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]

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?

Allright. But , no you cannot use what you call 'extranatural explanations' to permit you to appeal to miracles. There is no way that the hypotheses being proposed for cosmology now, which will still await verification, can be used to excuse appeals to magic. If and when the Cosmological problems are known, we can say they are natural or extra -natural, not before. The same with appeal to x-ray effect miracles.

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

I'll look into this business of no yellowed fibres under the blood (and serum) images. That would challenge the idea that it was put on after the image was created.

You also make a good argument (that would undermine my claim) that there is evidence of burning of the blood - marks. Your evidence for that, please? The first thing that occurs to me is, why not all over but only in some places? You do know that the shroud was involved in a fire? While it was saved, there was some damage. Is there no 'burning'anywhere other than the blood -image? I shall have to look into that..

In case i didn't mention this, an x- ray like effect should apply all over the body. It does not. The hands represent contact images (whether by natural or magical means) with the upper surface of the fingers. They do not represent the finger -bones.

"There is a lack of wrap-around distortions that would be expected if the cloth had enclosed an actual three-dimensional object like a human body. Thus the cloth was never used to wrap a body as described in the Bible. If the image had been formed when the cloth was around Jesus' corpse it would have been distorted when the cloth was flattened out.
There are serious anatomical problems with the image, such as the height of the body, length of limbs, ears missing, front and back images not matching, hair hanging the wrong way etc. (More details further in the article.)
There is no blood on the shroud: all the forensic tests specific for blood, and only blood, have failed. There is no trace of sodium, chlorine or potassium, which blood contains in high amounts and which would have been present if the stains were truly blood. The alleged bloodstains are unnaturally picture-like. Real blood spreads in cloth and mats on hair, and does not form perfect rivulets and spiral flows. Also, dried "blood" (as on the arms) has been implausibly transferred to the cloth. The alleged blood remains bright red, unlike genuine blood that blackens with age" (silly beliefs.com.) I know, but the article is serious. Rationalwiki mentioned the burning caused by molten metal making a hole the layers of the folded cloth. Again, why a burning effect only in certain areas of the bloodstain image?

Thinking about the idea of blood (or paint) put on after the image, it would paint the fibres,wouldn't it? You could never expect to recover yellowed fibres from under it. Imagine painting on paper and expecting to fine white fibres from under the paint. Your argument seems a bit wonky there.

The book you reference is the result of the STURP (1) analysis of the shroud. It concluded (not unreasonably) that the body was that of a crucified man. It does look like it. It also asserted that the bloodstains were blood and not paint. But McCrone was one member of the team who disagreed. The chemical make up has been disputed as much as the dating. But it is a point that the blood - images look red, as paint would remain, while blood would blacken.

It has also been pointed out that the image is distorted. Not as za wrap -around image would be, but anatomically. Your third link to a heavily evangelical site says this:

"The image formation did not damage the blood stains, indicating the image was formed by a mild process.6" Well, doesn't that refute your reported claim of 'burning' did you say - of the blood -impressions? Perhaps your clarification of where this burning actually is would resolve this.

(1) Shroud of Turin Research Project worked 1970's to 80's.

[otseng]

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?

Allright. But , no you cannot use what you call 'extranatural explanations' to permit you to appeal to miracles. There is no way that the hypotheses being proposed for cosmology now, which will still await verification, can be used to excuse appeals to magic. If and when the Cosmological problems are known, we can say they are natural or extra -natural, not before. The same with appeal to x-ray effect miracles.

You did not answer the question - why can cosmologists invoke extranatural explanations and theists cannot? You only reasserted that I cannot appeal to a miracle.

What this reveals is special pleading.

Special pleading occurs when someone dismisses a specific case as an exception to a rule without adequate reasons. It is typically committed when one needs to justify either their own claim or a position that has some sort of significance to them. The arguer attempts to exempt themselves from the same standards that they expect to be applied to others. This can also be described as having double standards.

https://fallacyinlogic.com/special-plea ... -examples/

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... l-Pleading

You also make a good argument (that would undermine my claim) that there is evidence of burning of the blood - marks. Your evidence for that, please?

I had posted one quote above, but here are some more:

This finding is consistent with the globs, shards, and particulates being derived from the blood itself in various stages of decomposition, even including "charred" blood near scorch areas. Birefringent red particles identified as iron oxide are occasionally seen only in these scorch blood areas.

Some of the blood-image red particles near scorch intersections have darkened and test as charred blood.

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

The first thing that occurs to me is, why not all over but only in some places? You do know that the shroud was involved in a fire?

I mentioned about the 1532 fire above. What other fire are you talking about?

In the 1532 fire, it's not like the entire shroud was burned. Only the areas where molten silver fell on the shroud was affected. It is around these areas where charred blood is found.

In case i didn't mention this, an x- ray like effect should apply all over the body. It does not. The hands represent contact images (whether by natural or magical means) with the upper surface of the fingers. They do not represent the finger -bones.

Why should there be an x-ray effect all over the body?

Note, I have not proposed any theory yet on what caused the image. I'm only mentioning what we observe. Yes, it does represent finger bones because an imprint would not reveal bones in the palm. Also, suspiciously you don't even mention the front teeth, which is even more apparent.

(silly beliefs.com.) I know, but the article is serious.

Actually, it's a bit difficult to take anything it says seriously.

Thinking about the idea of blood (or paint) put on after the image, it would paint the fibres,wouldn't it? You could never expect to recover yellowed fibres from under it. Imagine painting on paper and expecting to fine white fibres from under the paint. Your argument seems a bit wonky there.

It's not my argument, it's the findings from STURP. Again, here's the quote from STURP.

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

Also, I have yet to see any (serious) skeptic challenge this finding. So, this is pretty much an incontrovertible fact.

Well, doesn't that refute your reported claim of 'burning' did you say - of the blood -impressions? Perhaps your clarification of where this burning actually is would resolve this.

Again, it would be around the burnings that is around the damage caused by the molten silver. On the other areas not affected by the molten silver we do not see charred blood.

But it is a point that the blood - images look red, as paint would remain, while blood would blacken.

Actually, this would be additional evidence against a forger. The STURP team concluded it was blood. But, if it was blood, there'd be no way it can still be red. So, how can this be reconciled? Though we don't know exactly how to explain this, one theory I've already presented in post 1623:

The redness of the blood is theorized to be caused by high levels of bilirubin.

The blood also contains very unusual high amounts of
bilirubin. This fact was not expected before the
experiments but can be understood if a quick and large
hemolysis occurred as should be the case for Roman
scourging.

To explain that, Adler wrote that
the blood on the Shroud is not whole blood but exudates
(Adler, 1986) that left an imprint during the clotting
process on the corpse. In blood, almost all the potassium
is inside the red cells which remained on the body during
the clotting process. Adler (1986) wrote: “But a torture,
scourging and crucifixion leading to shock - that would
produce a tremendous hemolysis. In less than 30 s, the
hemolyzed hemoglobin will run through the liver, building
up very high bilirubin content in the blood. If that blood
then clots, the exudates forms, and all the intact cells with
hemoglobin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin
goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the
bilirubin…. The blood has no cells, is very low in
potassium and has the right color and composition for the
blood of a man who was severely flogged and crucified”.

https://www.academia.edu/29775791/Foren ... Shroud_Man

If high levels of bilirubin caused by extreme torture can affect the color, how would a medieval forger know about this? And if he knew about it, why would he even go through the trouble? Did he reenact the entire crucifixion scene with some poor soul so that he could get his blood to paint on the cloth to ensure it would stay red?

Also, technically the "blood markings" are not blood, but exudates.

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

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

Allright. But , no you cannot use what you call 'extranatural explanations' to permit you to appeal to miracles. There is no way that the hypotheses being proposed for cosmology now, which will still await verification, can be used to excuse appeals to magic. If and when the Cosmological problems are known, we can say they are natural or extra -natural, not before. The same with appeal to x-ray effect miracles.

You did not answer the question - why can cosmologists invoke extranatural explanations and theists cannot? You only reasserted that I cannot appeal to a miracle.

What this reveals is special pleading.

Special pleading occurs when someone dismisses a specific case as an exception to a rule without adequate reasons. It is typically committed when one needs to justify either their own claim or a position that has some sort of significance to them. The arguer attempts to exempt themselves from the same standards that they expect to be applied to others. This can also be described as having double standards.

https://fallacyinlogic.com/special-plea ... -examples/

Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... l-Pleading

You also make a good argument (that would undermine my claim) that there is evidence of burning of the blood - marks. Your evidence for that, please?

I had posted one quote above, but here are some more:

This finding is consistent with the globs, shards, and particulates being derived from the blood itself in various stages of decomposition, even including "charred" blood near scorch areas. Birefringent red particles identified as iron oxide are occasionally seen only in these scorch blood areas.

Some of the blood-image red particles near scorch intersections have darkened and test as charred blood.

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

The first thing that occurs to me is, why not all over but only in some places? You do know that the shroud was involved in a fire?

I mentioned about the 1532 fire above. What other fire are you talking about?

In the 1532 fire, it's not like the entire shroud was burned. Only the areas where molten silver fell on the shroud was affected. It is around these areas where charred blood is found.

In case i didn't mention this, an x- ray like effect should apply all over the body. It does not. The hands represent contact images (whether by natural or magical means) with the upper surface of the fingers. They do not represent the finger -bones.

Why should there be an x-ray effect all over the body?

Note, I have not proposed any theory yet on what caused the image. I'm only mentioning what we observe. Yes, it does represent finger bones because an imprint would not reveal bones in the palm. Also, suspiciously you don't even mention the front teeth, which is even more apparent.

(silly beliefs.com.) I know, but the article is serious.

Actually, it's a bit difficult to take anything it says seriously.

Thinking about the idea of blood (or paint) put on after the image, it would paint the fibres,wouldn't it? You could never expect to recover yellowed fibres from under it. Imagine painting on paper and expecting to fine white fibres from under the paint. Your argument seems a bit wonky there.

It's not my argument, it's the findings from STURP. Again, here's the quote from STURP.

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

Also, I have yet to see any (serious) skeptic challenge this finding. So, this is pretty much an incontrovertible fact.

Well, doesn't that refute your reported claim of 'burning' did you say - of the blood -impressions? Perhaps your clarification of where this burning actually is would resolve this.

Again, it would be around the burnings that is around the damage caused by the molten silver. On the other areas not affected by the molten silver we do not see charred blood.

But it is a point that the blood - images look red, as paint would remain, while blood would blacken.

Actually, this would be additional evidence against a forger. The STURP team concluded it was blood. But, if it was blood, there'd be no way it can still be red. So, how can this be reconciled? Though we don't know exactly how to explain this, one theory I've already presented in post 1623:

The redness of the blood is theorized to be caused by high levels of bilirubin.

The blood also contains very unusual high amounts of
bilirubin. This fact was not expected before the
experiments but can be understood if a quick and large
hemolysis occurred as should be the case for Roman
scourging.

To explain that, Adler wrote that
the blood on the Shroud is not whole blood but exudates
(Adler, 1986) that left an imprint during the clotting
process on the corpse. In blood, almost all the potassium
is inside the red cells which remained on the body during
the clotting process. Adler (1986) wrote: “But a torture,
scourging and crucifixion leading to shock - that would
produce a tremendous hemolysis. In less than 30 s, the
hemolyzed hemoglobin will run through the liver, building
up very high bilirubin content in the blood. If that blood
then clots, the exudates forms, and all the intact cells with
hemoglobin stay behind, only the hemolyzed hemoglobin
goes out along with the serum albumin which binds the
bilirubin…. The blood has no cells, is very low in
potassium and has the right color and composition for the
blood of a man who was severely flogged and crucified”.

https://www.academia.edu/29775791/Foren ... Shroud_Man

If high levels of bilirubin caused by extreme torture can affect the color, how would a medieval forger know about this? And if he knew about it, why would he even go through the trouble? Did he reenact the entire crucifixion scene with some poor soul so that he could get his blood to paint on the cloth to ensure it would stay red?

Also, technically the "blood markings" are not blood, but exudates.

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

You equivocated; I did not do special pleading. The burning like the x -ray effect should apply all over the body. Are you suggesting that the effect was directed to particular parts of the body? Explain why. (hint 'God had his good reasons'will not do).

But if the charring is related to the fire damage, particular areas is where it would be. The article I quoted deserved better than a dismissive sneer from you. I did mention the teeth. I said it looks like the lower lip - contact image, like the fingers. I had a look at an image of the hands, and I see no palm -bones. One hand is over the other and the upper back of the hand has an obscuring blood mark. I think we have the eye of faith there.

The point about fibres from under the watery marks is a good one, but I see a problem - if the fluid is on the image, we'd see light patches, not the image. And if not on the image, the fibres wouldn't be discoloured. I know it's asking a lot, but I'd need to see where the fluid areas (apart from what is considered water damage) are supposed to be to check for an overall lightening of the image, or the argument fails.

Further the blood or whatever is very red to my eyes, but if it called pinkish, then whatever was applied could also have been pinkish. I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood as blood, whether tortured or not, would still have blackened. Also those bloodstains from the crown of thorns look a bit convenient. I'd have expected them to have stopped flowing by the time the end came. I have read excuses for the wiggly flow (by Jesus being tipped this way and that, I recall), but it doesn't look convincing to me.

[TRANSPONDER]

A bit of a p.s while I await a response.

Although of course i am raising doubts about the shroud (and the objectivity of STURP) I am more open to the shroud being what it claims to be than I am to the gospels being genuine.

The major argument against is that it is a flat image. If genuine, the shroud has to have been laid flat, the body placed on it and the rest laid over the body. Apart from refuting John's account with its' wrapping bands, it rather adds to the idea that the intention was to get Jesus out as soon as the coast was clear. (We can discount Matthew's tomb -guard story). That means that the hope was that Jesus wasn't dead. The disciples took the body as Matthew reports the Jews claimed and that's actually what the Gospels indicate, if one trusts them. I have discussed this before, and will do it again if required. The spear - thrust isn't an issue as none of the synoptics mention it and Luke by omission refutes it at the appearance of Jesus. This means that whatever those bloodmarks are (and i haven't ruled out paint despite the claims of it being chemically blood) they were added later to bring the image in line with John, who as I say refutes the single sheet of the shroud.

Now the Lirey medallion sure indicates that the shroud was like the present one, not some other medieval artwork (1). And that it looks so convincing once revealed in the negative is a strong case for it being genuine. However, the C14 date, which has held up despite attempts to argue it away, suggests that, however it was done, Medieval is what it is.

I am not entirely convinced by the arguments that it is anatomically invalid.It looks pretty good to me. But if there are problems, they can't be got over by proposing a crucified man posture. By the time Jesus was taken down, Rigor mortis would not have set in or the hands could not have been modestly arranged over the pelvic area. I read that the bloodstains and positions of the wounds do not match. I'm not convinced, and that the nails went through the wrist, not the palm, is impressive, along with other convincing details. Which is why a real relic (though 5th gospel, like the other four tells a story that Christians may not like - a plot to rescue Jesus.

P.s to the p. s. - I may have to look at those hand - bones again. They may indeed show the palms if the wound is in the wrist. You see, folks, the truth is what matters to me, not pushing a belief - position. ...yes. it looks like we get the fingers all the way to the knuckles and maybe half the back of the hand (I thought I could detect the thumb, too) and the finger bones are the fingers, not the metatarsals of the back of the hand. And what is visible of the back of the hand doesn't look like an x -ray to me.

There is one evident water -s tain, done when the relic was folded, so aquaeus fluid must be elsewhere on the image and it's rather hard to be sure where.

Although I can credit that a side and even wrist - wounds could still be liquid enough to mark the shroud, the head squiggles and the feet fixed in place so,frankly, further damage wouldn't produce fresh blood or whatever, that adds to my suspicion that the blood was added to make an original bloodless image look more convincing. I remain in doubt about the claim of fibres 'under' the water -marks not showing the image - 'scorching' effect.

(1) I originally toyed with the idea that the original was an artwork and looked like it, so was replaced by a more convincing effort (2) later on,when art and technology had moved on a bit. But if this attested as the original form, that theory has to go.

(2)specifically the idea of the photo - image produced by camera obscura and the suggestion that Leonardo could have been smart enough to do it. Thus the optimum date would be around 1480 - 90, when Leonardo produced many of his noted works, and between the House of Savoy acquiring the image 1453 and the damage caused by the fire of 1532. And that has to be like 100 years after the existence of the first reported shroud.

[TRANSPONDER]

a pps and erratum

I should have said metacapals,not metatarsals, which are the ankle bones.

Anyway, I have been looking at the hand and the slope of the ball of the thumb, and the length of the fingers and where the space of Destoit would be, which is where the nail was supposed to go through. If I am right that the upper fingers are what we see, as a contact and not an x ray image of the hidden finger bones (in the back of the hand which is shown by what appears to be the slope of the thumb to the wrist), then I'm not certain that wrist bloodstain is in the correct spot. It might in fact be an attempt to place it on the back of the hand. i could well be wrong there, but I wish now I'd ordered a full size poster of the shroud when I was following the debate in the 60's.

My thanks to otseng for this'x -ray'idea which has raised a whole new angle on the wrist -wound.

[PolytheistWitch]

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

Almost every religion outside Christianity ( not sure about Judiasm) views sacred texts as important but not inarrant. It doesn't change much. Myths are to teach either lessons or taboos they may change region to region and the person's interaction with which deity. The point to most pagan practices is to engage with deity regularly, getting rules and expectations from the source. It's a shame the book in Christians is more important than the god.

[otseng]

You equivocated; I did not do special pleading.

What equivocation are you referring to?

As for special pleading, you can remedy that by answering why can cosmologists invoke extranatural explanations and theists cannot?

The burning like the x -ray effect should apply all over the body. Are you suggesting that the effect was directed to particular parts of the body? Explain why. (hint 'God had his good reasons'will not do).

As I've mentioned before, I will later go over what I think is the leading theory that makes sense of most of the data. If I present the theory now, I'm sure a ton of questions will be asked, "well, what about this... or that..." So, we're going to first do a comprehensive gathering of all the data on the shroud. Presenting what caused the image will be towards the end of my argument, and judging by topics discussed in the past will be many pages from now.

But I'll say this for now, it is not proposing that an x-ray was involved. All I'm saying with the fingers and teeth is the mechanism produced a superficial x-ray like effect.

The article I quoted deserved better than a dismissive sneer from you.

Let me put it this way, what if the tables were turned? What if you had been providing links from scholarly sources to back up claims and then I just post one source from sillybeliefs.net, would you take me seriously? I'm sure all the other skeptics would be jeering at me.

But I'll do this, I'll pick the number one reason he believes it is a fake and argue against it.

Question: What is your number one reason why you don't believe this cloth could possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ?

Perhaps surprisingly, I'm not going to say carbon dating. There is a far more powerful argument than any single piece of evidence. It is the consensus of expert opinion.

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

First, there is no consensus of expert opinion on the shroud.
Second, he doesn't even list who are the experts that he is referring to.

Even if a majority of "expert opinions" believe something, that does not make it true. That would be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Even if they are "experts", that does not make it true either, since that would be the appeal to authority fallacy.

What really matters is the evidence.

I will say C14 is the strongest argument for it being a forgery. But, this will be a huge subtopic in itself which we will get to later.

I did mention the teeth. I said it looks like the lower lip - contact image, like the fingers. I had a look at an image of the hands, and I see no palm -bones. One hand is over the other and the upper back of the hand has an obscuring blood mark. I think we have the eye of faith there.

OK, but you cannot later then also claim the fingers are too long.

The point about fibres from under the watery marks is a good one, but I see a problem - if the fluid is on the image, we'd see light patches, not the image.

The body fluid on the shroud is complex.

A mechanical description of the blood image areas can be divided into that for the fibril coatings and that for the globs, particulates, and "shards" (12). The nonbirefringent, red-coated fibrils test positively for the presence of heme materials and proteins (12}. The yellow-coated fibrils test positively for protein with lluorescamioe and also positively for serum albumin with bromcresol green indicating that they are blood serum coated (12). Suggestions (14) that this protein coating is a "collagen-type" animal glue used in medieval times as a paint binder are incon- sistent with positive selective tests for serum albumin. The identification ofthe albumin (12}has now been immunoclinically confirned. Further, the suggestion that the body-only image was formed by such "yellowed" collagen is also unjustified as no protein can be detected by the flourescamine and protease tests on such fibrils. Also, Miller and Pellicori found that both laboratory-prepared animal-glue collagen as well as glue used as a binder in a bible (ca. A.D 1400) fluoresced brightly in the visible range when excited by UV radiation (365 nm); both the Shroud blood images and body-only images were nonfluorescing under the same con- ditions (10).

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

Under UV light, we can see some of the "blood stains" better.

SCOURGE MARKS. These appear to be somewhat different from the other two types of blood images. Under UV fluorescence, they appear to be darker than the image and, also, to be much more sharply defined than they appear in visible light (10), as would he expected on the basis of the known spectral characteristics of iron porphyrin compounds (11). The geometric similarity of groups of these dumbbell-shaped marks is also quite striking (21). Fine "scratches" from the distal ends of these dumbbell-shaped marks appear in the UV-stimulated fluorescence photographs (10).

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

I know it's asking a lot, but I'd need to see where the fluid areas (apart from what is considered water damage) are supposed to be to check for an overall lightening of the image, or the argument fails.

I'll see what I can find.

I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood as blood

You'll have to provide evidence that it is paint. As far as I've read, no scientist, including McCrone, has claimed all the blood stains on the shroud are a result of paint.

[TRANSPONDER]

You equivocated; I did not do special pleading.

What equivocation are you referring to?

As for special pleading, you can remedy that by answering why can cosmologists invoke extranatural explanations and theists cannot?

I have explained twice. By using the crafty term 'extranatural', you are trying to equate the supernatural (miracles) with natural (physical) explanations that haven't been worked out yet. One is science and the other is magic. That is not my special pleading but your equivocation.

You don't get it? Ok Science has a method of saying 'we don't know' until the evidence turns up. That is the case with origins of life, even though there is a hypothesis.

The religion side simply posits a miracle, There is no explanation, no mechanism. It is just a faith claim. Miracles and physics are not the same and to to pretend that they are is equivocation. To say that one does not equate to the other as an explanation is not special pleading.

The burning like the x -ray effect should apply all over the body. Are you suggesting that the effect was directed to particular parts of the body? Explain why. (hint 'God had his good reasons'will not do).

As I've mentioned before, I will later go over what I think is the leading theory that makes sense of most of the data. If I present the theory now, I'm sure a ton of questions will be asked, "well, what about this... or that..." So, we're going to first do a comprehension gathering of all the data on the shroud. Presenting what caused the image will be towards the end of my argument, and judging by topics discussed in the past will be many pages from now.

But I'll say this for now, it is not proposing that an x-ray was involved. All I'm saying with the fingers and teeth is the mechanism produced a superficial x-ray like effect.

I've already said that the 'teeth' look like a contact image of a lip, like the finger - bones look like contact prints of the tops of the fingers. And I already accepted the point that an x- ray appearance does not mean an actual x -ray, as though God couldn't use x -rays if he wanted.

The article I quoted deserved better than a dismissive sneer from you.

Let me put it this way, what if the tables were turned? What if you had been providing links from scholarly sources to back up claims and then I just post one source from sillybeliefs.net, would you take me seriously? I'm sure all the other skeptics would be jeering at me.

But I'll do this, I'll pick the number one reason he believes it is a fake and argue against it.

I would hope that even 'silly atheist,com' if it put some valid points would get more that a wave away from me. I've got a better idea. Rather than let you pick an easy one to knock over, let me pick one. In fact, I already have one and am still awaiting an answer.

Question: What is your number one reason why you don't believe this cloth could possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus Christ?

Perhaps surprisingly, I'm not going to say carbon dating. There is a far more powerful argument than any single piece of evidence. It is the consensus of expert opinion.

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

First, there is no consensus of expert opinion on the shroud.
Second, he doesn't even list who are the experts that he is referring to.

Even if a majority of "expert opinions" believe something, that does not make it true. That would be the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Even if they are "experts", that does not make it true either, since that would be the appeal to authority fallacy.

What really matters is the evidence.

I will say C14 is the strongest argument for it being a forgery. But, this will be a huge subtopic in itself which we will get to later.

I see you already picked one. Or not. While I agree the C14 dating is a problem for Shroud - believers, 'Expert opinion' is obviously disputed. mcCrones dissent about the chemistry of the blood got him sidelined by the STURP team who presented findings that obviously please the believers. Not saying more than that, but I await validation of work from experts that get together to publish a book.

Apart from the medieval C14 date, the best argument, is the one that turned me from an original acceptance of the shroud, was that it is not wrap around.

I did mention the teeth. I said it looks like the lower lip - contact image, like the fingers. I had a look at an image of the hands, and I see no palm -bones. One hand is over the other and the upper back of the hand has an obscuring blood mark. I think we have the eye of faith there.

OK, but you cannot later then also claim the fingers are too long.

Well, perhaps not. I was looking last night and it's a bit odd. I compared a sketch of my hand with thumb showing (or not) with the shroud and hand bones. I'm not sure the thumb isn't there on the upper hand (which appears to vanish the little finger) and the ball of thumb marks where the phalange bones end and the metacarpals begin . If so, the wound is almost in the right place, but either way it looked to me like it missed the space of Destoit, which is where the nail supposedly went through. The lower hand is perhaps what looks more like an x- ray effect but it's odd. It's hard to tell, not helped by old damage, but the wrist looks like it is just going under the upper hand, as would make sense, but then indeed, the fingers are too long, x - ray or not. what do you think?

The point about fibres from under the watery marks is a good one, but I see a problem - if the fluid is on the image, we'd see light patches, not the image.

The body fluid on the shroud is complex.

A mechanical description of the blood image areas can be divided into that for the fibril coatings and that for the globs, particulates, and "shards" (12). The nonbirefringent, red-coated fibrils test positively for the presence of heme materials and proteins (12}. The yellow-coated fibrils test positively for protein with lluorescamioe and also positively for serum albumin with bromcresol green indicating that they are blood serum coated (12). Suggestions (14) that this protein coating is a "collagen-type" animal glue used in medieval times as a paint binder are incon- sistent with positive selective tests for serum albumin. The identification ofthe albumin (12}has now been immunoclinically confirned. Further, the suggestion that the body-only image was formed by such "yellowed" collagen is also unjustified as no protein can be detected by the flourescamine and protease tests on such fibrils. Also, Miller and Pellicori found that both laboratory-prepared animal-glue collagen as well as glue used as a binder in a bible (ca. A.D 1400) fluoresced brightly in the visible range when excited by UV radiation (365 nm); both the Shroud blood images and body-only images were nonfluorescing under the same con- ditions (10).

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

Under UV light, we can see some of the "blood stains" better.

SCOURGE MARKS. These appear to be somewhat different from the other two types of blood images. Under UV fluorescence, they appear to be darker than the image and, also, to be much more sharply defined than they appear in visible light (10), as would he expected on the basis of the known spectral characteristics of iron porphyrin compounds (11). The geometric similarity of groups of these dumbbell-shaped marks is also quite striking (21). Fine "scratches" from the distal ends of these dumbbell-shaped marks appear in the UV-stimulated fluorescence photographs (10).

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

That is something I'll look for, too. a UV image might show the fluid marks more clearly. But the stuff above while looks convincingly sciencey, is just one team's conclusions. Science requires verification or it has to remain open, just as I remain open to what creations call 'further evidence'when they hope for the debunk of evolution - theory.

I know it's asking a lot, but I'd need to see where the fluid areas (apart from what is considered water damage) are supposed to be to check for an overall lightening of the image, or the argument fails.

I'll see what I can find.

Your suggestion of UV already helped. Maybe I can do that and save you the work and the mess of posting a huge image here.

I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood as blood

You'll have to provide evidence that it is paint. As far as I've read, no scientist, including McCrone, has claimed all the blood stains on the shroud are a result of paint.

Me? I don't even have access to the shroud, never mind not being a chemist. No, I 'await further evidence'. I just have to keep it open when just one team come to one conclusion with nobody else to verify it.

cue : certificate -waving. Of course, I think it is an interesting subject and I can see why it convinces you and many others. I'm open to 'further evidence' even for a C14 date that stood up to attack. I said anatomically it looked ok to me, but just checking the hands showed up what looked like oddities. But I want to do some more checking. an 'x-ray'image might make it all fall into place.

There's a point about UV showing up different colors.Why should that be with a miracle imprint - x-ray flash, for instance? Different colours implies a chemical substance, not a photo image And apart from the blood (an exuviae) it is not supposed to be painted on. By artistic or natural means,either way.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1634]

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?

None of these are "extranatural" explanations though. Curved spacetime can be directly observed (eg. the initial eclipse measurements by Eddington in 1919 demonstrated that this is a real, detectable thing, as do observations of gravitational lensing).

Dark matter and dark energy are hypotheses and are inferred to exist from observations, but of course we don't yet know what either of them are or even if they'll turn out to be the correct explanations. I believe the prevailing view among cosmologists is that both will turn out to be purely natural in their explanations ... we just don't know what those explanations are yet (new particles, or ??). They are not proposed as extranatural, but natural (remaining to be confirmed by new observations, experiments and theoretical work).

Unobservable (and observable) universe is just a result of the finite speed of light and the particle horizon. Anything outside of this is (by definition) the unobservable universe that we can't ever observe with telescopes from Earth. It is not an extranatural thing but the definition of a region defined by the finite speed of light (in an expanding universe).

I suppose you could argue that the existence of the many gods humans have imagined over the millennia are also hypotheses yet to be confirmed, as many people do infer their existence from their own perceptions and personal experiences and are absolutely convinced of their existence. But there are many god concepts and religions so that subject is far more complicated than something like dark matter, which is proposed from the simple observation that galaxies cannot be held together by the matter in their stars and planets and other visible objects alone (within the framework of cosmology as it is understood today). So there must be some additional mass ... and dark matter is just a placeholder phrase to describe it until we can figure out what it actually is. Or maybe our cosmology is wrong and dark matter doesn't exist at all.

For people who believe that gods exist, I don't think the option exists for the alternative view ... ie. it isn't subject to new observations and revisions that could lead to gods not existing and remaining in the extranatural realm. This alone would put gods into a very different category than things like dark matter and dark energy.

[otseng]

By using the crafty term 'extranatural', you are trying to equate the supernatural (miracles) with natural (physical) explanations that haven't been worked out yet. One is science and the other is magic. That is not my special pleading but your equivocation.

I'm using the terms supernatural, extranatural, and non-natural synonymously, so there's no equivocation. These are things that are not natural and not empirically detectable. As for what is natural, that would be things in our 3 dimensional world.

Science has a method of saying 'we don't know' until the evidence turns up.

Actually, many of the things we've covered in this thread science does not know. And if I propose anything that supports the Bible, then skeptics automatically discount it as a possible answer. Also, I have rarely invoked a supernatural explanation so far. For instance, a white hole theory to explain extreme red shifting is not a supernatural explanation. Even with the global flood to account for the sedimentary strata, no supernatural cause was invoked. So, there is more at play than simply saying "we don't know" until a viable naturalistic explanation is proposed.

The religion side simply posits a miracle, There is no explanation, no mechanism. It is just a faith claim. Miracles and physics are not the same and to to pretend that they are is equivocation. To say that one does not equate to the other as an explanation is not special pleading.

Dark energy and dark matter are not physics. They are totally unknown and ad hoc explanations with no idea what they are or how they work.

If there's no logic or evidence to support a claim, then it would be a "faith" claim. But, if there's evidence and logic to support a claim, I'd say it's more of a "philosophical" claim. Faith implies there's no rational basis to justify the claim. Whereas a philosophical claim can be justified by rational logic.

The burning like the x -ray effect should apply all over the body. Are you suggesting that the effect was directed to particular parts of the body? Explain why. (hint 'God had his good reasons'will not do).

As I present additional observations of the shroud, the theory as to explain the observations will make more sense. I think we should all be in agreement that this is how science works. We gather as much data as possible and then come up with a theory that best explains all the data.

I see you already picked one. Or not.

I picked his main argument, which I've revealed is fallacious.

I'll pick another thing he repeated says:

In 1978 the Vatican allowed a group of scientists called STURP (Shroud of Turin Research Project) — most of who were deeply religious — to examine the shroud.

That said, it's unfortunate that almost all of those that made up this group were deeply religious, and many were not specialised in the field they investigated. The group consisted of 40 US scientists, made up of 39 devout believers and 1 agnostic. The makeup of this group was stacked and very biased towards authenticating the shroud, and therefore their claims must be taken with an extremely large grain of salt.

Unfortunately almost all of these scientists were deeply religious, many were not specialised in the field they investigated and they were actively trying to prove its authenticity.

'Unfortunately, almost all of these were religious believers, most of them were Roman Catholics',

http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

He repeatedly attacks the STURP team because they were "deeply religious". This would be the ad hominem fallacy. It doesn't matter what is one's faith to show veracity of an argument, but the evidence. Also, does he even know what religion all the STURP team members are, let alone being "devout" believers? If so, I'd like to know because I cannot find that information anywhere. Yes, there are several Catholics on the STURP team, but that does not automatically mean they are incompetent.

mcCrones dissent about the chemistry of the blood got him sidelined by the STURP team who presented findings that obviously please the believers. Not saying more than that, but I await validation of work from experts that get together to publish a book.

I think we'll need to have a major section discussing McCrone's findings as well.

Apart from the medieval C14 date, the best argument, is the one that turned me from an original acceptance of the shroud, was that it is not wrap around.

Yes, I agree the image is not a wrap around image. But that does not demonstrate it is a fake.

but then indeed, the fingers are too long, x - ray or not. what do you think?

X-ray effect easily explains the fingers being too long.

But the stuff above while looks convincingly sciencey, is just one team's conclusions.

It is not just "one" team's conclusions. It is from the STURP team, which is the only group of scientists that have physically examined the entire shroud.

I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood as blood

You'll have to provide evidence that it is paint. As far as I've read, no scientist, including McCrone, has claimed all the blood stains on the shroud are a result of paint.

Me? I don't even have access to the shroud, never mind not being a chemist.

You made the claim "I'm inclined to say paint rather than blood." So, if you make the claim, then I can ask you to back up the claim. Just provide evidence from any paper, journal, photograph, etc to support it was all painted.

Of course, I think it is an interesting subject and I can see why it convinces you and many others.

It is a very interesting subject. As a matter of fact, the more I'm studying this, the more I'm convinced we could go forever on this subject. Just taking a look at the shroud.com website and it'll take forever to read all the material on that site.