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

[JoeyKnothead]

...
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?
...

Makes me think d'Arcis may have ignored any facts that went counter to his beliefs about the "true cross".

But didn't ignore facts when it came to the shroud.

[otseng]

"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.

If you actually present facts, then I'll respond to it. But, you just continue to present opinions with no evidence with references. Perhaps you don't know what a reference means since I've yet seen a single reference in any of your posts. What do you think evidence means? What do you think a reference means?

[otseng]

As Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis held the highest ecclesiastic position in the city and the surrounding area, which would've also including Lirey.

In the Catholic Church, a bishop is an ordained minister who holds the fullness of the sacrament of holy orders and is responsible for teaching doctrine,[1] governing Catholics in his jurisdiction,[2] sanctifying the world[3] and representing the Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops_i ... lic_Church

Bishop, in some Christian churches, the chief pastor and overseer of a diocese, an area containing several congregations.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/bishop-Christianity

All Christian laypeople under the jurisdiction of the local bishop should submit to the spiritual authority of the bishop.

bishop. The highest order of ordained ministry in Catholic teaching. Most bishops are diocesan bishops, the chief priests in their respective dioceses. But some (auxiliary bishops) are the top assistants to their diocesan bishops, and some priests are made bishops because of special posts they hold in the church, such as certain Vatican jobs. Diocesan bishops and their auxiliaries are responsible for the pastoral care of their dioceses. In some cases diocesan bishops are assigned a coadjutor bishop, who is like an auxiliary except that he automatically becomes the diocesan bishop when his predecessor resigns or dies. See auxiliary bishop and coadjutor. In addition to their diocesan responsibilities, all bishops have a responsibility to act in council with other bishops to guide the church.

https://www.usccb.org/offices/public-af ... olic-terms

One would expect d'Arcis to have the authority to tell people what to do in church in his diocese. Since Lirey was part of it, if the bishop in Troyes commanded for the Lirey church to not display a relic, it was under their obligation to obey. And if a person continues to sin, the local bishop had the power to excommunicate anyone in his see.

"The authority of a bishop to excommunicate someone was restricted to those persons who resided in his see."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommuni ... lic_Church

During the Middle Ages, excommunication was analogous to the secular imperial ban or "outlawry" under common law. The individual was separated to some degree from the communion of the faithful.[14] Formal acts of public excommunication were sometimes accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out — hence the idiom "to condemn with bell, book, and candle."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommuni ... lic_Church

So, what is strange is why would there be a need for a bishop to appeal to the Pope that someone is not doing something correctly in church? If someone was sinning, then the bishop had the power to excommunicate. If anything, what we should see is a memo from Charny to the Pope for an appeal, not from bishop d'Arcis to the Pope asking for assistance.

[JoeyKnothead]

"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.

If you actually present facts, then I'll respond to it. But, you just continue to present opinions with no evidence with references.

Of course the Christian denies the facts. When facts run counter to religious beliefs, it's the facts that're wrong, not the Truth(tm)!

1. Human / god hybrids have never been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud has never been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud has never been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question

That our Christian here refuses to acknowledge, discuss, or try to refute these facts is indicative of a belief system that will broker no facts counter to their beliefs. Instead we're told these facts are "silly claims", or "irrelevant", to a downright refusal to accept these facts destroy religious / supernatural claims regarding the shroud.

Perhaps you don't know what a reference means since I've yet seen a single reference in any of your posts.

I've repeatedly referenced three facts regarding the shroud. I present these facts as irrefutable truths the Christian either refuses to accept or consider, because these facts do not support the religious / supernatural claims about it..

Of course, by not scouring the entire history of medical records, I expose myself as being in error - at just one single presentation of a confirmed human / god hybrid having produced viable offspring.

By not scouring the entire recorded history of humankind, I expose myself as being in error - at just one confirmed instance of the blood on the shroud being that of the human / god hybrid in question.

By not scouring the entire history of humanity, I expose myself as being in error - at just one confirmed instance of the image on the shroud belonging to that of the human / god hybrid in question.

So I put this to the observer:

In the face of what you, the observer, have been presented here regarding the shroud, what facts, what argument do you accept? That the shroud represents the blood and image of a particular human / god hybrid? Or that there's been no presententation that supports that conclusion?

I contend the three facts I've presented are all we need to consider in order to reject, if only provisionally, claims that the shroud is connected directly to Jesus.

I beg of anyone here, refute these three facts. Set me straight on how I've erred in my presentation.

What do you think evidence means?

That set of data that supports or leads to a reasonable, logical conclusion.

For example, we can consider your continued denials of facts, and come to the reasonable and logical conclusion that you either don't understand the facts, or must negate them, if only mentally, in order to maintain your superstitious beliefs regarding the shroud.

What do you think a reference means?

I think it means that by giving reference to the following three facts...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever 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
3. The image on the shroud has never been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question

... that you can only attempt to ignore these facts, or call em "silly claims", or "irrelevant".

I'm plenty content in the validity of my argument, and plenty content to fess up and correct my beliefs when just any one of these three facts can be refuted.

I ain't too shamed to find out I'm wrong, and welcome correction in this matter.

[JoeyKnothead]

Some snipping to get at the meat of the argument...

As Bishop of Troyes, Pierre d’Arcis held the highest ecclesiastic position in the city and the surrounding area, which would've also including Lirey.

This position is as much political as it is religious. Where men seek power, their motivations can become a bit... warped.

All Christian laypeople under the jurisdiction of the local bishop should submit to the spiritual authority of the bishop.

So if he doesn't question the facts surrounding the shroud, why should they.

One would expect d'Arcis to have the authority to tell people what to do in church in his diocese. Since Lirey was part of it, if the bishop in Troyes commanded for the Lirey church to not display a relic, it was under their obligation to obey. And if a person continues to sin, the local bishop had the power to excommunicate anyone in his see.

It would also be expected that if d'Arcis allowed the display, folks would think it genuine, and be more inclined to believe biblical claims, as well as to adhere to church regulations.

The church needs warm bodies in the pews, to put them coins in the plate.

"The authority of a bishop to excommunicate someone was restricted to those persons who resided in his see."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excommuni ... lic_Church

During the Middle Ages, excommunication was analogous to the secular imperial ban or "outlawry" under common law. The individual was separated to some degree from the communion of the faithful.[14] Formal acts of public excommunication were sometimes accompanied by a ceremony wherein a bell was tolled (as for the dead), the Book of the Gospels was closed, and a candle snuffed out — hence the idiom "to condemn with bell, book, and candle."

In a time when being excommunicated could lead to a complete shunning from the local economy, and perhaps opening one up to charges of blasphemy, it's not surprising folks wouldn't cause too much of a fuss with church leaders, or even congregants.

It would take a strong willed individual to risk being forced against his neighbors in a tightly held religious community. We can see examples today, where family members are booted out of the home for going against church doctrine.

So, what is strange is why would there be a need for a bishop to appeal to the Pope that someone is not doing something correctly in church? If someone was sinning, then the bishop had the power to excommunicate. If anything, what we should see is a memo from Charny to the Pope for an appeal, not from bishop d'Arcis to the Pope asking for assistance.

The church is still bound to the politics and pressures any society faces.

We can see this happening today, with so many Catholic folks and clergy upset at the current Pope cause he don't hate the gays enough for some others of em.

[otseng]

What do you think evidence means?

That set of data that supports or leads to a reasonable, logical conclusion.

Good. But, I'll also add that it should be independent and verifiable. Independent means it's not simply something you claim, but has come externally from yourself. We have Christians come here all the time saying an angel, a spirit, Jesus, Allah, Brahman, etc told them the truth. But, since it's not independent from themselves, it's merely opinion. Evidence also has to be verifiable. If someone says an authority says something, then there needs to be a way to verify he said it, otherwise it's just hearsay.

What do you think a reference means?

I think it means that by giving reference to the following three facts...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever 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
3. The image on the shroud has never been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question

... that you can only attempt to ignore these facts, or call em "silly claims", or "irrelevant".

Wrong. Until you understand what is a reference, again, everything you post is merely your personal opinion and will be ignored.

I ain't too shamed to find out I'm wrong, and welcome correction in this matter.

Atheists and skeptics, please explain to Joey what is a reference. And also explain the use of a url to show where is the source of the evidence.

[otseng]

The church in Lirey that ultimately housed the shroud was founded in 1353 by Charny.

On 20 June 1353, Geoffroy de Charny, Lord of Savoisy and Lirey, founded at Lirey a collegiate church with six canonries, in honour of the Annunciation of the Virgin Mary, and in this church he exposed for veneration a Holy Shroud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cat ... _of_Troyes

It was a small wooden building and has long been destroyed.

"In the early 1350’s de Charny built a small, wooden church in tiny Lirey, where he was lord, to house various relics and, although not immediately documented, the Shroud."
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/t ... ttle-lirey

Lirey is a small town south of Troyes. It's such a small town that even the population over the past decades has not been over 100 people.

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

In contract to Lirey, Troyes was a major city. Troyes had been an important city in France and has a rich history.

The city has a rich historical past, from the Tricasses tribe to the liberation of the city on 25 August 1944 during the Second World War, including the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, the Council of Troyes, the marriage of Henry V and Catherine of France, and the Champagne fairs to which merchants came from all over Christendom. The city has a rich architectural and urban heritage: many buildings are protected as historical monuments, including the half-timbered houses (mainly of the 16th century) that survived in the old town. They have contributed to Troyes being designated as a City of Art and History.

Manufacturing of textiles, developed from the 18th century onwards, was a chief part of Troyes' economy until the 1960s. Today, Troyes is the European capital of factory outlets and trading, and has three brand centers.

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

It was so important, the troy weight was named after this city.

"During the Middle Ages, Troyes was an important international trading town. It was the namesake of troy weight for gold a standard of measurement developed here."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troyes

Troyes has many impressive cathedrals in it, with several dating to the Middle ages.


https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... 0509_1.jpg

The Cathedral of Troyes was started in the 12th century and completed in the 15th.

The Cathedral of Troyes is a fine Gothic structure begun in the 12th century, and completed in the 15th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cat ... _of_Troyes

The Troyes cathedral also had housed relics.

Once the construction was underway, the Bishop departed on the Fourth Crusade in 1204, and brought back to Troyes a collection of precious relics for the cathedral treasury.

The treasury of the cathedral was constructed at the beginning of the 13th century within the choir, next to the apse. It was particularly designed to display the collection of sacred relics which the Bishop Garnier de Traînel had brought back to France from the Fourth Crusade. Some of the relics and other valuable objects were used as ransom for the captive King Francois I in 1525, and others were lost during the Revolution, but the collection was gradually rebuilt. It has a particularly large collection of medieval enamel art, made by local craftsmen in the 12th century, as well as vestments, reliquaries and other medieval liturgical objects. Notable objects include the coffret of Troyes, an ivory chest of Byzantine craftsmanship from the 11th century.

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



The Basilica of Saint Urban of Troyes was founded in 1262 and consecrated in 1389.

The Basilique Saint-Urbain de Troyes (Basilica of Saint Urban of Troyes), formerly the Église Saint-Urbain, is a massive medieval church in the city of Troyes, France. It was a collegial church, endowed in 1262 by Pope Urban IV.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilique ... _de_Troyes

[JoeyKnothead]

What do you think evidence means?

That set of data that supports or leads to a reasonable, logical conclusion.

Good. But, I'll also add that it should be independent and verifiable.

Yet you accept the unverified blood and image on the shroud.

It's quite clear you can't refute the facts I present, so continue to carry on about how I haven't presented references.

I will continue to assert that the facts I present are incontrovertible and unassailable. They exist as facts whether we like em or not. That you consider them "silly claims" and "irrelevant" is better an example of your refusing to even consider them, than their being incorrect.

Independent means it's not simply something you claim, but has come externally from yourself. We have Christians come here all the time saying an angel, a spirit, Jesus, Allah, Brahman, etc told them the truth. But, since it's not independent from themselves, it's merely opinion. Evidence also has to be verifiable. If someone says an authority says something, then there needs to be a way to verify he said it, otherwise it's just hearsay.

I'm content having the observer decide if the facts I present are indeed facts. I will continue to present these facts as facts, until such time they're shown not to be facts.

What do you think a reference means?

I think it means that by giving reference to the following three facts...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever 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
3. The image on the shroud has never been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question

... that you can only attempt to ignore these facts, or call em "silly claims", or "irrelevant".

Wrong.

You don't get to decide for me what I think. Not yours.

I trust the observer'll decide on if I present facts, or dooficities.

Until you understand what is a reference, again, everything you post is merely your personal opinion and will be ignored.

Of course you have to ignore the facts - they completely destroy your position regarding the shroud.

I ain't too shamed to find out I'm wrong, and welcome correction in this matter.

Atheists and skeptics, please explain to Joey what is a reference. And also explain the use of a url to show where is the source of the evidence.

And while y'all're at it, explain to otseng what is a fact.

I submit, yet again...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring

Someone, anyone, please disabuse me of this notion.

2. The blood on the shroud has not been shown to come from the human / god hybrid in question

Someone, anyone, please correct me if I'm wrong.

3. The image on the shroud has not been shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question.

Someone, anyone, please set me in a corner and show me where I'm wrong.

First one to correct me will have my unending respect until such a time as the universe itself ceases to be.

[JoeyKnothead]

The church in Lirey that ultimately housed the shroud was founded in 1353 by Charny.
...

It'd be kinda awkward housing the shroud at a brothel.

Nothing in your post here establishes the shroud as authentic.

[otseng]

The church in Lirey that ultimately housed the shroud was founded in 1353 by Charny.
...

It'd be kinda awkward housing the shroud at a brothel.

Nothing in your post here establishes the shroud as authentic.

When there's no rational response that can be offered, then simply make up a claim and mock and make unsupported assertions with no evidence with a reference. As a matter of fact, this has been your entire strategy during your debates with me so far.