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]

Perhaps it is the algorithm that creates the 3D information based on shading present in the original image that is used.

The VP8 is not adding any additional information, but simply decoding what is on the shroud. Further, there are other methods besides the VP8 to generate a 3D image from the shroud, so it's not just the algorithm in the VP8.

Actually, the concept is simple and you can even observe it with your naked eye. The distance is proportional to the darkness, which is proportional to the density of the dots. This was even observed by early shroud researcher Paul Vignon in 1902.

Some emanation from the body has acted on the linen, and since the hollows on the Shroud are less vigorously reproduced than the raised portions it must be admitted that this something worked with less intensity in proportion as the distance from the body increased ... it is indeed hard to determine with what rapidity the unknown action took place between the body and the Shroud; the main point is that we can assert that the action diminished in proportion as the distance of the body from the Shroud increased.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part7.pdf

Though his theory as to what caused it was wrong, he was right in observing there is depth information on the shroud.

In 1974, Paul Gastineau had invented a device to photomechanically extract the information and got this result:


http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2020/04/#12

In 1974 a Frenchman, Ing. PAUL GASTINEAU, made a negative relief mold using his own system. This technique consisted in having every single point on the Enrie photograph of the face examined using his own equipment and a concentrated light source; the measurements of the quantity of light which was more or less reflected was transmitted to another part of the instrument , which contained a white-hot point that at the same time engraved the image into a soft material, thus visualizing this hidden information and obtaining a three dimensional Sindonic face.

https://shroud3d.com/introduction/3d-st ... n-history/

In 2005, Petrus Soons used computer software to extract the depth information and created a hologram of the shroud.

Then in 2005 Dr. PETRUS SOONS, aware of the fact that there was hidden 3D information in the grayscale of the image of the body of Jesus, used this information, and with his team of experts he recreated the body in 3D in the computer, and this information was then used to create Holograms (3D images in LIGHT) of the Shroud including the 3D image of the face and the front and the back of the body. In 2006 these holograms were produced with the original measurements (200 x 100 cm) in the Shroud.

https://shroud3d.com/introduction/3d-st ... n-history/

So, the only thing you have to do is measure the darkness of the image to determine the depth. But, this is harder than it sounds because the cloth was not a flat surface which would cause distortions. Also, the shroud is not a photographic plate and has many imperfections in it.

[TRANSPONDER]

How do you show that the shroud was not a flat surface 'which would cause distortion'? And do you mean that it would cause distortion because it not flat or it would cause distortion (in applying 3d) if it was flat?

Is it not that you are assuming that the cloth was not flat rather than you can show it?

I also had a look at the negative image again and it does look like the wounds are in the right place (writs) but that does make the fingers too long on both hands because we know where the wrist is. It's hard to show a dislocated shoulder because of old damage, but in fact (I tried it..there are no extremes to which I will not go in research) and you cannot put the hands over the old transmission -device other than the fingers, and not even that with the arms in that position. Upshot - the fingers are too long, there is no reason to suppose an x -ray effect (nor re teeth which is a lower lip) but the wounds are in the wrist. If the bloodstains were placed later (memo - check dates) whoever did it knew what they were doing, as indeed the creator of the image did, if it is not real, just as believers claim. I can see how it is tempting to try to wangle the data to make the distortions work, but I reckon they don't. The image, sculpted or bas -relief (and the 3d image looks as bas as the Bayon) is very clever, but not right.

Now to the elephant in the room, and it isn't the C14 date, or that it is not (feasibly) a painted image (apart from -possibly - the bloodstains, nor the flat image; that is more like the donkey in the room and it now has the tail pinned on it.

The elephant in the room is 'miracles don't happen'. And while that may seem a dragon, Chimera or Kyllin rather than an elephant, it has the point that the survival of the shroud, let alone as a record of a resurrection, needs extraordinary evidence. Well it is pretty extraordinary, and more so than the poor evidence of the gospels. No wonder many have been convinced by it. But there are doubts. Your attempt to elongate the fingers (and indeed, perhaps arms) by distortion would not work unless the bas -relief was bent over in a longtitudinal curve, distorting the fingers in length IF the cloth was relatively flat, and with distortion from the angle of the hands or any where else, really. I think you must see that such a explanation will not serve.

[otseng]

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?

A problem in that you are losing the plot. It is not a false dichotomy to point up that faithclaims without any mechanism but magic are not the equivalent of science -based hypotheses, even if unverified. You are equivocating, I am not special plaeding nor doing false dichotomy. And that did not relate to the shroud image but Cosmology, as I recall.

This is not answering my questions. Since it's most likely you'll never answer these questions and simply resort to fallacious responses, it means what I'm claiming is unchallenged.

Cosmology (and physics) have started to resort to non-natural explanations because naturalistic explanations are not viable. These are not done by religious right-wing nuts, but by bona fide scientists. The only way to get around this is to equivocate and redefine what is natural. Something outside of our universe is not natural. Something in another dimension is not natural. Something that we have no idea what it is and is not even measureable is not natural. Where do we see the outcry from skeptics against these scientists saying they cannot invoke non-natural explanations? There are none. We give them a pass because they are "scientists". Yet, if any religious person says there's something outside our universe, or in another dimension, or is not measureable and have not idea what it is comprised of, skeptics immediately jump up and down and say foul. This is special pleading, scientists can invoke non-natural explanations, but religious people cannot.

There is no point in referencing what it already known - that experts that got involved with the shroud make claims about the chemistry, but I already pointed up some dubious claims about uncolored fibres under the blood and/or serum. Since the only relevant point in the location of the serum (claimed), demanding references from me is pointless.

I thought you said you knew how to do science. Scientists always reference their sources.

Also, this is how we operate here on this forum:

Evidence presented should provide a source. References should be as specific as possible. If you quote a book, provide the book information as well as the page number. If you quote a website, give the full URL.

viewtopic.php?t=16903

I have been providing references for all evidence I've presented. I expect the same from everyone on this forum, including you. If references are not provided, they will not be considered evidence, but simply opinion, even if you claim it is common knowledge.

On a 2nd look at the Pray image, the lower image is claimed to represent the weave of the shroud. It doubtfully looks like that but even less like bloodstains with no image. It is that the crosses are red

And what do the crosses represent?

I recall that three dots are supposed to match three holes in the shroud, but I couldn't see them even using me magnifier.

It's four dots, not three. We see this on both sides of the cloth in the lower image.

Oh, and what 'silly beliefs' of mine did you refer to? That the body was more likely taken than got up an walked? Which is the 'sillier' belief, I wonder.

Your reference to http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html in post 1635.

I'm beginning to rethink whether the Pray cloth represents the shroud at all.

It represents a shroud, the question is which shroud. Does it represent the Shroud of Turin? You mention the herringbone weave on the Pray image. The TS (Turin Shroud) also has that. It has the 4 holes in the image, so does the TS. Red blood is all over the shroud in the image, so does the TS. The body is naked and covering his privates, so is the TS. The man has four fingers, so does the TS. For the Pray image to have all these similarities with the TS by sheer coincidence would be a miracle.

So, the question is which came first, the Pray image or the Turin Shroud?

[TRANSPONDER]

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?

A problem in that you are losing the plot. It is not a false dichotomy to point up that faithclaims without any mechanism but magic are not the equivalent of science -based hypotheses, even if unverified. You are equivocating, I am not special plaeding nor doing false dichotomy. And that did not relate to the shroud image but Cosmology, as I recall.

This is not answering my questions. Since it's most likely you'll never answer these questions and simply resort to fallacious responses, it means what I'm claiming is unchallenged.

Cosmology (and physics) have started to resort to non-natural explanations because naturalistic explanations are not viable. These are not done by religious right-wing nuts, but by bona fide scientists. The only way to get around this is to equivocate and redefine what is natural. Something outside of our universe is not natural. Something in another dimension is not natural. Something that we have no idea what it is and is not even measureable is not natural. Where do we see the outcry from skeptics against these scientists saying they cannot invoke non-natural explanations? There are none. We give them a pass because they are "scientists". Yet, if any religious person says there's something outside our universe, or in another dimension, or is not measureable and have not idea what it is comprised of, skeptics immediately jump up and down and say foul. This is special pleading, scientists can invoke non-natural explanations, but religious people cannot.

I am not here to debate cosmology on this thread, nor answer questions, merely tom point out that you are equivocating in equating faith -claims with scientific hypotheses, and that is not special pleading or false dichotomy and you are not doing yourself any favors by trying to drag the point onto semantics about natural or measurable. You have no mechanism or hypothesis other than faithclaims. That is nowhere near the measurable (and dark matter is based on measurement - as I already pointed out) and is not equivalent. Your wriggling merely compounds how bad you are looking and not for the first time,as I recall. Apart from trying to drag the shroud into it.

There is no point in referencing what it already known - that experts that got involved with the shroud make claims about the chemistry, but I already pointed up some dubious claims about uncolored fibres under the blood and/or serum. Since the only relevant point in the location of the serum (claimed), demanding references from me is pointless.

I thought you said you knew how to do science. Scientists always reference their sources.

Also, this is how we operate here on this forum:

Evidence presented should provide a source. References should be as specific as possible. If you quote a book, provide the book information as well as the page number. If you quote a website, give the full URL.

viewtopic.php?t=16903

I have been providing references for all evidence I've presented. I expect the same from everyone on this forum, including you. If references are not provided, they will not be considered evidence, but simply opinion, even if you claim it is common knowledge.

On a 2nd look at the Pray image, the lower image is claimed to represent the weave of the shroud. It doubtfully looks like that but even less like bloodstains with no image. It is that the crosses are red

And what do the crosses represent?

I recall that three dots are supposed to match three holes in the shroud, but I couldn't see them even using me magnifier.

It's four dots, not three. We see this on both sides of the cloth in the lower image.

Oh, and what 'silly beliefs' of mine did you refer to? That the body was more likely taken than got up an walked? Which is the 'sillier' belief, I wonder.

Your reference to http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html in post 1635.

I'm beginning to rethink whether the Pray cloth represents the shroud at all.

It represents a shroud, the question is which shroud. Does it represent the Shroud of Turin? You mention the herringbone weave on the Pray image. The TS (Turin Shroud) also has that. It has the 4 holes in the image, so does the TS. Red blood is all over the shroud in the image, so does the TS. The body is naked and covering his privates, so is the TS. The man has four fingers, so does the TS. For the Pray image to have all these similarities with the TS by sheer coincidence would be a miracle.

So, the question is which came first, the Pray image or the Turin Shroud?

You are not making yourself look any better, not only on dubious excuses like curves in the cloth but what is really ad hom. How can I reference what I draw attention to when so far as I know, others haven't drawn attention to it, certainly not those who write papers on how the pollen proves the shroud real?

I could look up a Google ref. for some points, like arm - distortion, but I'm rethinking that myself, rather than cite Authorities to back me up. And you can do that too if references mean so much to you. Further, I know how science works but I do not claim to be doing or even referencing science here. I am discussing the shroud in general terms and if you were hoping to get rid of me by luring me into a Published - Paper - waving competition, you are out of luck. You do not get to tell me how to discuss, as I don't tell you.

Now, how about starting to address some of these points you promised to address rather than raise wads of 'evidence' that isn't being disputed,? Or it least is awaiting validation, and stop pulling tricks like assuming it is a shroud and then hoping I wouldn't notice and trying to get me on a debate about whose shroud it could be if not Jesus. I've seen people slung off boards for less grubby tactics than that.

For one thing, I changed my mind. The hand does not show the thumb. And the wound is in the right place, pretty much. But arms and fingers are surelly too long. The wound in the side just below the left ribcage doesn't obviously show a lighter patch as distinct from any other lighter patch which, in negative, looks rather like the shadow that I mentioned in connection with the lower wrist (the left one, isn't it?). The (possible) exudiae on the head is not 'image' so would of course be lighter. And the slosh on the chest is a regular diamond - water damage while it was folded.

No wonder I don't care to reference papers from shroud 'scientists' whose their work is as sloppy (at best) as that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Pray codex

"One of the five illustrations within the Codex shows the body of Jesus being prepared for burial, and also the subsequent Resurrection of Jesus, with an angel showing the empty tomb to the Three Ladies. This illustration shows generic similarities with the Shroud of Turin: that Jesus is shown entirely naked with the arms on the pelvis, just like in the body image of the Shroud of Turin; that the thumbs on this image appear to be retracted, with only four fingers visible on each hand, thus matching detail on the Turin Shroud; that the supposed fabric shows a herringbone pattern, similar to the weaving pattern of the Shroud of Turin; and that the four tiny circles on the lower image, which appear to form a letter L, "perfectly reproduce four apparent "poker holes" on the Turin Shroud", which likewise appear to form a letter L.[1] Critics of this idea consider this item to be a rectangular tombstone as seen on other sacred images. The alleged holes are just decorative elements, as seen on the angel's wing and on various items of clothing. The alleged shroud shows no image of a man. A wadded up cloth lies discarded on the tombstone.[2][3]" (Wiki) and if that isn't a 'scientific' enough reference for anyone, they are welcome to fret about it all night.

Now, the 'poker holes' is (I recall) claimed to be something done by suspicious monks in antiquity, BUT - if the actual holes in the shroud are related to fire damage, the Pray Codex illustration can't be it.

Timeline. Sack of Constantinople 1204, Shroud (maybe) taken to France.
Pray manuscript dated 1192 -6 perhaps shows shroud.
Shroud appears 1354 denounced as a fake 1389
Passed on to house of Savoy 1453
Fire damage 1532
Another fire in 1997 - restoration work on the shroud.

It's rather interesting that the old Pray codex body shows no thumbs, and looks very like the shroud - image but no shroud image or blood. Wiki said that the pattern and crosses represented the tomb -pattern, but I haven't found evidence for this other than the shroud appears to be on top on the 'shroud'with zigs and crosses - so that can't be the shroud.

Rather like Byzantine art, did that copy the shroud or did the shroud copy the art? Can't rule out anything yet, but where Pray in the Codex, is the image?

I get it - I do. It looks so good. The whip marks, the long hair and the wounds in the wrist, No wonder any anomalies can be explained away or just ignored. I get why the problems that skeptics have can look like stubborn secularist refusal to accept the shroud.

But I did and was still open until this thread where it now really looks like this is not a shroud, or it would show Some wrap -around image, and not a real human bod, or the arms/hands would not look wrong. Quite apart from what looks like shadows cast in the image - which leaves me further puzzled. I already mentioned one claim that the fabric is dead right for 1st c Judea, contradicted by someone citing shroud fragments of that date. So can I be blamed for suspecting a little shroud advocacy amongst the Authorities and the need for doubt and question amongst the laity?

There is, beyond the Elephant, the donkey and the dragon in the room plus a rather niffy rat or two, a Fell beast of indeterminate shape and composition and it's this: IF Savoy decided the image was as fake - looking as the denunciation of 1389 said, suppose they got a brain of the time and asked him how to make a more convincing image around the 1490's? Sure, there are indications that an image of that kind was around before then, but how good was it?

That is not even enough to be a 'pet theory' and maybe only a 'silly theory', but no sillier than trying to explain away wrong anatomy with curves in cloth.

[otseng]

How do you show that the shroud was not a flat surface 'which would cause distortion'? And do you mean that it would cause distortion because it not flat or it would cause distortion (in applying 3d) if it was flat?

Is it not that you are assuming that the cloth was not flat rather than you can show it?

If you drape a cloth over a body, would the cloth be flat?

The elephant in the room is 'miracles don't happen'. And while that may seem a dragon, Chimera or Kyllin rather than an elephant, it has the point that the survival of the shroud, let alone as a record of a resurrection, needs extraordinary evidence.

This is precisely the reason why I'm spending so much time discussing cosmologists proposing non-natural explanations. Do you insist cosmologists also need to provide extraordinary evidence?

I am not here to debate cosmology on this thread, nor answer questions, merely tom point out that you are equivocating in equating faith -claims with scientific hypotheses, and that is not special pleading or false dichotomy and you are not doing yourself any favors by trying to drag the point onto semantics about natural or measurable. You have no mechanism or hypothesis other than faithclaims. That is nowhere near the measurable (and dark matter is based on measurement - as I already pointed out) and is not equivalent. Your wriggling merely compounds how bad you are looking and not for the first time,as I recall. Apart from trying to drag the shroud into it.

Noted that the questions I posed remain unanswered.

I could look up a Google ref. for some points, like arm - distortion, but I'm rethinking that myself, rather than cite Authorities to back me up. And you can do that too if references mean so much to you. Further, I know how science works but I do not claim to be doing or even referencing science here.

I've given you a pass before debating you since you were a newbie. Now that you've been on the forum for quite awhile, I expect you to follow the conventions of the forum. Referencing sources is not just for science papers, but for any written work, including this forum. So, as one of the most active and prolific posters on this forum, you'll need to start referencing your sources.

I am discussing the shroud in general terms and if you were hoping to get rid of me by luring me into a Published - Paper - waving competition, you are out of luck. You do not get to tell me how to discuss, as I don't tell you.

This is expected behavior for everyone on the forum, not just you. If you think you have some special right to not follow the conventions of the forum, then you are the one out of luck.

Come on, this is not so hard. I am not asking you to do anything I'm not doing or anyone should be doing. You just simply copy and paste the url of your source into your post.

I've seen people slung off boards for less grubby tactics than that.

I'm not going to throw you off the forum for not referencing sources. But I will consider any claims made as simply opinion and there will be no need to respond to it.

For one thing, I changed my mind. The hand does not show the thumb. And the wound is in the right place, pretty much.

OK, good.

But arms and fingers are surelly too long.

Look at this Cylindrical projection image...



Is Russia, Alaska, Canada, and the Antarctic really that large? Why does it appear larger?

No wonder I don't care to reference papers from shroud 'scientists' whose their work is as sloppy (at best) as that.

Have you even read them? Which paper are you talking about? Just because you disagree with them they are sloppy?

BUT - if the actual holes in the shroud are related to fire damage, the Pray Codex illustration can't be it.

You mean the 1532 fire? Of course the poker holes were not created during the fire. It was created before the 1532 fire and nobody really knows how or when it got there.

It's rather interesting that the old Pray codex body shows no thumbs, and looks very like the shroud - image but no shroud image or blood. Wiki said that the pattern and crosses represented the tomb -pattern, but I haven't found evidence for this other than the shroud appears to be on top on the 'shroud'with zigs and crosses - so that can't be the shroud.

What do you think all those red crosses are supposed to represent?

Also, this is artwork for just one page of the codex. This illustration was obviously not meant to convey every single aspect of the shroud.

Rather like Byzantine art, did that copy the shroud or did the shroud copy the art? Can't rule out anything yet, but where Pray in the Codex, is the image?

It's either one or the other. Either the TS came first or the Pray codex image was drawn first.

The Pray codex is dated to 1192-1195.

"One of the most well-known documents within the Codex (f. 154a) is the Funeral Sermon and Prayer (Hungarian: Halotti beszéd és könyörgés). It is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-1195."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex

The C14 dating is from 1260-1390.



That's a 65 - 198 year difference, with the C14 dating after the Pray codex.

If the Codex image was first, then somehow a French artist would've picked up this book from Hungary (why is a French person reading a Hungarian text anyways?) and saw that image and thought, "This Hungarian artist doesn't really know how to draw accurately. I'll create a shroud image that is what the shroud should really look like and make it anatomically perfect and also include the correct projection onto a curved cloth. I also like the idea it only has 4 fingers. I'll also use a herringbone cloth and add 4 poker holes in it too. I have no idea what those poker holes are, but I'll burn them in to make sure it looks like the Hungarian codex. I'll make it a negative image too while I'm at it. Hmm, adding 3D info would also make those people in the 21st century take notice of my wonderful work. Also, I won't use paint either to make them debate endlessly on how I created the image. Note to self, make sure I paint the blood on first otherwise they might catch on to my forgery."

If the TS was first, then the Hungarian artist would've seen the cloth with the image having 4 fingers, a herringbone cloth, blood stains, and the 4 poker holes and attempted to illustrate that.

The latter is the most reasonable explanation. Of course, what this would mean is the C14 dating is wrong. And I'll devote a huge subsection to debate this later.

IF Savoy decided the image was as fake - looking as the denunciation of 1389 said, suppose they got a brain of the time and asked him how to make a more convincing image around the 1490's? Sure, there are indications that an image of that kind was around before then, but how good was it?

This is another major argument by skeptics. But I'll say this, if a king or bishop said the shroud is authentic, would the skeptics accept that? I doubt it. So, why should skeptics accept it as a fact if a king or bishop claims it is a fake?

[otseng]

I mentioned one curious effect of the shroud image is that you cannot discern the image when you are close to it. The reason for this is the image uses the halftone effect.

Halftone is the reprographic technique that simulates continuous-tone imagery through the use of dots, varying either in size or in spacing, thus generating a gradient-like effect.

Where continuous-tone imagery contains an infinite range of colors or greys, the halftone process reduces visual reproductions to an image that is printed with only one color of ink, in dots of differing size (pulse-width modulation) or spacing (frequency modulation) or both. This reproduction relies on a basic optical illusion: when the halftone dots are small, the human eye interprets the patterned areas as if they were smooth tones. At a microscopic level, developed black-and-white photographic film also consists of only two colors, and not an infinite range of continuous tones.

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

Simply put, the halftone is an optical illusion: small dots of various sizes that are equidistant from each other create the appearance—at an appropriate viewing distance—of continuous gradations of tone. Due to the fact that many printing processes, can only transfer a solid film of ink to a sheet of paper (or other substrate), the halftone is the most effective method for reliably simulating a continuous tone image such as a photograph. Measured in lines per inch, the halftone screen is the essential building block of the printed page upon which everything else depends.

https://multimediaman.blog/tag/invention-of-halftones/

Halftone technique originated in the mid 1800's.

No single individual can be named as the inventor of the halftone photomechanical process. William Henry Fox Talbot (British, 1800–1877) invented and patented his use of textile screens in 1852. Talbot, Georg Meisenbach (German, 1841–1912), Frederic Ives (American, 1856–1937), and Max Levy (American, 1857–1926) can be considered major contributors to the development of the halftone printing process.

https://www.getty.edu/conservation/publ ... lftone.pdf

Here's an example of a halftone picture.



Close up, the photo is just a bunch of black dots of various sizes, but when you look at it far away, it reveals an image.

Here's a closeup of a photo I took from the shroud. When closeup, it's hard to tell what it is.



So, if it's a medieval forgergy, why would the artist use the halftone effect?
How did he even know about it?
How did the idea even enter his head?
Why would he decide to use halftone?
Should he be credited as the inventor of it?

[TRANSPONDER]

How do you show that the shroud was not a flat surface 'which would cause distortion'? And do you mean that it would cause distortion because it not flat or it would cause distortion (in applying 3d) if it was flat?

Is it not that you are assuming that the cloth was not flat rather than you can show it?

If you drape a cloth over a body, would the cloth be flat?

Yes, as I've said. I've also said that this does not account for the distortion in the hands and arms, It also would explain no contact at the sides, as your little piccie shows. Thus even if Real, it is arguably indicating a temporary burial. I require you to answer yes or no because you've demanded enough answers from me and have rather evaded answering mine.

The elephant in the room is 'miracles don't happen'. And while that may seem a dragon, Chimera or Kyllin rather than an elephant, it has the point that the survival of the shroud, let alone as a record of a resurrection, needs extraordinary evidence.

This is precisely the reason why I'm spending so much time discussing cosmologists proposing non-natural explanations. Do you insist cosmologists also need to provide extraordinary evidence?

No because the natural/material does not require extradinary claims as it is science - already verified as the go to basis; miracles and the supernatural are not, which is why claims of miracles and goddunnit are by principle and logic extraordinary claims, have the burden of proof and are not equivalent to science hypotheses.

I am not here to debate cosmology on this thread, nor answer questions, merely tom point out that you are equivocating in equating faith -claims with scientific hypotheses, and that is not special pleading or false dichotomy and you are not doing yourself any favors by trying to drag the point onto semantics about natural or measurable. You have no mechanism or hypothesis other than faithclaims. That is nowhere near the measurable (and dark matter is based on measurement - as I already pointed out) and is not equivalent. Your wriggling merely compounds how bad you are looking and not for the first time,as I recall. Apart from trying to drag the shroud into it.

Noted that the questions I posed remain unanswered.

Noted (not just by me) that you are ignoring my response, insisting that I play your game and that you are being evasive and dishonest. And don't think of pulling the 'ad hom' gambit as this is about argument method, not personals.

I could look up a Google ref. for some points, like arm - distortion, but I'm rethinking that myself, rather than cite Authorities to back me up. And you can do that too if references mean so much to you. Further, I know how science works but I do not claim to be doing or even referencing science here.

I've given you a pass before debating you since you were a newbie. Now that you've been on the forum for quite awhile, I expect you to follow the conventions of the forum. Referencing sources is not just for science papers, but for any written work, including this forum. So, as one of the most active and prolific posters on this forum, you'll need to start referencing your sources.

I am discussing the shroud in general terms and if you were hoping to get rid of me by luring me into a Published - Paper - waving competition, you are out of luck. You do not get to tell me how to discuss, as I don't tell you.

This is expected behavior for everyone on the forum, not just you. If you think you have some special right to not follow the conventions of the forum, then you are the one out of luck.

Come on, this is not so hard. I am not asking you to do anything I'm not doing or anyone should be doing. You just simply copy and paste the url of your source into your post.

I've seen people slung off boards for less grubby tactics than that.

I'm not going to throw you off the forum for not referencing sources. But I will consider any claims made as simply opinion and there will be no need to respond to it.

You can consider whatever you like. People will see that already my 'opinions' have got you to change your claims a couple of times based on observation rather than referring to sources, when (as I said) nobody else seems to noticed any of this stuff and the only 'experts' are those who make dubious claims like undiscolored fibreds under the blood or serum. Since I have not seen this queried, how am I going to reference it? Effectively, you are trying to shut me up by demanding backup for what I see with my own eyes, but others don't appear to have seen,

As to references, can you reference your claim (from the Rules) that I have to do it the way you say, or is it just you demanding the way you say?

For one thing, I changed my mind. The hand does not show the thumb. And the wound is in the right place, pretty much.

OK, good.

Good that you changed your mind, on the wrap around and (it seems) the distortions, though you are till trying to wangle them away.

But arms and fingers are surelly too long.

Look at this Cylindrical projection image...



Is Russia, Alaska, Canada, and the Antarctic really that large? Why does it appear larger?

No wonder I don't care to reference papers from shroud 'scientists' whose their work is as sloppy (at best) as that.

Have you even read them? Which paper are you talking about? Just because you disagree with them they are sloppy?

Demonstrably so at least as posted by you here (whether you referenced them or not) first uncoloured from under the blood and then when I showed that was sloppy) under the serum, which also looks sloppy. Either because of the Paper you sourced or because of how you posted the claim here, which is it? And why are you making yourself look so bad by pulling these lawyer tricks rather than addressing the points queries I raise?

Look, otseng, nobody here is going to be fooled by you pretending that a mercator projection of a round earth as flat explains the distortion of the hand and arms by a draped shroud which is going to be flat along the arms and hands anyway. Don't make yourself look absurd and dishonest. I know it is a forum convention that Bible apologists do this, but really, don't. it does you no credit.

BUT - if the actual holes in the shroud are related to fire damage, the Pray Codex illustration can't be it.

You mean the 1532 fire? Of course the poker holes were not created during the fire. It was created before the 1532 fire and nobody really knows how or when it got there.

Then how do you know they predate the 1532 fire? Because they are on the Pray codex? I read that similar 'holes' appear on other parts of that illustration for example the angel's wing. May be nothing to do with the 'poker - holes'.

It's rather interesting that the old Pray codex body shows no thumbs, and looks very like the shroud - image but no shroud image or blood. Wiki said that the pattern and crosses represented the tomb -pattern, but I haven't found evidence for this other than the shroud appears to be on top on the 'shroud'with zigs and crosses - so that can't be the shroud.

What do you think all those red crosses are supposed to represent?

Also, this is artwork for just one page of the codex. This illustration was obviously not meant to convey every single aspect of the shroud.

The Wiki article observed that this is likely tomb decoration also seen in other illustration and also mentioned that the codex does not refer to an image on the cloth. I have to suggest that it is a terrible stretch to pas off a lot of red crosses as the image of the shroud when they'd already drawn Jesus' body in that position.

Rather like Byzantine art, did that copy the shroud or did the shroud copy the art? Can't rule out anything yet, but where Pray in the Codex, is the image?

It's either one or the other. Either the TS came first or the Pray codex image was drawn first.

The Pray codex is dated to 1192-1195.

"One of the most well-known documents within the Codex (f. 154a) is the Funeral Sermon and Prayer (Hungarian: Halotti beszéd és könyörgés). It is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-1195."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex

The C14 dating is from 1260-1390.



That's about a 70 year difference.

If the Codex image was first, then somehow a French artist would've picked up this book from Hungary (why is a French person reading a Hungarian text anyways?) and saw that image and thought, "This Hungarian artist doesn't really know how to draw accurately. I'll create a shroud image that is what the shroud should really look like and make it anatomically perfect and also include the correct projection onto a curved cloth. I also like the idea it only has 4 fingers. I'll also use a herringbone cloth and add 4 poker holes in it too. I have no idea what those poker holes are, but I'll burn them in to make sure it looks like the Hungarian codex. I'll make it a negative image too while I'm at it. Hmm, adding 3D info would also make those people in the 21st century take notice of my wonderful work."

If the TS was first, then the Hungarian artist would've seen the cloth with the image having 4 fingers, a herringbone cloth, blood stains, and the 4 poker holes and attempted to illustrate that.

The latter is the most reasonable explanation. Of course, what this would mean is the C14 dating is wrong. And I'll devote a huge subsection to debate this later.

IF Savoy decided the image was as fake - looking as the denunciation of 1389 said, suppose they got a brain of the time and asked him how to make a more convincing image around the 1490's? Sure, there are indications that an image of that kind was around before then, but how good was it?

This is another major argument by skeptics. But I'll say this, if a king or bishop said the shroud is authentic, would the skeptics accept that? I doubt it. So, why should skeptics accept it as a fact if a king or bishop claims it is a fake?

Well well So now C14 dating is absolutely trustworthy. Disputes about the date of the Codex are nit picks anyway as it clearly in earlier than the first mention of the shroud.

Now because I do not rely on the references of experts for my arguments I do not rely on the major arguments of skeptics that the image was denounced as a fake (1). incidentally, since you are so ken of refs. would you post the reference that supports your contention that "This is another major argument by skeptics" if you can't then i must request that you cease trying to bully and intimidate me me into dancing to your tune.

(1) If the image at that time is the present shroud, the denunciation is arguable, if not dishonest, and there could be some motive or agenda behind the denunciation - like not wanting a pilgrimage -rival. However, if the original image was a pretty evident fake, then what we have now is not what the image was at that time, so a new image must have been made later. I'm just laying out all the possibilities; it's called open mind. Bible apologists should try it, sometime.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1670]

It is not presenting metric space as some actual entity, but as a mathematical concept.

Yes ... these are mathematical concepts but "real" in the same sense that the length of a football field is 100 yards (or pick any other unit of linear distance). The "yard" in this case is not a real, physical "thing" and neither is the metric for a metric space, but the thing the unit yard represents (a unit of distance) is real. There is a physical separation between one end zone and the other, and the mathematical concept of a distance unit is what quantifies that. That was my point ... in the expansion of spacetime it is the metric that is expanding, and the manifestation of that is that the apparent distance between galaxies is increasing with time. The metric itself is not a real, physical thing made of matter.

How can one objectively demonstrate spacetime or metric tensor or whatever is carrying light along to be real and not simply a conceptual model?

The conceptual model is just a way to describe spacetime and the effects that are observed if its characteristics change. I don't dispute that these are mathematical concepts, but am arguing that they describe real effects. Light does deviate from a straight line path in the vicinity of massive objects. This is directly observed so is a real effect. GR explains this via its description of gravity as curvature in spacetime in the vicinity of massive objects.

In GR, the metric tensor, mathematically, is a rank-two tensor field on spacetime which couples to all mass-energy. This coupling is what causes real effects like the bending of light. The mathematical model of GR describes observations, but does not claim that spacetime is some kind of tangible "thing" like a fabric of some sort, which it doesn't need to be to "carry" light as light can propogate all by itself without any need for a medium (unlike a pressure wave, for example). If the metric is expanding, light gets shifted to longer wavelengths (to the red) while if the metric were shrinking it would be blue shifted, even in a perfect vacuum.

[otseng]

The mathematical model of GR describes observations, but does not claim that spacetime is some kind of tangible "thing" like a fabric of some sort, which it doesn't need to be to "carry" light as light can propogate all by itself without any need for a medium (unlike a pressure wave, for example).

I refer back to your statement:

It is not that galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light (they don't), but that spacetime is expanding and carrying them with it. If spacetime was not expanding, then the galaxy redshifts we measure for very distant galaxies would indeed suggest they were moving faster than the speed of light.

The issue is not if there is a medium for light to travel in, but the issue is what is causing light to appear to travel faster than the speed of light? The assertion is that light is traveling on something (spacetime) and that something is stretching and adding additional distance. This is not simply mathematical modeling, but an assertion that something is physically affecting light.