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]

If the shroud was truly a medieval artwork, the above facts would make no sense. Why should scant attention be made to it by the art community, but it would be the most scientifically analyzed artifact? It is a pioneer in many aspects of art techniques centuries before others have discovered or used them. Yet it is not credited by the art community as being the first of its kind. There is practically dead silence from the art community on the shroud.

Another observation of silence of the TS from the art world by art historian Thomas de Wesselow:

The idea that the Shroud is a medieval work of art is simply untenable. It doesn't look like a medieval work of art. It's not made like one. And it's certainly not conceived like one. And that's why art historians like me, or not like me, actually have completely ignored the the Shroud of Turin over the course of the last century. It just doesn't fit into the history of art.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I challenge you to actually study this. If you do a deep dive study of the scientific evidence and then you still don't believe, then at least I know you've been objective about this and have an open mind. But until then, you have no logical justification to reject the claim. And this challenge is not just to you, but to all readers of this thread.
...

I, personally, can't refute the various data that would support your position, but I have objections based on surrounding biblical claims.

How deep of a dive does it take to know humans and gods've never been shown to produce viable hybrid offspring?

How deep of a dive does it take to know dead folks don't just hop up and wander about?

How deep of a dive does it take to realize that the cloth in question can't be confirmed to represent a depiction of a certain, particular human / god hybrid?

You admit yourself the image can't be compared to other images, that we might confirm it's the Jesus in question. You also admit, or allude to any DNA being otherwise unusable.

I reject these sorts of "you need to study it" arguments from any claimant within these threads. I should be under no obligation to research what a claimant can't produce - confirmation for their claims.

I further reject the accusation that only if I do a "deeper dive" can I be considered to have an open mind. The fact that I so often challenge claimants to offer a means to confirm they speak truth shows beyond doubt that I approach any and all claims with an open mind.

That said, I'll go to my grave saying you've done you a fine job of putting together a circumstantial case. It's just I don't take this one data point, or various others within this thread, in isolation of others.

[otseng]

...
I challenge you to actually study this. If you do a deep dive study of the scientific evidence and then you still don't believe, then at least I know you've been objective about this and have an open mind. But until then, you have no logical justification to reject the claim. And this challenge is not just to you, but to all readers of this thread.
...

I, personally, can't refute the various data that would support your position, but I have objections based on surrounding biblical claims.

As you well realize, what is important is evidence, not simply making unsubstantiated claims. In order to produce evidence, it requires research and study. I'm not asking you to do anything different than what I'm doing. For evidence or claims I've presented, I've spent effort in backing it up with a reference. As I've mentioned to Transponder, you'll need to do the same if you make any claim, otherwise it will just be an opinion.

Studying the TS is actually not out of reach for people. For some topics, it's hard to find the data. But since the TS is the most scientifically studied artifact, there is a ton of information out there. Just go to shroud.com and there are so many scientific papers that it'll take weeks/months to read them all. And it's all free to access, unlike many other scientific papers.

What I've found is most of the arguments against the shroud are just baseless claims (it's a fake, it's been proven it's a forgery, C14 proves it is a medieval artwork, etc). So, to avoid chasing irrational arguments, what we need to do is stick to providing evidence with references.

There are a few strong evidential counterarguments against the authenticity of the shroud, like the testimony of French bishop Pierre d'Arcis and the 1988 C14 dating, which we will eventually do a deep dive into.

The fact that I so often challenge claimants to offer a means to confirm they speak truth shows beyond doubt that I approach any and all claims with an open mind.

And I'm challenging you. Please present the evidence to support the claim that the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. I've already been presenting evidence regarding the shroud for the last ten pages. So, you (or anyone else) will need to present counterarguments with evidence and references.

[JoeyKnothead]

As you well realize, what is important is evidence, not simply making unsubstantiated claims. In order to produce evidence, it requires research and study. I'm not asking you to do anything different than what I'm doing. For evidence or claims I've presented, I've spent effort in backing it up with a reference. As I've mentioned to Transponder, you'll need to do the same if you make any claim, otherwise it will just be an opinion.
...

As they're your claims, I seek to examine the evidence that leads you to believe it. Having presented your evidence, openly and honorably, I fess up that though I have my doubts, I can't refute your conclusions.

I 'risk' the observer thinking you've got the best of it here in fessing my inability to refute.

What I've found is most of the arguments against the shroud are just baseless claims (it's a fake, it's been proven it's a forgery, C14 proves it is a medieval artwork, etc). So, to avoid chasing irrational arguments, what we need to do is stick to providing evidence with references.

There are a few strong evidential counterarguments against the authenticity of the shroud, like the testimony of French bishop Pierre d'Arcis and the 1988 C14 dating, which we will eventually do a deep dive into.

Plenty fair. It's a testament to your studies that you're aware of data that might go strongly against you.

And I'm challenging you. Please present the evidence to support the claim that the shroud is not the burial cloth of Jesus. I've already been presenting evidence regarding the shroud for the last ten pages. So, you (or anyone else) will need to present counterarguments with evidence and references.

I've not made the claim as you present it.

What I've said is that there's other facts surrounding the TS, as well as Jesus, for folks to consider. As before, I readily admit I'm in no position to make a claim either way as to the authenticity of this shroud. So while I don't think it's been confirmed authentic as presented, I also can't dismiss it out of hand.

This thing doesn't exist by itself, so to speak. It's -ahem- wrapped up in the Bible, and all the claims about its subject. The shroud can't be confirmed to have draped a human / god hybrid. It can't be confirmed to depict the Jesus of the Bible.

These two points alone allow for a reasonable, rational rejection of the TS as an otherwise unremarkable cloth of dubious origin. Of course there's always the implied "provisionally rejected".

[otseng]

What I've said is that there's other facts surrounding the TS, as well as Jesus, for folks to consider. As before, I readily admit I'm in no position to make a claim either way as to the authenticity of this shroud. So while I don't think it's been confirmed authentic as presented, I also can't dismiss it out of hand.

As I study the Shroud of Turin more, I'm convinced the TS is the perfect topic for people to debate on concerning the truth of Christianity, esp for those that lean towards a scientific approach (and I consider myself to be in that camp).

The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the core doctrine of Christianity. There is no other doctrine that is more important than this.

This doctrine is also the falsifiability test of Christianity. If anyone falsifies Jesus Christ dying on the cross and resurrecting, Christianity is then just a social club where people get together, have potluck meals and occasionally do service work.

The TS is an object that we have in our hands (well, actually the Pope's hands). It is an object that exists that can be subject to scientific scrutiny. And it can be studied from an objective and scientific viewpoint.

The TS has so much publicly available scientific and scholarly data on it that anyone who wants to study it can spend a long time on it. And for some, it has been decades.

What other topic is better than this to debate on to support or attack the veracity of Christianity? I can't think of any other.

I do realize that I'm stepping out on a limb here. I've yet to see any shroud proponent that would risk making the claim that if one can prove the shroud is a forgery, then all of Christianity is falsified. But, even with my cursory research, I'm now convinced that it is legit and willing to take this position.

The challenge to dispute my claim that the TS is the actual burial cloth of Jesus is not just to you Joey, but to all the members of this forum. Skeptics continually make the claim that Christianity is false. Well, if anyone is so certain of that, then engage me in this debate and present rational arguments and evidence to support the TS is fake.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
The crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ is the core doctrine of Christianity. There is no other doctrine that is more important than this.

This doctrine is also the falsifiability test of Christianity. If anyone falsifies Jesus Christ dying on the cross and resurrecting, Christianity is then just a social club where people get together, have potluck meals and occasionally do service work.

It would put a kink in the hose.

The challenge to dispute my claim that the TS is the actual burial cloth of Jesus is not just to you Joey, but to all the members of this forum. Skeptics continually make the claim that Christianity is false. Well, if anyone is so certain of that, then engage me in this debate and present rational arguments and evidence to support the TS is fake.

I see it differently. Until it can be shown to have actually draped the body of the biblical protagonist, it's just a piece of cloth. Even then, having been draped thus, that still doesn't mean there was a resurrection.

It's a bit of a leap too far to say, "This guy was wrapped up in it, so that proves the resurrection occured".

[Difflugia]

This doctrine is also the falsifiability test of Christianity. If anyone falsifies Jesus Christ dying on the cross and resurrecting, Christianity is then just a social club where people get together, have potluck meals and occasionally do service work.

Assuming "falsifies" means an earthly Jesus, I disagree. It falsifies most forms of Christianity as practiced, including orthodox Christianity, but treating the Gospels as ahistorical allegory doesn't remove the religious value of them nor does it make a harmonization with the rest of the New Testament more difficult. It does damage the currently accepted harmonizations, but a different harmonization would just as accurately be called "Biblical Christianity" as any that treats the Gospels as historical. A completely mythical, unfalsifiable in principle, "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" Jesus related allegorically in stories about an earthly Jesus would produce a viable Christianity with very few theological changes.

[otseng]

I see it differently. Until it can be shown to have actually draped the body of the biblical protagonist, it's just a piece of cloth. Even then, having been draped thus, that still doesn't mean there was a resurrection.

It's not just a piece of cloth. It also has a body image and blood stains on it. The question that has stumped scientists is how did those get on the cloth? So, my claim is it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and demonstrates his crucifixion and resurrection. And I will continue to produce evidence to support that claim.

I'm not going to just let you get away with just putting the burden on me on arguing for its authenticity (which I will continue to do) and then you just sit back and say I'm not proving its true. But you must argue for an alternative scenario and present evidence and references to back it up.

You are one of the most active posters on this forum. As a matter of fact, you have more posts than me! And I'm the founder of this forum! You are one of the oldest active members of the forum having joined 14 years ago. And everybody on this forum knows who you are and respects you. So, I'm challenging you to an actual debate where I make a claim and defend it and you must have an alternative claim and defend it. Probably the most widely held belief held by skeptics is that it was a medieval forgery, so if you want to side with the majority of skeptics, that would be a good one to argue for.

[otseng]

Assuming "falsifies" means an earthly Jesus, I disagree. It falsifies most forms of Christianity as practiced, including orthodox Christianity, but treating the Gospels as ahistorical allegory doesn't remove the religious value of them nor does it make a harmonization with the rest of the New Testament more difficult. It does damage the currently accepted harmonizations, but a different harmonization would just as accurately be called "Biblical Christianity" as any that treats the Gospels as historical. A completely mythical, unfalsifiable in principle, "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" Jesus related allegorically in stories about an earthly Jesus would produce a viable Christianity with very few theological changes.

Yes, I'm referring to Biblical Christianity. I'm not referring to any form of Christianity that does not take the Bible as authoritative.

[JoeyKnothead]

I see it differently. Until it can be shown to have actually draped the body of the biblical protagonist, it's just a piece of cloth. Even then, having been draped thus, that still doesn't mean there was a resurrection.

It's not just a piece of cloth. It also has a body image and blood stains on it. The question that has stumped scientists is how did those get on the cloth? So, my claim is it is the burial cloth of Jesus Christ and demonstrates his crucifixion and resurrection. And I will continue to produce evidence to support that claim.

I'm not going to just let you get away with just putting the burden on me on arguing for its authenticity (which I will continue to do) and then you just sit back and say I'm not proving its true. But you must argue for an alternative scenario and present evidence and references to back it up.

1. Blood is known to collect on cloth, so that's unremarkable. What analysis has been conducted that confirms this is the blood of Jesus?
2. Until the image is confirmed to be that of Jesus, how it got on the cloth is kinda moot.

Lacking positive confirmation for either of these, we simply can't confirm the position you propose.

You are one of the most active posters on this forum. As a matter of fact, you have more posts than me! And I'm the founder of this forum! You are one of the oldest active members of the forum having joined 14 years ago. And everybody on this forum knows who you are and respects you. So, I'm challenging you to an actual debate where I make a claim and defend it and you must have an alternative claim and defend it. Probably the most widely held belief held by skeptics is that it was a medieval forgery, so if you want to side with the majority of skeptics, that would be a good one to argue for.

My argument is presented above. I don't consider myself bound to produce some kind of alternate hypothesis, when I can so easily show how yours is so faulty.

"I must be correct if you can't show my faults" is a poor means of establishing truth.

Until we can confirm the blood and image are that of Jesus, we're speculating. I can, with equal validity, propose it's the image of Adam, or Moses, or Noah, or any other human who walked the planet around the same time this cloth came to be.

Beyond that, we have claims of who Jesus was. The product of a human / god hybrid has never been reliably shown to occur, never been reliably shown to be viable. So the character of Jesus, as claimed in the Bible, has little support to begin with.

Allowing a human Jesus, who was merely a preacher, doesn't help the cloth / resurrection argument too much either, because of the notion it was Jesus' superhuman nature that's so important to the tale.