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]

I MOST CERTAINLY DID ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE TO DEBATE A SKEPTIC'S POSITION!!!

We are talking about the Shroud of Turin. I asked you to "pick any claim by any shroud skeptic and defend it". Have any shroud skeptic presented any of the things that you offered in order to argue against the authenticity of the shroud? If so, please present the link to it.

[JoeyKnothead]

I MOST CERTAINLY DID ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE TO DEBATE A SKEPTIC'S POSITION!!!

We are talking about the Shroud of Turin. I asked you to "pick any claim by any shroud skeptic and defend it". Have any shroud skeptic presented any of the things that you offered in order to argue against the authenticity of the shroud? If so, please present the link to it.

"Any" ?

From merriam-webster.com

any
1 of 3
adjective
ˈe-nē
1: one or some indiscriminately of whatever kind:
a: one or another taken at random
Ask any man you meet.
b: every
—used to indicate one selected without restriction
Any child would know that.
2: one, some, or all indiscriminately of whatever quantity:
a: one or more—used to indicate an undetermined number or amount
Do you have any money?
b: all—used to indicate a maximum or whole
He needs any help he can get.
c: a or some without reference to quantity or extent
I'd be grateful for any favor at all.
3
a: unmeasured or unlimited in amount, number, or extent
any quantity you desire
b: appreciably large or extended
could not endure it any length of time

I'm a shroud skeptic, and I'll be danged if I'll have anyone tell me I ain't.

You deny my skepticanity because you can't deny my arguments.

But that's okay, you won't be the first theist who runs away screaming out of the room when they have their argument flattened to a subatomic thinness.

[otseng]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1727]

Since Joey will not accept my challenge, I open the floor for anyone else on the forum to take any skeptical position on the shroud and argue why it is not authentic.

[otseng]

The evidence is overwhelming the TS is not artwork of any kind, so we can rule this out as a possibility. And ironically, the ones who claim the TS is an artwork are primarily from those who know little about artwork. As I stated:

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.

So, if the TS is not artwork, the only other possibility is it must involve the body of a crucified man.

Even Michael Tite, head of the 1988 C14 dating, does not accept it as an artwork, but believes it involved a body that was crucified.

Dr. Michael Tite, the project coordinator who supervised the carbon-14 dating of the Shroud of Turin in 1988, was recently interviewed by the BBC.

Dr. Tite's opinion is that the Shroud is not a painting. He also believes that it is a real shroud which enveloped a real crucifixion victim.

https://www.raydowning.com/blog/2016/3/ ... -real-body

"It's my view that a body was involved in some way or another because of its three-dimensional nature." - Michael Tite

[otseng]

When trying to search for peer-reviewed articles in art journals on "Turin Shroud", I can find none.

Searching on Getty Research Portal, there are no results.
http://portal.getty.edu/search?q=turin& ... =relevance

Searching on Met Museum journal, there are no results.
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/metpublic ... ear%7CDesc

Searching on Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, there are no results.
https://www.mdpi.com/search?q=shroud+turin&journal=arts

Searching on Journal of Conservation and Museum Studies, there are no results.
https://www.jcms-journal.com/articles/s ... roud+turin

Even these YouTube shroud skeptics have tried to search for peer-reviewed articles in art history journals on the TS and found none. The only thing they can find are scientific peer-reviewed articles (so much that it's filling up their hard drive!).  Though their conclusion as to why there is nothing from the art community is faulty, they have corrected noted that there is silence from the art community on the TS.

There's not a lot of peer-reviewed work being published on these topics that we're going to get into, the art history and things like that. I couldn't find any at all about a lot of these things.

My hard drive is fast filling up with Shroud of Turin research.  Like this thing is piling up.  Journals would love to have this published, they're just not publishing it.  Maybe the reason they're not publishing is because historians aren't convinced, they don't find it convincing.

Anyone else is free to search in other art journals.  Here's a list of art journals:
https://guides.library.illinois.edu/ric ... listartjrn

Again, it makes no sense that the TS would be a medieval artwork and art peer-reviewed articles on it from art journals are impossible to find. But, it would make sense if it was not artwork, but an actual shroud of the crucified and resurrected Jesus, since there are tons of scientific peer-reviewed articles.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1727]

Since Joey will not accept my challenge, I open the floor for anyone else on the forum to take any skeptical position on the shroud and argue why it is not authentic.

Let's look at this thing...

Way back when...

viewtopic.php?p=1107804#p1107804

...
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.

My alternative claim/s against the TS being as theists report, is thus...

It can't be confirmed to be the cloth of a resurrected Jesus, so the most rational conclusion is that it's the product of otherwise natural (including human) processes, for the following reasons...

1. No case of human / god hybrids has ever been confirmed to have occurred, nor shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

It's merely conjecture, speculation, fanciful thinking on the part of otseng to just dismiss my argument as "silly claims". The above facts have not been disputed, they've not even been countered by anything approaching a logical argument.

Even as I fessed up that I don't know, either way, otseng continued to poke at me...

viewtopic.php?p=1108026&sid=204b3e510b2 ... e#p1108026

You don't have to "know" either way. I'm asking you to pick any claim by any shroud skeptic and defend it. You don't even have to believe it, just defend it for argument sake.

Any. I've elsewhere in this thread provided the Merriam-Webster definition of "any", to nobody fussing it was wrong.

I am a skeptic of these supernatural claims regarding this shroud, and I don't need anybody to argue my position for me. I don't need me no scientist, no preacher, no nothing. All I need is to point out what I consider the most relevant facts...

1. No case of human / god hybrids has ever been confirmed to have occurred, nor shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

And I told otseng...
viewtopic.php?p=1107817&sid=204b3e510b2 ... e#p1107817

...
When I can't prove a claim, I don't make em, or at least I retract em. Of course I do enjoy and respect a bit of speculation from all sides, but hope it'd be recognized as such.

But he just had to keep on a-pokin'...

viewtopic.php?p=1108026&sid=204b3e510b2 ... e#p1108026

Again, I'm not going to allow you to do that in this thread. It is too simple and easy to just disagree. It takes work to research and defend a claim.
...

So, I've been trying to say that in this matter, we're not gonna be able to confirm this thing either way. And ya know why? Because all I have are the numbered facts I've repeatedly presented, only to have otseng call these facts "silly claims". Ya see, I'm stuck on this thing, because I don't have the get of logic card. I don't have the supernatural to hide the real or potential failures of my argument. As long as the theist is allowed to...

ignore the numbered facts I've presented...

then we're all left with otseng trying to say I'm somehow not human enough to constitute being me an "any skeptic". Nope, not me, otseng gets to decide if I belong to the set of "any skeptic".

But why? Why doesn't otseng want to acknowledge that, against my own fessing, that I'm an "any skeptic"?

The observer can only ponder. As for me...

1. No case of human / god hybrids has ever been confirmed to have occurred, nor shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

I know why otseng considers these facts "silly claims". The theist wants us to play along with there even being gods, much less a human impregnating, cloth blood and picture putting on resurrecting half human / half god hybrid.

Since otseng thinks I'm sitting here cowering at his self-imposed definition of what constitutes "any skeptic", cowering such that I wouldn't dare debate otseng, let it be known...

1. No case of human / god hybrids has ever been confirmed to have occurred, nor shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

For those who'd listen to ol' cowardy scaredy cat JoeyKnothead, it's my claim that until the above numbered facts can be confirmed in the otherwise, the most reasonable, rational conclusion to be had here is...

We have a piece of cloth of human origin, with blood and imagery on it of unknown origin, and otseng thinks I'm too chicken to debate him about it.

That avatar's a penguin, it ain't no chicken, and I'll not have my character slandered and libeled by yet another theist who thinks their holy book is the be all and end all of human knowledge. Especially when they ignore my argument and try to put on me arguments of other skeptics.

The liar lies and the preacher preaches.

[otseng]

But that's okay, you won't be the first theist who runs away screaming out of the room when they have their argument flattened to a subatomic thinness.

That avatar's a penguin, it ain't no chicken, and I'll not have my character slandered and libeled by yet another theist who thinks their holy book is the be all and end all of human knowledge. Especially when they ignore my argument and try to put on me arguments of other skeptics.

The liar lies and the preacher preaches.

Saying that you will not accept my challenge is not saying you're a chicken or even slandering you. But I will say you resorting to the ad hom comments against me as a response reveals the weakness of your position. If you have legitimate rational arguments, you will not need to resort to these.

Further, if you do have legitimate rational arguments, why would you have to make up claims that no shroud skeptic that I've read anywhere have proposed? Please provide the link from any shroud skeptic to the statements you made as an explanation for the TS:

1. No case of human / god hybrids has ever been confirmed to have occurred, nor shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

So far, all you've done is just make claims that the TS is not authentic, but have not even provided any evidence or reference to any evidence to back it.

What is at issue is for you to provide a naturalistic explanation for the body image and blood stains on the TS and anything else is simply a diversionary tactic.

Myself, I've been presenting evidence that it is not man-made artwork. If you have evidence it's artwork, please present it. Or if you have an alternative explanation, please present that.

I have already done part of the research for you and pointed out some of the top claims of shroud skeptics:

1) it's a medieval forgery
2) it's a crucified person from 1300 AD
3) it's Jesus, but the body was stolen

Why are you unwilling to defend any of these when these are the top ones that shroud skeptics hold?

[JoeyKnothead]

Saying that you will not accept my challenge is not saying you're a chicken or even slandering you. But I will say you resorting to the ad hom comments against me as a response reveals the weakness of your position. If you have legitimate rational arguments, you will not need to resort to these.

It's my contention the ad hom comes from you saying I've not accepted your challenge to debate ANY SKEPTIC'S POSITION here.

Who are you to deny me being a member of the set of any skeptic?

Did you really mean "any", or did you mean "any I'm comfortable to deal with"?

Further, if you do have legitimate rational arguments, why would you have to make up claims that no shroud skeptic that I've read anywhere have proposed? Please provide the link from any shroud skeptic to the statements you made as an explanation for the TS:

1. No case of human / god hybrids has ever been confirmed to have occurred, nor shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

Requested link to a shroud skeptic making the referenced claims.

So far, all you've done is just make claims that the TS is not authentic, but have not even provided any evidence or reference to any evidence to back it.

I've presented three heretofore unchallenged, indisputable facts that rule against the claims of TS promoters. That you consider facts to be "silly claims" does not refute those facts.

What is at issue is for you to provide a naturalistic explanation for the body image and blood stains on the TS and anything else is simply a diversionary tactic.

Site rules indicate I'm under no obligation to provide alternate hypotheses for any claims.

I'm a skeptic debating facts, not wishes.

That you consider my presentation of facts to be a diversionary tactic indicates you can't even admit these facts -facts- do irreperable harm to your argument.

Myself, I've been presenting evidence that it is not man-made artwork. If you have evidence it's artwork, please present it. Or if you have an alternative explanation, please present that.

And as you present evidence, I present facts.

I have already done part of the research for you and pointed out some of the top claims of shroud skeptics:

1) it's a medieval forgery
2) it's a crucified person from 1300 AD
3) it's Jesus, but the body was stolen

Why are you unwilling to defend any of these when these are the top ones that shroud skeptics hold?

Because I have the honor and integrity to not make claims I can't confirm.

What I can defend is...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the cloth can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question.

Let the record show that I've stepped up to your challenge, that I AM MOST CERTAINLY A MEMBER OF THE SET OF "ANY SKEPTIC", and that you can only continue to fuss about how I ain't debating in a manner that brings you comfort.

Let's look now at some facts related to that last bit...

1. I've spotted you a god existing
2. I've spotted you Jesus existing
3. I've so thoroughly put your argument to shame, you gotta keep accusing me of not belonging to the set of ANY SKEPTIC.

"But Joey, I need you to debate all this other stuff, cause, well, fact and religion don't get along too good."

I dare say, if you could refute my argument, you wouldn't hafta say I ain't made one.

[otseng]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1733]

You had admitted you can't refute my position on the shroud:

...
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.

Having presented your evidence, openly and honorably, I fess up that though I have my doubts, I can't refute your conclusions.

So, what you want to do is change the topic or continually just make the claim that the shroud is not authentic. Have you yet presented any evidence to support the shroud is inauthentic? If so, I have not seen them. And why do you continually ask other Christians to provide evidence or support claims yet you do not?

And why do you want to change the subject when I have even stepped out on a limb to say the Shroud of Turin would be a way to falsify Christianity? Here's your chance to disprove Christianity. We can settle it here once and for all by having a logical debate on the shroud.

I MOST CERTAINLY DID ACCEPT THE CHALLENGE TO DEBATE A SKEPTIC'S POSITION!!!

We are talking about the Shroud of Turin. I asked you to "pick any claim by any shroud skeptic and defend it". Have any shroud skeptic presented any of the things that you offered in order to argue against the authenticity of the shroud? If so, please present the link to it.

You did not accept my challenge. Rather, you explicitly left out words in my challenge and then think that is what I asked for.

I said "pick any claim by any shroud skeptic and defend it".

And then you proceeded to give a definition of "any". Well, what about the words "pick", "shroud", and "defend"?

And since you are unwilling to "pick any claim by any shroud skeptic and defend it", but only want to present "any claim by a skeptic", then it's obvious you refused my challenge.

This is going to be my last post discussing this with you. I'm not going to go down this rabbit trail that is simply meant to derail the topic.

If you have evidence with a reference to actual arguments against the shroud, I will respond to them. Otherwise, they will be ignored.

[otseng]

Perhaps the most famous and talented artist of all time is Leonardo da Vinci. Even beyond art, he was an incredible scientist, architect, and inventor. Born in 1452, he would've been a few centuries after the alleged TS artist.

Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci (15 April 1452 – 2 May 1519) was an Italian polymath of the High Renaissance who was active as a painter, draughtsman, engineer, scientist, theorist, sculptor, and architect.[3] While his fame initially rested on his achievements as a painter, he also became known for his notebooks, in which he made drawings and notes on a variety of subjects, including anatomy, astronomy, botany, cartography, painting, and paleontology. Leonardo is widely regarded to have been a genius who epitomized the Renaissance humanist ideal,[4] and his collective works comprise a contribution to later generations of artists matched only by that of his younger contemporary, Michelangelo.

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

But, even though da Vinci was a genius, he is still no match for the mysterious medieval TS artist.

Though he was centuries ahead of his time in technological conceptions, he was not centuries ahead of his time in artistic techniques. On the other hand, the TS artist used art techniques centuries before they were invented: photography, 3-D encoding, half-tone, air brush, projection, x-ray, and hyperrealism. He was so good, scientists now don't know how he created the image. And it'll probably be centuries later after those techniques are discovered that we'll know how he did it.

da Vinci left records of all that he did and the research that was required for all of his work.

These studies were recorded in 13,000 pages of notes and drawings, which fuse art and natural philosophy (the forerunner of modern science). They were made and maintained daily throughout Leonardo's life and travels, as he made continual observations of the world around him.[38] Leonardo's notes and drawings display an enormous range of interests and preoccupations, some as mundane as lists of groceries and people who owed him money and some as intriguing as designs for wings and shoes for walking on water. There are compositions for paintings, studies of details and drapery, studies of faces and emotions, of animals, babies, dissections, plant studies, rock formations, whirlpools, war machines, flying machines and architecture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonardo_ ... _and_notes

On the other hand, we have zero textual records from the TS artist.

da Vinci created many works of art in different methods - painting, sculpture, drawings, architecture, etc.

The alleged TS artist, even though he was an artistic genius, only created one work of art.

da Vinci created prototypes in order to create his artwork.

The TS artist left no prototype. From all that we can tell, he created it in a single shot without the need for prototypes.

So, even though da Vinci was an incredibly gifted artist by God, the TS artist was so much more talented than da Vinci that his skills could be classified as miraculous.

In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvellously endowed by Heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill. Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease.

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