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]

Because the image is faint, there is another interesting feature of the shroud. If you're too far away or too close to it, it's hard to discern the image. The ideal distance to view it is just a few feet away from it. And even at that distance it would be hard to discern without strong lighting. If it was created by a forger, how and why would he do this? It's not ideal to present this to a group like a church setting and for any large mass of people to view it. And it would be hard to create this since when you're close up you can't discern the total image.

Here's a closeup of the face:


https://shroudphotos.com/gallery/page/2/

Also, notice the image is "pixelated". Because of the way the image is on the fabric, the image is not a continuous image, but more like comprised of "pixels". How and why would an artist do this?

[TRANSPONDER]

Pixilated? Are you talking about the weave of the cloth? In any case, while this shroud is indeed a bit of a puzzle, I think we can rule it out that it was any burial shroud of Jesus or anyone else because it is a photographic negative, and had to be made with the cloth flat, like a canvas, however it was made. It was not wrapped around anyone.

And even if it was, what would it prove? That Jesus lived and was crucified? No problem there. That he died? Not a problem. That someone came and took away the body and the shroud with it? That's what Matthew lets slip - the disciples stole the body is the story current in his time, so he says. And that is about the only thing we can rely on that he says.

And, if it was true, the 'fifth gospel' refutes the fourth, as this debunks John's body -bands. And if it refutes John, why do we have a spear -thrust? It's an interesting object for sure, but doesn't actually do much for Bible veracity, never mind inerrancy.

[otseng]

Pixilated? Are you talking about the weave of the cloth?

Yes, I'm talking about the combination of the weave and the image that makes a "pixelated" effect.

In any case, while this shroud is indeed a bit of a puzzle, I think we can rule it out that it was any burial shroud of Jesus or anyone else because it is a photographic negative, and had to be made with the cloth flat, like a canvas, however it was made. It was not wrapped around anyone.

I don't understand your argument that it can be ruled out that it was the burial shroud of Jesus (or anyone else). What evidence can you demonstrate to support this?

And even if it was, what would it prove? That Jesus lived and was crucified? No problem there. That he died? Not a problem. That someone came and took away the body and the shroud with it? That's what Matthew lets slip - the disciples stole the body is the story current in his time, so he says. And that is about the only thing we can rely on that he says.

I'll get more to arguments later that the body could not have been removed.

And, if it was true, the 'fifth gospel' refutes the fourth, as this debunks John's body -bands. And if it refutes John, why do we have a spear -thrust? It's an interesting object for sure, but doesn't actually do much for Bible veracity, never mind inerrancy.

Who said anything about requiring inerrancy? Inerrancy is not assumed in this thread.

As for the veracity of the Bible, another interesting thing about the shroud is not only it supports the Biblical accounts, but gives us greater understanding of the Biblical accounts. I'll be touching on these as I present more observations of the shroud.

[otseng]

Another very interesting aspect to the body image is it is a result of discoloration on the topmost fibers. The image does not go all the way through the cloth as one would expect if it was painted on. There is also no cement material found to indicate it was a painting.

During the 1978 observations in Turin, I used a dissecting needle to push some of the individual,superficial, yellow, 10-15-µm-diameter image fibers aside and look under them with a microscope. I could not see colored fibers more than a relatively short distance from the top surface of a thread.Published photo micrographs of the surface show the discontinuous distribution of the color on the top most parts of the weave. The color density seen in any area of the image appears primarily to be a function of the number of colored fibers per unit area rather than a significant difference in the density of the color of the fibers. This observation was puzzling, and we called it the "half-tone" effect. No fibers in a pure image area were cemented together by any foreign material, and there were no liquid meniscus marks. These facts seemed to eliminate any image-formation hypothesis that was based solely on the flow of a liquid into the cloth. This also suggests that, if a body was involved in image formation, it was dry at the time the color formed

At high optical magnifications,up to 1000X, no coatings could be resolved on the surfaces of image fibers;[16] however, the surfaces appeared to be "corroded." Heller and Adler also reported that "ghosts" of color were stripped off of fibers by the adhesive of sampling tapes when they were pulled out of the adhesive and that the insides of the fibers were colorless. I have confirmed this observation (figure 5).

The STURP observation[16] that the surfaces of image fibers appeared to be "corroded" suggests that a very thin coating of carbohydrate had been significantly dehydrated on the outer surfaces of the fibers.Dehydration causes shrinkage; therefore, any coating of carbohydrate impurities would "craze" during dehydration. Such a crazed coating would be easy to pull off with adhesive, explaining the easy removal of tapes from image areas. In the context of a discussion on radiation, these observations prove that only radiation-induced reactions that color the surfaces of fibers without coloring the cellulose can be considered.

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

The image discoloration does not even affect a thread, but only the superficial fibers in a thread.

The cloth is about 0.34 mm thick, with each thread containing 70–120 linen fibers.  Microscopic examination reveals the man’s image is the result of yellow color found on the top two or three superficial fibers, each fiber ranging 10–15 micrometers in diameter, within the yarns of surface threads.

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

Here is a closeup shot:



These also show the "pixelation" affect that I mentioned above. Also, obviously the image was not painted on, unless the forger somehow was able to "paint" at the fiber level.

To this day, we don't really know how the image got on the cloth. But, the only viable explanation so far is some sort of radiation.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pixilated? Are you talking about the weave of the cloth?

Yes, I'm talking about the combination of the weave and the image that makes a "pixelated" effect.

In any case, while this shroud is indeed a bit of a puzzle, I think we can rule it out that it was any burial shroud of Jesus or anyone else because it is a photographic negative, and had to be made with the cloth flat, like a canvas, however it was made. It was not wrapped around anyone.

I don't understand your argument that it can be ruled out that it was the burial shroud of Jesus (or anyone else). What evidence can you demonstrate to support this?

And even if it was, what would it prove? That Jesus lived and was crucified? No problem there. That he died? Not a problem. That someone came and took away the body and the shroud with it? That's what Matthew lets slip - the disciples stole the body is the story current in his time, so he says. And that is about the only thing we can rely on that he says.

I'll get more to arguments later that the body could not have been removed.

And, if it was true, the 'fifth gospel' refutes the fourth, as this debunks John's body -bands. And if it refutes John, why do we have a spear -thrust? It's an interesting object for sure, but doesn't actually do much for Bible veracity, never mind inerrancy.

Who said anything about requiring inerrancy? Inerrancy is not assumed in this thread.

As for the veracity of the Bible, another interesting thing about the shroud is not only it supports the Biblical accounts, but gives us greater understanding of the Biblical accounts. I'll be touching on these as I present more observations of the shroud.

I'll be waiting for them. You might also answer the point that this cannot be a wrap - around image but is flat image. Also you evade (by pretending the point is about innerancy) the point that this refuted John's burial strips. Yes the 'pixillation' is caused by what has been described (and not to the displeasure of believers ) as scorching on the weave. I agree that this is not the result of paint unless it was applied in the lightest possible way, not soaking in. Though a couple of the pictures do look like there might have been some seepage. I'm particularly interested in the bloodstains which i think were 'applied' rather than magically imprinted, shall we say. I'dlove a close upof those patches.

As I say, it's a puzzle and interesting but the burial shroud of Jesus the image is actually against.

[MissKate13]

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

What if you’re wrong?

[brunumb]

[Replying to otseng in post #1604]

If the shroud was wrapped around the body the image would be laterally distorted/elongated. The face would be a lot wider and nowhere near natural looking. Also, the arms as positioned in the image make them way too long.

Also (https://www.history.com/news/shroud-turin-facts):

"After the church of Lirey put the shroud on display, the church began to draw a lot of pilgrims, and also a lot of money. However, many prominent members of the church remained skeptical of its authenticity.

Around 1389, Pierre d’Arcis—the bishop of Troyes, France—sent a report to Pope Clement VII claiming an artist had confessed to forging the shroud. Furthermore, d’Arcis claimed the dean of the Lirey church knew it was a fake and had used it to raise money anyway. In response, the pope declared the shroud wasn’t the true burial cloth of Christ. Still, he said the Lirey church could continue to display it if it acknowledged the cloth was a man-made religious “icon,” not a historic “relic.” "

[otseng]

If the shroud was wrapped around the body the image would be laterally distorted/elongated. The face would be a lot wider and nowhere near natural looking. Also, the arms as positioned in the image make them way too long.

As for a wraparound cloth causing a distorted image, it depends on how the image was actually created. I think it's another clue as to how the image got created. There's some theories on this, but I'll present later what I think is the most reasonable one. My main argument for now is not how the image actually got created, but that it's highly unlikely to be a medieval forgery.

"After the church of Lirey put the shroud on display, the church began to draw a lot of pilgrims, and also a lot of money. However, many prominent members of the church remained skeptical of its authenticity.

Many people now are also skeptical of its authenticity, but that doesn't demonstrate it is a forgery. And if it is a forgery, we should easily see telltale signs of it on the shroud.

You might also answer the point that this cannot be a wrap - around image but is flat image. Also you evade (by pretending the point is about innerancy) the point that this refuted John's burial strips.

Accusations of evasion would not be considered civil. As for the wrap around effect, I'll present a theory later on how the image got created on the cloth.

Yes the 'pixillation' is caused by what has been described (and not to the displeasure of believers ) as scorching on the weave.

Please present the evidence.

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

What if you’re wrong?

Wrong about what?

As a general comment, this will be another massive topic so people will be need to be patient as we go through this. And as with the other topics, I'm trying to present the arguments as sequentially as I can and not jump around too much. For now, what I'm presenting is the physical characteristics of the shroud and why it's unlikely to be a medieval creation.

[otseng]

https://shroudphotos.com/gallery/page/7/

Another difference between the shroud and other medieval depictions of Jesus is the placement of the nail. In other depictions, the nail goes through the palm of the hand. All paintings and sculptures during that time portray it this way. But, the shroud is unique in that it has the nail going through the wrist.

The plethora of artistic depictions of Jesus from the first through the sixteenth centuries all show him as being nailed to the cross through the hands, whereas in the Shroud image he is nailed through the wrists (the Shroud only shows the exit wounds and does not depict at what point the nails entered).

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

Note, the shroud image reveals the back of the hand, whereas paintings and sculptures show the front of the hand. Why wouldn't the forger have placed the nail exit location directly on the other side of the center of the palm instead of at the wrist? Why would the forger have had the nail at an angle of entering in the palm and exiting at the wrist?

Crypt, Basilica of Santa Maria Assunta
Circa 1180

https://www.christianiconography.info/V ... ileia.html

Simone Martini
The Crucifixion
1333

https://www.christianiconography.info/i ... i1333.html

Pacino da Bonaguida
The Crucifixion
Circa 1310-1320


More medieval depictions in post 1603.

Some more art depictions of Jesus that I took at the Art Institute Chicago - Jesus crucifixion

Also, note thumbs are missing from the shroud. Why would the forger omit the thumbs?

[TRANSPONDER]

If the shroud was wrapped around the body the image would be laterally distorted/elongated. The face would be a lot wider and nowhere near natural looking. Also, the arms as positioned in the image make them way too long.

As for a wraparound cloth causing a distorted image, it depends on how the image was actually created. I think it's another clue as to how the image got created. There's some theories on this, but I'll present later what I think is the most reasonable one. My main argument for now is not how the image actually got created, but that it's highly unlikely to be a medieval forgery.

"After the church of Lirey put the shroud on display, the church began to draw a lot of pilgrims, and also a lot of money. However, many prominent members of the church remained skeptical of its authenticity.

Many people now are also skeptical of its authenticity, but that doesn't demonstrate it is a forgery. And if it is a forgery, we should easily see telltale signs of it on the shroud.

You might also answer the point that this cannot be a wrap - around image but is flat image. Also you evade (by pretending the point is about innerancy) the point that this refuted John's burial strips.

Accusations of evasion would not be considered civil. As for the wrap around effect, I'll present a theory later on how the image got created on the cloth.

Yes the 'pixillation' is caused by what has been described (and not to the displeasure of believers O:) ) as scorching on the weave.

Please present the evidence.

[Replying to otseng in post #1]

What if you’re wrong?

Wrong about what?

As a general comment, this will be another massive topic so people will be need to be patient as we go through this. And as with the other topics, I'm trying to present the arguments as sequentially as I can and not jump around too much. For now, what I'm presenting is the physical characteristics of the shroud and why it's unlikely to be a medieval creation.

That's not the point.The point is whether or not the flat image rules out this being a shroud. It is irrelevant to argue whether it is a medieval forgery or not. What is more relevant is to argue how a flat image could be produced by any method that could look like burial wrapped in a shroud as in the gospels (John aside).

Any effort to evade answering that will look like misdirection and evasion.

Nota please, that even if this was the burial tweeds of Jesus, flogging and all, that would do no more than be a remarkable relic of a crucified historical Jesus, which i have never contested. The question is whether that shroud shows any evidence that Jesus was resurrected by divine or human agency. Bear in mind that if the shroud was real, someone took it off Jesus and kept it as a relic. It seems to me that you have more relevant work to do than argue whether it could be a painted artefacts or had to be produced by some other means. There, too, the face looks uncannily like the conventional images of Jesus which I really suspect, were derived from Byzantine art styles rather than any real idea of what Jesus looked like. This image suggests being an imitation of conventional Jesus rather than a relic of his.