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: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 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: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #1761

Post by otseng »

Some more evidence that Geoffroy de Charny never put the shroud into the church that he built in Lirey...
when Charny formally founded the Lirey
church - which he did between 1353 and May 1356 via an Act of
Foundation so tedious and so lengthy that it has never been translated
from its original Latin - he made not the slightest mention of the Shroud,
let alone stipulated how and when he intended it to be displayed, or how
best it should be kept safe within the church.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n86part3.pdf

The accusation that Charny sought to make money from the shroud by displaying it in his newly built church is without any textual support and contrary to his character.
the perception that Charny must have
founded the Lirey church principally to house the Shroud and to stage
money-making showings from it - the fundamental assumption that lay
behind carbon dating scientist Professor Hall's so glib assertion 'Someone [i.e. Charny] just got a piece of linen, faked it up, and flogged it' - now needs to be firmly rejected as lacking the slightest historical support or foundation
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n86part3.pdf

Even though Charny did possess the shroud, he had always kept it a secret. And if he wanted to keep it a secret, of course he would not publicly show it.
One of the most fundamental of those conclusions is that during his
lifetime Charny - for reasons best known to himself - deliberately shied
from ever publicly disclosing his ownership of the Shroud.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n86part3.pdf

Charny's bishop, Henri de Poitiers, makes no mention of a shroud when he dedicated Charny's new church.
Bishop Henri's only letter addressed to Geoffroy I de Charny, original owner of the TS--dated 28 May 1356--mentions no inquest. In it Henri praises Geoffroy's piety and "... as we have been informed by legal documents, we praise, ratify, and approve a divine cult of this sort." The TS is not mentioned, and Henri has not gone to Lirey, but has "been informed." This letter denies the claims of d'Arcis. D'Arcis, a lawyer, who elsewhere carefully cites documents, cites no dated official documents in his Memorandum, saying only that the inquest had been held "about" 1355.
https://www.shroud.com/bar.htm#article

It was only after his death that the shroud was placed into the Lirey church, most likely a decision made by his surviving family since now the bread winner of the family was gone and the family and the church needed income.
Arguably the Shroud had been temporarily
deposited at the Lirey church shortly subsequent to Charny's death, and
because of the church's economically straitened circumstances the dean
decided to use it for money-making purposes. Selling locally made souvenir
badges to visiting pilgrims was the classic way of doing this, as exemplified
by the very successful and lucrative showings of the Veronica that had been
held in Rome a few years earlier.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n86part3.pdf

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 #1762

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:17 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 2:40 am
otseng wrote: Sun Jan 29, 2023 7:07 am 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.
My point with the brothel thing is that where one thinks they have a religious 'artifact', it's not surprising they'd want it for a church - even if they have to build one to do it.

And I'm certainly open to correction...

Can you point to a specific passage in your referenced post that offers confirmation of the shroud's being once draped over the body of the human / god hybrid in question?

Remember, the claim involves the biblical Jesus, son of God and the adulteress Mary. Just showing it represents a human doesn't confirm anything but that it's a human. The task is to show it was draped over Jesus himself.

Once we can do that, then we can consider supernatural blood saving and image on cloth techniques of early first century middle eastern gods.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #1763

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 7:21 am ...
The accusation that Charny sought to make money from the shroud by displaying it in his newly built church is without any textual support and contrary to his character.
...
I retract any statement or implication I've made that the shroud was used to put folks in the pews for revenue purposes.
otseng wrote: It was only after his death that the shroud was placed into the Lirey church, most likely a decision made by his surviving family since now the bread winner of the family was gone and the family and the church needed income.
...
I retract my retraction about the shroud being used to put folks in the pews to generate income.

This is motivation for allowing folks to think the shroud is genuine, even if the church hasn't said as much.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #1764

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:25 am Can you point to a specific passage in your referenced post that offers confirmation of the shroud's being once draped over the body of the human / god hybrid in question?
Can you stop saying "human / god hybrid in question"? I'm not even arguing the image is actually the body of Jesus yet. And even if it was Jesus, it's a non-sequitur to reject Jesus was depicted on the shroud because the virgin birth cannot be proven.

All that is being proposed now is simply a body. Since it's not artwork, somehow an actual human body was involved. A forger could've used a body in the Middle ages, a 1st century person (who is not Jesus) could've been buried, or it was Jesus that was buried.

As for arguments that it was Jesus Christ, I'll get into that when we explore the blood stains, which we'll get to after wrapping up the arguments against the D'Arcis memo.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #1765

Post by otseng »

More evidence the d'Arcis memo is suspect...
The Bibliotheque Nationale of Paris possesses two copies of the Memorandum. Neither is
dated. One is complete, the other incomplete. No trace of the Memorandum is found in the
Promptuarium Tricassinae Diocesis of the canon Nicolas Camusat, assiduous collector of the
ancient archives of the Diocese of Troyes, even though he expressly wrote of the Lirey
church, of Henri de Poitiers, the bishop who approved the activities of Geoffroy I, and of
Pierre d'Arcis and his dispute with Geoffroy II. It is not possible to know why Camusat chose
to omit a transcription of the Memorandum. Perhaps it is not far from the truth to suppose
that the omission is due to the fact that the document seemed to be only a rough draft never
put in final form to be sent to the Pope. Even Chevalier defines it as a pro-memoria.
Eschback remarks, "With neither date nor signature, it is a rough draft of such faulty style
that one could not attribute it to an episcopal pen".
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part5.pdf
The letter of 28 May 1356 is the only extant document of Bishop Henri de Poitiers which
bears upon the question. Its contents are a direct refutation of what is alleged in the
Memorandum; the Bishop informs Geoffroy I that he is satisfied with all he has done for the
divinum cultum and adds his laudamus, ratificamus, approbamus (we praise, ratify and
approve).
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi08part5.pdf

My curiosity led me to the Bibliothèque Nationale to examine the famous evidence and I
did not come away convinced. This so-called 'original memorandum', in XV th century
calligraphy, bore neither date nor signature; nothing that could permit a guarantee of
authenticity nor attribution to an author.... It must be remarked, furthermore, that no authentic document of the period alludes to a
commission named by Henri de Poitiers, nor any confession [of a painter]. Who are these
experts who have decreed that this document is complete and certainly the handwriting of
Pierre d'Arcis?
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi41part3.pdf
In his letter to Bishop Pierre d'Arcis of 6 January 1390 — the same date as the second Bull —
Clement VII says nothing of a previous communication from the Bishop. It was and still is
curial practice for whatever document is motivated by specific circumstances, to refer to that
motivating communication.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi41part3.pdf

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 #1766

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 7:34 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 8:25 am Can you point to a specific passage in your referenced post that offers confirmation of the shroud's being once draped over the body of the human / god hybrid in question?
Can you stop saying "human / god hybrid in question"? I'm not even arguing the image is actually the body of Jesus yet. And even if it was Jesus, it's a non-sequitur to reject Jesus was depicted on the shroud because the virgin birth cannot be proven.
Spoiler alert :wave:

While you may have not yetted, we can smell what you're cooking...
All that is being proposed now is simply a body. Since it's not artwork, somehow an actual human body was involved. A forger could've used a body in the Middle ages, a 1st century person (who is not Jesus) could've been buried, or it was Jesus that was buried.

As for arguments that it was Jesus Christ, I'll get into that when we explore the blood stains, which we'll get to after wrapping up the arguments against the D'Arcis memo.
The memo, or your arguments regarding it, reflect belief and do not establish authenticity for it being a human / god hybrid.

The best we can do is say the blood and image are that of a human. To try to leap to it being Jesus is a bound not even Superman could accomplish.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #1767

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:29 pm The best we can do is say the blood and image are that of a human. To try to leap to it being Jesus is a bound not even Superman could accomplish.
From what I can gather, the majority of shroud skeptics don't even accept this. So, if you accept that, then it's a huge leap towards my destination. And of course we all know what the ultimate destination will be.

But, I've proposed 3 possible scenarios:
- A forger could've used a body in the Middle ages
- A 1st century person (who is not Jesus) could've been buried
- It was Jesus that was buried

Are there any other possibilities that you want to propose?
If you accept these, which one of the three is the most likely?
What evidence do you have to support that?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #1768

Post by otseng »

There are several theories how Charny got possession of the shroud.

According to the D'Arcis memo, he got it from a forger.
procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Saviour Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb, and upon which the whole likeness of the Saviour had remained thus impressed together with the wounds which He bore.

Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination, he discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it, to wit, that it was a work of human skill and not miraculously wrought or bestowed.
https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/link ... andum.html

Again, no name of the forger was produced, so it's pretty much a useless claim.

Another theory is he got it as a gift from King Philip.
Geoffroy, knight, Count of Charny and lord of this place Lirey ... received from King Philip as recompense for his valor, the Holy Shroud of Our Lord ... with a generous portion of the true cross and several other relics and sanctuariums, to be placed in the church which he hoped to build (Scavone 1993: 208-09).
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/t ... ttle-lirey

It's highly doubtful if King Philip had possession of it. Even if he did, it's highly doubtful he'd give it to a lowly knight as a gift. Simply a piece of the True Cross would've already been considered an extremely gracious gift.

Further, the above two theories still do not explain how the image on the cloth was created.

Another theory, and the most popular, is from Ian Wilson.
No other theory of how the Shroud came to Geoffrey de Charny is better known than that advocated by Wilson’s 1978 The Shroud of Turin, and for good reason.
https://biblearchaeology.org/research/t ... ttle-lirey

I'll talk more about this much later when I discuss the history of the shroud.

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 #1769

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:50 pm
JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Jan 31, 2023 3:29 pm The best we can do is say the blood and image are that of a human. To try to leap to it being Jesus is a bound not even Superman could accomplish.
From what I can gather, the majority of shroud skeptics don't even accept this. So, if you accept that, then it's a huge leap towards my destination. And of course we all know what the ultimate destination will be.
Considering their sheer numbers, I'd suspect the majority of such skeptics might well be Christian themselves.
But, I've proposed 3 possible scenarios:
- A forger could've used a body in the Middle ages
- A 1st century person (who is not Jesus) could've been buried
- It was Jesus that was buried

Are there any other possibilities that you want to propose?
If you accept these, which one of the three is the most likely?
What evidence do you have to support that?
I'd go with it being a human, but note we can't even confirm that rational likelihood.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #1770

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:46 pm Considering their sheer numbers, I'd suspect the majority of such skeptics might well be Christian themselves.
Do you have any evidence to support your suspicion?
But, I've proposed 3 possible scenarios:
- A forger could've used a body in the Middle ages
- A 1st century person (who is not Jesus) could've been buried
- It was Jesus that was buried

Are there any other possibilities that you want to propose?
If you accept these, which one of the three is the most likely?
What evidence do you have to support that?
I'd go with it being a human, but note we can't even confirm that rational likelihood.
All the options I presented have a human. Which of the 3 do you think is the most likely?

Post Reply