How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1741

Post by otseng »

Tcg wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:28 pm Have you studied the Shroud of Turin directly?
You mean go to Turin Italy and studied the shroud? Of course not. How is your question relevant?

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 8485
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 2137 times
Been thanked: 2293 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1742

Post by Tcg »

otseng wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:33 pm
Tcg wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:28 pm Have you studied the Shroud of Turin directly?
You mean go to Turin Italy and studied the shroud? Of course not. How is your question relevant?
You are questioning Joey's sources and I am questioning yours.


Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1743

Post by otseng »

Tcg wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 5:09 am You are questioning Joey's sources and I am questioning yours.
I have posted urls to all my sources. You are free to verify those references.

However, I have yet to see a single url or reference in any of Joey's posts. Can you find any?

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1744

Post by JoeyKnothead »

I correct obvious typo/s without pointing em out, as to do so just clutters things up...
otseng wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 11:13 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:27 pm As this is a site more focused on religion, I'll fess to being a skeptic of all the same gods as you, plus the one you ain't.
However, we do touch on areas that religion also touches on. For example, just in this thread we've also covered cosmology. Do you accept everything that cosmologists claim? If not, what do you reject?
I'm not familiar with cosmological arguments regarding the shroud, so can't rightly say if I accept or reject em.

Do you think Pluto put that blood and image on there?
otseng wrote: You did not present any counter-evidence with references, so actually all of your responses are merely your personal opinion and will be discounted.
JK wrote: Oh, so you take the Answers in Genesis approach to facts?
I have no idea what you mean by the AiG reference. Have I even referenced AiG when talking about the shroud (or any topic for that matter)?
As part of their faith deal there, they reject any facts that run counter to their religious beliefs.
What I am talking about is the rules to this forum and to what you continually ask from Christians... that people should provide evidence. It is quite ironic you ask from Christians for evidence all the time, yet when I ask it from you, you provide none.
I present the three facts as evidence. I present my conclusions based on those facts.

I'll trust the observer to determine if I've been toting me my end of this thing.

That said, I typically ask theists for some means to confirm their claims, and don't presuppose to know the nature of their evidence, or if they can reference a site on the internet in support. But it does strike me as a bit odd so many spend more time fussing about how I got me the nerve to ask, and less on supporting their claims.
otseng wrote: What sources have you been reading from?
JK wrote: The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant.
Can you post the urls for those sources?
JK wrote: I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts.
Actually, these demonstrate you have not been studying the Shroud of Turin, but rather just make up claims.
I'm happy to have the observer decide if the three facts I've presented rise to the status of fact.

As I trust you to "make up" arguments because you can't refute those facts.
otseng wrote: I asked for sources and urls that you have been reading from. And you only replied back with "The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant" and "I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts".

Responding like this is even more reason to ignore pretty much everything you say since you're not even trying to engage in a logical debate.
And I'll point out for the observer that instead of tackling my argument head on, you fuss about anything but these three facts...

1. There's been no confirmed cases of human / god hybrids producing viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.

With these facts in mind, it's my contention the best we can say is it's a piece of cloth of unknown origin, containing blood and imagery of an unknown individual. And that lacking any evidence of supernatural involvement, it's the product of natural processes.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1745

Post by otseng »

The owner of the shroud, Geoffroi de Charny, was born in 1306 and died in 1356. He was one of the most respected knights in France and was the author of the Book of Chivalry.

His life and writings reflected a high moral standard.
If Charny emphasizes the high moral standard expected of “great men,” his ideal monarch has an even higher caliber of morality to attain. In a section full of repetitive parallelisms, Charny argues that the ancestors of contemporary rulers were chosen from among the people, not for a life of ease and corruption, but for service, nobility, and piety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Chivalry

In 1353, he founded a small church in Lirey.

"In 1353, just three years before his death, Geoffroi de Charny had founded a collegiate church at his tiny fief of Lirey near Troyes."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffroi_de_Charny

At the time of his death, the TS started to be displayed in that church.

"Yet according to a bishop of Troyes writing in 1390 a cloth bearing imprints claimed as authentically from Christ’s crucified body was being displayed there ‘circa’ three years later, i.e. sometime around 1356."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffroi_de_Charny

"Whatever the circumstances that had prompted the showings, they had evidently been held shortly after Charny’s 1356 death rather than before it."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffroi_de_Charny

His bishop at that time was Henri de Poitiers. He started his position in 1353 and died in 1370.

His successor was Bishop Jean de Braque. He died in 1375.

His successor was Bishop Pierre de Villiers. He died in 1377.

His successor was Bishop Pierre d’Arcis. He died in 1395.

The D’Arcis memo was written around 1389, which is around 33 years after the shroud was first put on display in Lirey. If it was so important to expose the shroud as a fake, why did it take so long and why are there no textual records from the three preceding bishops on the shroud being a forgery?

If the artist had confessed to creating the TS, who did he confess to? Did he feel guilty after 33 years to creating the forgery and admitted his guilt to D'Arcis? Or did D'Arcis somehow know who the artist was and tracked him down to confess? How did he suspect it was artwork and a forgery while the three preceding bishops either thought it was real or didn't seem to care?

If the memo is legit, the most likely motivation for trying to get the Pope to declare the TS a fraud was not for noble purposes, but more likely to shut down competition of pilgrims visiting the Lirey church with a compelling relic.

Again, it was expected for all churches to have a relic. It makes no sense for a bishop to complain to the Pope about a relic being fake in a small church in a backwoods town 33 years after it started to be displayed.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1746

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:00 am I'm not familiar with cosmological arguments regarding the shroud, so can't rightly say if I accept or reject em.
I didn't ask about "cosmological arguments regarding the shroud". I asked about cosmology. This was covered in this thread starting in post 1107. It was also the longest topic we've covered so far in this thread.

Assuming you are referring to cosmology and not "cosmological arguments regarding the shroud" and that you have no position on cosmological claims, then since you have also done no research on the Shroud of Turin, you can't rightly say as well anything regarding the TS.

Again, you had admitted you can't refute my arguments on the TS.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 7:38 am
otseng wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 6:46 am ...
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.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jan 15, 2023 8:54 am Having presented your evidence, openly and honorably, I fess up that though I have my doubts, I can't refute your conclusions.
So, your only recourse is diversionary tactics. As you stated, "I have objections based on surrounding biblical claims." So, making these constant assertions about a "human / god hybrid in question" is irrelevant to explaining the image on the shroud. We are not discussing the virgin birth. Moreover, it is resorting to mocking, which is another fallacious argument.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1747

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:58 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 7:00 am I'm not familiar with cosmological arguments regarding the shroud, so can't rightly say if I accept or reject em.
I didn't ask about "cosmological arguments regarding the shroud". I asked about cosmology.
As we were discussing the shroud, I thought it important to answer your question within that context.

If cosmology has nothing to do with the shroud, I can only wonder why you'd bring it up.
otseng wrote: This was covered in this thread starting in post 1107. It was also the longest topic we've covered so far in this thread.
It's my firm conviction we can dismiss all we know about cosmology, and the three facts we know about the shroud would remain.
otseng wrote: Assuming you are referring to cosmology and not "cosmological arguments regarding the shroud" and that you have no position on cosmological claims, then since you have also done no research on the Shroud of Turin, you can't rightly say as well anything regarding the TS
My research of the TS has revealed the following three facts...

1. Human / god hybrids have never been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question
otseng wrote: Again, you had admitted you can't refute my arguments on the TS.
...
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.
...
JK wrote: 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.
It's kinda hard to refute your conclusions when you invoke magic to get to em.

I continue to assert the facts best support a conclusion of natural processes (barring forgery, which hasn't been confirmed).
otseng wrote: So, your only recourse is diversionary tactics.
That's mighty rich, coming from a shroud cosmologist.
otseng wrote: As you stated, "I have objections based on surrounding biblical claims." So, making these constant assertions about a "human / god hybrid in question" is irrelevant to explaining the image on the shroud.
Good googly moogly, it's come to the point where I hafta point this out to the Christian...

The Bible claims Jesus is the product of a human and a god hiding up in the barn loft there, and producing em a hybrid human / god baby.

So, granting that ludicrous implied claim, we're still left with the following three facts

1. Human / god hybrids have never been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud has never been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question (even if it can be shown that human / god hybrids can produce viable offspring)
3. The image in the shroud has never been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question (even if it can be shown that human / god hybrids can produce viable offspring)
otseng wrote: We are not discussing the virgin birth. Moreover, it is resorting to mocking, which is another fallacious argument.
Oh man, I've confused this whole thing.

Considering how many Hispanics and such there are, the numbers might support the shroud image is indeed a Jesus.

Your continued efforts to steer this conversation away from the facts - facts you call "silly claims", and "irrelevant", are deserving of mockery, until I can better understand how to derision.

And that whole accusing me of "diversionary tactics"?

That'n only rises to the level of pity.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1748

Post by otseng »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1752]

Post ignored until you can actually produce evidence with a reference.

As for if you've ever produced any in your posts on the the shroud so far, we'll wait and see if Tcg can find any...
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:47 am However, I have yet to see a single url or reference in any of Joey's posts. Can you find any?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1749

Post by otseng »

There are also several inconsistencies with the d’Arcis memo (full text in post 1739).

d'Arcis desires for the people not to be deceived that the shroud is genuine. Yet by his own admission, it was never touted by the presenters of the shroud as being the actual shroud of Jesus.

"it is not publicly stated to be the true shroud of Christ"

But, it is believed to be the real shroud by the masses, so he's trying to protect them. However, isn't that true for all the relics in the medieval ages? Why would anyone make a pilgrim to visit a relic if they didn't believe it was genuine? He should be writing a memo to the Pope about all the churches in Europe.

He attempts to give scriptural justification why it would be a fake.

"For many theologians and other wise persons declared that this could not be the real shroud of our Lord having the Saviour's likeness thus imprinted upon it, since the holy Gospel made no mention of any such imprint, while, if it had been true, it was quite unlikely that the holy Evangelists would have omitted to record it, or that the fact should have remained hidden until the present time."

Probably the most popular medieval relic was the True Cross. But, there's nothing in the Bible written about preserving the actual cross after Jesus was taken off of it.

"There are no early accounts that the apostles or early Christians preserved the physical cross themselves."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

Parts of the True Cross were everywhere in Europe. So much so that it multiplied and there was enough wood scattered across Europe that it could fill a ship.
There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poitiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it.
- Calvin, Traité Des Reliques
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Cross

You have pieces of the True Cross everywhere in Europe and there's no Biblical reference to it. Yet d'Arcis complains about a single relic because there's no Biblical reference to it?

d'Arcis claimed there was an initial presentation of the shroud 34 years prior and was hidden during that time period.

"They, seeing their wickedness discovered, hid away the said cloth so that the Ordinary could not find it, and they kept it hidden afterwards for thirty-four years or thereabouts down to the present year."

After the 34 year period, de Charny tried to bring it back out again for public display.

"And now again the present Dean of the said church with fraudulent intent and for the purpose of gain, suggested, as it is reported, to the Lord Geoffrey de Charny, Knight, and the temporal lord of the place, to have the said cloth replaced in the said church, that by a renewal of the pilgrimage the church might be enriched with the offerings made by the faithful."

However, there's a couple of major problem with this. One problem is de Charny was dead before the initial showing. Another problem was he was still dead 34 years later when d'Arcis wrote the memo.

Now, it could be argued that d'Arcis was referring to Geoffrey de Charny's son - Geoffrey II de Charny, but the memo does not include the 2nd. Further, this is the first time the name Charny is mentioned in the memo. Why was his name not mentioned regarding the first showing?

d'Arcis also argues it should not be displayed because of the "horror of such superstition".

"but that to express horror of such superstition it be publicly condemned"

Talking about horror, here are some relics that deserve a memo to the Pope to prevent their display:
* Chef de Saint Yves
* Brazos relicario
* Head of John the Baptist
* Saint Catherine of Siena’s Head
* The Holy Prepuce

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1750

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 10:04 pm [Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1752]

Post ignored until you can actually produce evidence with a reference.

As for if you've ever produced any in your posts on the the shroud so far, we'll wait and see if Tcg can find any...
otseng wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:47 am However, I have yet to see a single url or reference in any of Joey's posts. Can you find any?
I sit here amazed at your ability to reply to a post you've chosen to ignore.

This is an example of yet one more theist who chooses to ignore any facts counter to their religious beliefs.

"I'm gonna ignore the facts" is the best the theists on this site can do?

As to "producing references", I've made my case presented on facts, and reasonable, logical conclusions based thereupon.

Where has any theist produced facts that would offer positive confirmation for the following...

1. Showing a human / god hybrid can produce viable offspring?
2. Showing the blood on the shroud belongs to the human / god hybrid in question?
3. Showing the image on the shroud belongs to the human / god hybrid in question?

Of course it may well be that what I declare are the facts, are wrong. It may well be that I overlooked important, relevant information regarding what I've presented as facts.

Where has any theist corrected me?

Where has any theist come along and exposed me as the fraud I would surely be if what I present as facts turn out to be wrong?

Maybe if I invoked Cunningham's law?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply