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]

We already did as I recall over the failure of C14 to date coal deposits. I put the explanation and as i recall, it ended there. I see point in revisiting the matter. C14 is a useful tool biut it is not a dogma nor a faithclaim.

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying C14 is not dogma and should not be considered authoritative and the final arbiter?

Kindly do not equate science with Faithclaims. And you did not not equate faithclaims and scientific hypotheses - I did, because you did not or would not recognise your equivocation.

You admit here that I do not equate science with faith claims. And then you ask that I "kindly do not equate science with faithclaims"? Like you said, it is you that is making that statement. So, I should be asking you to kindly stop making the claim that I am making any such claim.

Dark matter and energy are hypothetical and not demonstrated but are scientific, as you could have found if you had googled it as readily as you searched out Shroud apologetics to post.

Let me repeat my questions:
If they (dark energy and dark matter) are not detectable, how can they be considered natural?
In the case of the multiverse, if it's not even part of our universe, how can that be considered natural also? Or in the case of extra dimensions with string theory, how can that also be considered natural if it's beyond our 3 dimensions?
So, even if we cannot detect something does not rule out its existence?

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

You're missing the point about the wrist - it may be just visible below the one on top in which case, x - ray effect or not, the fingers of the hand beneath are too long. I do not get how a shroud laid across the body could distort the fingers that much. Explain, please.

I also presented papers on fingers being too long (as well as other anatomical distortions) in post 1651.

Also I asked what you thought about the wrist below vanishing. that surely argues against an effect from within which rules out an x -ray - like effect.

That is also a clue to how the image was formed. What we see is after a certain distance from the cloth, no body image is seen on the cloth. We see this also with no ears on the shroud. If it was an artist, would he get everything else done so well that he'd miss one of the most obvious parts of the head?

I think you were wise to let my comment slide after you presumed to lecture me on how science works, when you were equating religious faithclaims with science -based hypotheses.

You just admitted above that I have made no such statement. So, you'll need to cease from the continual use of the false attribution fallacy.

"The Logical Fallacy of False Attribution occurs when a quote or opinion is attributed to a source that is not the true source in order to lend false credibility, false authority, or ad hominem attack."
https://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallac ... ution.html

I don't care about McCrone as the results are not verified. McCrone's oxide is dismissed as an effect of the overall washing of the cloth before use, but this and other claims that handily rule out anything but 'it is real' require validation - as does the C14 date.

Washing is one theory to account for the iron oxide and there are others as well. But I think the most telling is even McCrone does not state there is sufficient iron oxide to account for all the paint required for the image and blood.

But we will need to get into more details of C14 and McCrone because these are the top two arguments against the authenticity of the shroud. Though you might not accept these, the vast majority of skeptics bring these two up, so I will have to address them.

Are you still claiming it was wrapped around the body and bundled up? The image refutes that.

Actually I believe the image confirms it. The difference is how one theorizes the image was formed.

Explain here for the benefit of the browsers whether you accept a flat image or not and if not why it is apparently a flat image.

It is a flat image in that we observe it as an image on the surface of a flat shroud. But, the shroud was draped/wrapped around a 3 dimensional body. The shroud image is not simply an artist looking with his eyes at a crucified man and then rendering what he saw. The image on the shroud used some projection technique to put 3-D information onto a curved 2-D surface.

And yes, it is a photo like image even if a 3d -image can be produced from it. It is not in itself 3d. This being agreed, discussing the 3d image is irrelevant. That is is a photonegative - like image and not a painted portrait is not denied.

I'll post soon about the fact that the shroud also includes 3-D information.

So it is futile asking me for explanations. I can only point to evidence of what it is not, rather than what it is.

As well as for all the scientists that have been studying the shroud. But, there is one theory that is the best I've seen so far that I'll present later.

The 'disciples took the body' is so far ahead of 'investigation' that the authorities will take fifty years to catch up.

This is not likely either. But we'll debate that later.

I am open to finding that indeed it is a shroud of an actual crucified man.

This is the most logical inference from all the data so far.

Yes, - the awarding yourself of the win. No, it is not the most logical conclusion. It is the most outwardly convincing and persuasive conclusion, but so is the gospels.

It's like the quote from Dawkins, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

The shroud looks convincingly like it's the shroud of an actual crucified man, but it's not.

What more you got?

We'll have many more pages of evidence that I'll be presenting.

it didn't occur to you that a closed circle of shroud apologists would look like one team rather than three with perhaps different findings? I hate to play the Bias card or accuse anyone of conspiracies, but some things look dodgy.

If you have counter-evidence, please present them. If there's a conspiracy, show the evidence of a conspiracy.

[TRANSPONDER]

We already did as I recall over the failure of C14 to date coal deposits. I put the explanation and as i recall, it ended there. I see point in revisiting the matter. C14 is a useful tool biut it is not a dogma nor a faithclaim.

Not sure what you're getting at. Are you saying C14 is not dogma and should not be considered authoritative and the final arbiter?

It it certainly not 'Dogma' and nobody talking of how science works, should even entertain the term. It is a useful tool. How useful depends on a lot of factors.

Kindly do not equate science with Faithclaims. And you did not not equate faithclaims and scientific hypotheses - I did, because you did not or would not recognise your equivocation.

You admit here that I do not equate science with faith claims. And then you ask that I "kindly do not equate science with faithclaims"? Like you said, it is you that is making that statement. So, I should be asking you to kindly stop making the claim that I am making any such claim.

I admited - I said - nothing of the kind. I showed that you were equating Faithclaims and scientific hypotheses as equally valid. They are not.

Dark matter and energy are hypothetical and not demonstrated but are scientific, as you could have found if you had googled it as readily as you searched out Shroud apologetics to post.

Let me repeat my questions:
If they (dark energy and dark matter) are not detectable, how can they be considered natural?
In the case of the multiverse, if it's not even part of our universe, how can that be considered natural also? Or in the case of extra dimensions with string theory, how can that also be considered natural if it's beyond our 3 dimensions?
So, even if we cannot detect something does not rule out its existence?

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

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

You're missing the point about the wrist - it may be just visible below the one on top in which case, x - ray effect or not, the fingers of the hand beneath are too long. I do not get how a shroud laid across the body could distort the fingers that much. Explain, please.

I also presented papers on fingers being too long (as well as other anatomical distortions) in post 1651.

Also I asked what you thought about the wrist below vanishing. that surely argues against an effect from within which rules out an x -ray - like effect.

That is also a clue to how the image was formed. What we see is after a certain distance from the cloth, no body image is seen on the cloth. We see this also with no ears on the shroud. If it was an artist, would he get everything else done so well that he'd miss one of the most obvious parts of the head?

Agreed. A painted image appears to be untenable. Whatever the image is, it appears to have been done, using the vanishing left writ (the negative reverses the image) suggests an image making source, akin to light rays, from the upper right. Not from with the image object.

I think you were wise to let my comment slide after you presumed to lecture me on how science works, when you were equating religious faithclaims with science -based hypotheses.

You just admitted above that I have made no such statement. So, you'll need to cease from the continual use of the false attribution fallacy.

"The Logical Fallacy of False Attribution occurs when a quote or opinion is attributed to a source that is not the true source in order to lend false credibility, false authority, or ad hominem attack."
https://www.seekfind.net/Logical_Fallac ... ution.html

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

I don't care about McCrone as the results are not verified. McCrone's oxide is dismissed as an effect of the overall washing of the cloth before use, but this and other claims that handily rule out anything but 'it is real' require validation - as does the C14 date.

Washing is one theory to account for the iron oxide and there are others as well. But I think the most telling is even McCrone does not state there is sufficient iron oxide to account for all the paint required for the image and blood.

But we will need to get into more details of C14 and McCrone because these are the top two arguments against the authenticity of the shroud. Though you might not accept these, the vast majority of skeptics bring these two up, so I will have to address them.

You are free to do so, however, I doubt it will alter matters as I accept that the C14 dating could do with some verification as indeed the claims I have seen about chemistry appearing to authenticate the shroud as genuine.

Are you still claiming it was wrapped around the body and bundled up? The image refutes that.

Actually I believe the image confirms it. The difference is how one theorizes the image was formed.

Explain here for the benefit of the browsers whether you accept a flat image or not and if not why it is apparently a flat image.

It is a flat image in that we observe it as an image on the surface of a flat shroud. But, the shroud was draped/wrapped around a 3 dimensional body. The shroud image is not simply an artist looking with his eyes at a crucified man and then rendering what he saw. The image on the shroud used some projection technique to put 3-D information onto a curved 2-D surface.

I can follow that. Inasmuch as it was (arguably) laid across the object rather than wrapped tightly around it. It would also work if the should was just laid over it. If the sides were around the body they should show the sides in image and extended to twice the size, shouldn't they?

And yes, it is a photo like image even if a 3d -image can be produced from it. It is not in itself 3d. This being agreed, discussing the 3d image is irrelevant. That is is a photonegative - like image and not a painted portrait is not denied.

I'll post soon about the fact that the shroud also includes 3-D information.

As you wish, but it is irrelevant. I already accept it is a quasi -photo image and contains the same 3d info as any other photographic image.

So it is futile asking me for explanations. I can only point to evidence of what it is not, rather than what it is.

As well as for all the scientists that have been studying the shroud. But, there is one theory that is the best I've seen so far that I'll present later.

I shall look forward to it. In the meantime I have sees sources that differ in the provenance of the cloth.One says that it is absolutely right for Ist C Judea and another says (citing fragments of a high priests' shroud) that it is wrong. Also I am finding it hard to locate the watery exudiae. The water on the chest looks like the later water damage so cannot be associated with the crucifixion, quite apart from being as image - colored as any other part. Have you any information of where these blood -related water marks are supposed to be? They logically should be the wrist and the side -wound.

The 'disciples took the body' is so far ahead of 'investigation' that the authorities will take fifty years to catch up.

This is not likely either. But we'll debate that later.

ok, but I think it is not only likely but evidenced by the gospels. If one believes them.

I am open to finding that indeed it is a shroud of an actual crucified man.

This is the most logical inference from all the data so far.

Yes, - the awarding yourself of the win. No, it is not the most logical conclusion. It is the most outwardly convincing and persuasive conclusion, but so is the gospels.

It's like the quote from Dawkins, "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

The shroud looks convincingly like it's the shroud of an actual crucified man, but it's not.

It's not? Even I thought it might actually be Jesus' shroud, but since the discussion, more and more is not adding up Those arms are definitely not right. They are too long and so are (it seems) the fingers. That along with the outer source of the imaging method (akin to lightrays) clobbers the usual explanation of a cause from the body (natural or a miracle) 'curves' in the cloth cannot account for this. I am increasingly seeing indications of a model man, very, very, good, but with the arms unnatural so as to position them modestly.

What more you got?

We'll have many more pages of evidence that I'll be presenting.

I may have a few more things myself. But I'll be surprised if you present more than I've seen, which is either debatable or irrelevant.

it didn't occur to you that a closed circle of shroud apologists would look like one team rather than three with perhaps different findings? I hate to play the Bias card or accuse anyone of conspiracies, but some things look dodgy.

If you have counter-evidence, please present them. If there's a conspiracy, show the evidence of a conspiracy.

I've been doing a bit of it. Well. I will retract any suggestion of a Catholic conspiracy. I read there were thirty scientists from various fields. And only McCrone dissented about the blood; and the explanation of iron oxide in the flax -washing process would seem to discount his argument. I'm just thinking that the earlier representation (e,g the Pray manuscript) don't seem to show the bloodstains. I don't know whether that means anything, but I have noted the dubious head flows which surely would be dried by the time of deposition (1). And if from some imaging process, why would they be pinkish or red unless it was actual blood, which is what it claimed? Is it or isn't it? It seems it isn't when 'painting' has to be discounted, but it is when Jesus' blood is claimed. The claims seem inconsistent. And I'm still considering whether the hand wound is actually in the 'right' place.

(1) I read one theory that tried to explain this as washing the body refreshing the blood so as to cause marks. I don't recall Joseph of Arimathea having the women standing handy with tubs of water and flannels. I think we can dump that into the 'make up any explanation to get over problems' bin.

[otseng]

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

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

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

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

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

If the sides were around the body they should show the sides in image and extended to twice the size, shouldn't they?

That also is a clue to how the image got formed. There are many possible ways to project a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface. This is akin to having several ways the earth can be represented on a 2-D map. Here's a sampling:

Stereographic



Conic Projection



Cylindrical Projection



Robinson



And there are many more methods to create a 2-D map.

With the shroud, we gather all the data and then determine how it was projected (or attempt to be projected by a forger).

I already accept it is a quasi -photo image and contains the same 3d info as any other photographic image.

Actually, no other photographic image contains similar 3-D information like the shroud does. I will demonstrate this in the next post.

Also I am finding it hard to locate the watery exudiae.

You'll need to search for it using non-visible light. More on this when I discuss the blood.

It's not? Even I thought it might actually be Jesus' shroud, but since the discussion, more and more is not adding up Those arms are definitely not right. They are too long and so are (it seems) the fingers. That along with the outer source of the imaging method (akin to lightrays) clobbers the usual explanation of a cause from the body (natural or a miracle) 'curves' in the cloth cannot account for this. I am increasingly seeing indications of a model man, very, very, good, but with the arms unnatural so as to position them modestly.

Most skeptics believe it's a medieval artwork (McCrone, C14 scientists, etc). Actually, I have yet to read of a shroud skeptic that accepts it's the body of Jesus.

I already presented evidence to account for anatomical distortions in post 1651. Rather than the image distortions arguing against the authenticity, I believe it actually argues for it. Again, the image is not what our eyes would perceive of a crucified body, but what the cloth would receive as a projected image.

As an example, the shroud was around the head and we see blood stains on the hair. Blood comes from the head, not from hair. But the hair seems to be off the body. This is an illusion because of the way it was projected onto the cloth. The hair was matted against the head, not floating off the body when the image was formed.

I'm just thinking that the earlier representation (e,g the Pray manuscript) don't seem to show the bloodstains.

It actually does, but it's in an artistic form. The red crosses on the lower image would represent the blood.

I don't know whether that means anything, but I have noted the dubious head flows which surely would be dried by the time of deposition

There are some theories with that. I'm leaning towards with the body washing theory that it removed many of the scabs and what we see is exudate seepage. Though the Bible doesn't explicitly say the body was washed, washing the body is part of Jewish burial practices.

And if from some imaging process, why would they be pinkish or red unless it was actual blood, which is what it claimed? Is it or isn't it? It seems it isn't when 'painting' has to be discounted, but it is when Jesus' blood is claimed.

Yes, it's real blood. It could be an artist used real blood, but highly improbable. More on this when I get to discussing blood.

And I'm still considering whether the hand wound is actually in the 'right' place.

It's because his shoulder was dislocated. More on this in post 1617.

[otseng]

The VP-8 Image Analyzer was produced in 1972 by Pete Schumacher and was primarily used by US governmental research institutions.

The VP8 Image Analyzer is an analog computer produced by Pete Schumacher of Interpretations Systems Incorporated (ISI) in 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8_Image_Analyzer

In 1976, the 3-D qualities of the shroud image was discovered using the VP-8 Image Analyzer. The discovery catapulted further scientific investigation into the shroud and resulted in the formation of the STURP team.

Designed in the 1970's for evaluating x-rays and for other imaging purposes, the VP-8 Image Analyzer is an analog device that converts image density (lights and darks) into vertical relief (shadows and highlights). When applied to normal photographs, the result was a distorted and inaccurate image. However, when it was applied to the Shroud, the result was an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of a human form. These results are often referred to as "three-dimensional."

In 1976, a group of scientists who were using a VP-8 at Sandia Laboratories to evaluate x-rays, put a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud of Turin into the device and were able to visualize the three-dimensional properties that exist in the Shroud image. This particularly intrigued two of the researchers present at the test, Dr. Eric Jumper and Dr. John Jackson. Stimulated by their startling discovery, they decided to form a research team to investigate what might have formed the image on the cloth and within a few months, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was born. Two years later, that same team would perform the first ever, in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin.

When input to a VP-8, a normal photograph does not result in a properly formed dimensional image but in a rather distorted jumble of light and dark "shapes." That is because the lights and darks of a normal photograph result solely from the amount of light reflected by the subject onto the film. The image densities do not depend on the distance the subject was from the film. Yet the image on the Shroud of Turin yields a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form. One must conclude from this that the image density on the cloth is directly proportionate to the distance it was from the body it covered. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body (tip of nose, cheekbone, etc.), the darker the image, and the further away (eye sockets, neck, etc.), the fainter the image. This spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body. So the VP-8 Image Analyzer not only revealed a very important characteristic of the Shroud image, but historically it also provided the actual motivation to form the team that would ultimately go and investigate it. Interestingly, only sixty VP-8 Image Analyzers were ever constructed and only two remain functional today.

https://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm



The shroud is the only image processed by the VP-8 to result in an image that appears 3-D.

"I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results are unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study."
Peter Schumacher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8_Image_Analyzer

Here's some other photos processed with the VP-8 analyzer:







What this shows is the shroud body image contains depth information. And this was only revealed by the VP-8 analyzer that was invented hundreds of years after an alleged forger created the shroud.

How was a medieval artist able to do this?
Why would he do it even if he could?

[TRANSPONDER]

The VP-8 Image Analyzer was produced in 1972 by Pete Schumacher and was primarily used by US governmental research institutions.

The VP8 Image Analyzer is an analog computer produced by Pete Schumacher of Interpretations Systems Incorporated (ISI) in 1972.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8_Image_Analyzer

In 1976, the 3-D qualities of the shroud image was discovered using the VP-8 Image Analyzer. The discovery catapulted further scientific investigation into the shroud and resulted in the formation of the STURP team.

Designed in the 1970's for evaluating x-rays and for other imaging purposes, the VP-8 Image Analyzer is an analog device that converts image density (lights and darks) into vertical relief (shadows and highlights). When applied to normal photographs, the result was a distorted and inaccurate image. However, when it was applied to the Shroud, the result was an accurate, topographic image showing the correct, natural relief characteristics of a human form. These results are often referred to as "three-dimensional."

In 1976, a group of scientists who were using a VP-8 at Sandia Laboratories to evaluate x-rays, put a 1931 Enrie photograph of the Shroud of Turin into the device and were able to visualize the three-dimensional properties that exist in the Shroud image. This particularly intrigued two of the researchers present at the test, Dr. Eric Jumper and Dr. John Jackson. Stimulated by their startling discovery, they decided to form a research team to investigate what might have formed the image on the cloth and within a few months, the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) was born. Two years later, that same team would perform the first ever, in-depth scientific examination of the Shroud of Turin.

When input to a VP-8, a normal photograph does not result in a properly formed dimensional image but in a rather distorted jumble of light and dark "shapes." That is because the lights and darks of a normal photograph result solely from the amount of light reflected by the subject onto the film. The image densities do not depend on the distance the subject was from the film. Yet the image on the Shroud of Turin yields a very accurate dimensional relief of a human form. One must conclude from this that the image density on the cloth is directly proportionate to the distance it was from the body it covered. In essence, the closer the cloth was to the body (tip of nose, cheekbone, etc.), the darker the image, and the further away (eye sockets, neck, etc.), the fainter the image. This spatial data encoded into the image actually eliminates photography and painting as the possible mechanism for its creation and allows us to conclude that the image was formed while the cloth was draped over an actual human body. So the VP-8 Image Analyzer not only revealed a very important characteristic of the Shroud image, but historically it also provided the actual motivation to form the team that would ultimately go and investigate it. Interestingly, only sixty VP-8 Image Analyzers were ever constructed and only two remain functional today.

https://www.shroud.com/78strp10.htm



The shroud is the only image processed by the VP-8 to result in an image that appears 3-D.

"I had never heard of the Shroud of Turin before that moment. I had no idea what I was looking at. However, the results are unlike anything I have processed through the VP-8 Analyzer, before or since. Only the Shroud of Turin has produced these results from a VP-8 Image Analyzer isometric projection study."
Peter Schumacher
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP8_Image_Analyzer

Here's some other photos processed with the VP-8 analyzer:







What this shows is the shroud body image contains depth information. And this was only revealed by the VP-8 analyzer that was invented hundreds of years after an alleged forger created the shroud.

How was a medieval artist able to do this?
Why would he do it even if he could?

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

(cue - 'oh well, the 3d image doesn't give a true image')

The thing is that what we have here is either a real body or a sculpted one (or possibly 2 bas -reliefs,since you posted the 3d image) both would still give a convincing negative and a 3d image. A painting wouldn't. I am fine with that, so pushing 'medieval artist' as though that was my claim is not the argument. Which is why this was a waste of time.

Now, I said before that we really haven't a wrap around, not even (feasibly) draped over and somehow closed in at the sides or we'd have side images providing distortion. ,We have, on evidence, a sheet laid over the body if not some kind of totally flat image. The arms at least look wrong. IF I am right that the wrist is visible as it goes under the other arm, the fingers are just far too long, and never mind x -rays. which said, the thumb looks like it is there and not a first finger, though the little finger would be missing/not visible. I might be wrong, but that's how it looks.

I can't see how a real body could distort like that (I wouldn't try on the 'curves' excuse again, if I were you) but a sculpted image could easily get the proportions wrong since the loin area must needs be covered. Can't have the Lord showing everything, can we?

Now, you gave your little back -story about how you were convinced; let me give mine.

I was at first totally sold on the authenticity of the shroud. That in fact suggested a resurrection, by supernatural or natural agency and clearly the shroud was removed before the body started to decompose. But then it came to me that it was not wrap around. (John's wrappings were out from the start as well as face cloth; image on the face cloth, no image on the shroud). I think because of some book that tried to argue a flat sheet over a sort of coffin made of bricks of solid spices. That tipped me off that it was not a proper shroud and it should tip you off not to try on ludicrous excuses, that's before and if you are ever tempted to.

This thread/chat has been invaluable as I never thought of the distortions before, let alone the possibility of on outside oblique light source, though how it left an image I have no idea.

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

[TRANSPONDER]

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the sides were around the body they should show the sides in image and extended to twice the size, shouldn't they?

That also is a clue to how the image got formed. There are many possible ways to project a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface. This is akin to having several ways the earth can be represented on a 2-D map. Here's a sampling:

Stereographic



Conic Projection



Cylindrical Projection



Robinson



And there are many more methods to create a 2-D map.

With the shroud, we gather all the data and then determine how it was projected (or attempt to be projected by a forger).

I already accept it is a quasi -photo image and contains the same 3d info as any other photographic image.

Actually, no other photographic image contains similar 3-D information like the shroud does. I will demonstrate this in the next post.

Also I am finding it hard to locate the watery exudiae.

You'll need to search for it using non-visible light. More on this when I discuss the blood.

It's not? Even I thought it might actually be Jesus' shroud, but since the discussion, more and more is not adding up Those arms are definitely not right. They are too long and so are (it seems) the fingers. That along with the outer source of the imaging method (akin to lightrays) clobbers the usual explanation of a cause from the body (natural or a miracle) 'curves' in the cloth cannot account for this. I am increasingly seeing indications of a model man, very, very, good, but with the arms unnatural so as to position them modestly.

Most skeptics believe it's a medieval artwork (McCrone, C14 scientists, etc). Actually, I have yet to read of a shroud skeptic that accepts it's the body of Jesus.

I already presented evidence to account for anatomical distortions in post 1651. Rather than the image distortions arguing against the authenticity, I believe it actually argues for it. Again, the image is not what our eyes would perceive of a crucified body, but what the cloth would receive as a projected image.

As an example, the shroud was around the head and we see blood stains on the hair. Blood comes from the head, not from hair. But the hair seems to be off the body. This is an illusion because of the way it was projected onto the cloth. The hair was matted against the head, not floating off the body when the image was formed.

I'm just thinking that the earlier representation (e,g the Pray manuscript) don't seem to show the bloodstains.

It actually does, but it's in an artistic form. The red crosses on the lower image would represent the blood.

I don't know whether that means anything, but I have noted the dubious head flows which surely would be dried by the time of deposition

There are some theories with that. I'm leaning towards with the body washing theory that it removed many of the scabs and what we see is exudate seepage. Though the Bible doesn't explicitly say the body was washed, washing the body is part of Jewish burial practices.

And if from some imaging process, why would they be pinkish or red unless it was actual blood, which is what it claimed? Is it or isn't it? It seems it isn't when 'painting' has to be discounted, but it is when Jesus' blood is claimed.

Yes, it's real blood. It could be an artist used real blood, but highly improbable. More on this when I get to discussing blood.

And I'm still considering whether the hand wound is actually in the 'right' place.

It's because his shoulder was dislocated. More on this in post 1617.

Don't waste our time or insult our intelligence with tinkering about with computer -fiddled imaging of a mercator worldmap. If we can't trust our eyes as badly as that, then the shroud means nothing anyway; if we can, then it is not wrapped around the body but flat (roughly) over it and not closed in the sides, or that distortion would show..

Well, medieval artwork has to be the alternative to an image of a Roman crucifixion. Not a painting, but a sculpted image if anything. While the opinions of experts in the field are worth listening to, we are not obliged to agree, but question.That's how science works. As you will know.

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

No. the zigzags in the Pray manuscript are supposed to represent a herringbone pattern, according to what the apologists say. You seriously try to pass that off as the bloodstains? As I say, this may not be significant, but it might possibly date an addition of blood later on to bring the image in line with the gospels. Just a possibility. I have already pointed up some questions about the claim of uncolored fibres beneath he blood or serum, not least why they made such a claim anyway. But it seems that you and I agree that it is something applied and not something imaged. I await your posting on the blood (at least the dubious claims made about it).

Shoulder dislocated? Both shoulders? And how does that explain the elongated hands IF I'm right about that just visible lower wrist? I'm still not sure about this, but there are definite questions.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to otseng in post #1651]

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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to otseng in post #1651]

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

Whether otseng responds or not, let me suggest the apologetic: "Pliny, Thallia and Bar - Serapeon prove the historicity of Christ, but atheist professors dismiss the evidence because it challenges their atheist faith."

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to otseng in post #1651]

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

Whether otseng responds or not, let me suggest the apologetic: "Pliny, Thallia and Bar - Serapeon prove the historicity of Christ, but atheist professors dismiss the evidence because it challenges their atheist faith."

What do non primary, and non secondary sources prove exactly? What is "atheist faith" and what does "atheist faith" have to do with claims of non primary and non secondary sources?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1655]

Completely agree. However, doesn't making the assertion that spacetime can be stretched and that it can carry along light mean that it would be more than a model and be an actual entity?

I look at descriptions like the balloon skin analogy, and phrases like "stretching of spacetime", as attempts to convey a complex concept to everyday people. We know that light requires no medium to propogate, which was a surprise to a lot of people before Maxwell's work, and the Michelson-Morley experiment. It can happily travel through a genuine vacuum. Since light does deviate from a straight line path near massive bodies, something physically real is causing that to happen. General Relativity (GR) says that something is gravity, but in GR gravity is not a force but a distortion of "spacetime" that is indistinguishable from acceleration (over short distances).

Since gravity is such a faimilar concept to most people as a force as described by Newton, no one questions whether or not it is real (except for some flat earthers). But when it is described as a curvature of spacetime it suddenly becomes a lot less understandable. I'd argue that spacetime is "real" in the sense that what it describes is real and it allows gravity to be better understood within GR's mathematics. The word "fabric" also doesn't help as most people make the analogy to cloth fabric and think it means some kind of physical thing. The "metric" is what is really changing in spacetime expansion or curvature, and is described in GR by the metric tensor. A general article on metric space is here:

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

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