case. I also propose folks are not bound to hold to any "standard accepted method", but to what their own understanding leads them to conclude.