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: 20499
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
SacredBishop
Apprentice
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2023 2:55 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 23 times

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

Post #1771

Post by SacredBishop »

If the authority of the Bible necessitates inerrancy, than its peculiar that the scribes never believed in inerrancy, otherwise they wouldn't have dared modifying texts at all. The manuscripts show that scribes had no reservations doing so. The majority of scribal variants have nothing to do with correcting errors ( restoring an inerrant reading), no, most variants were done for grammatical issues, or for subject clarification (changing he to Peter, Jesus etc.) Not to mention the immense qal vs kere differences in the OT, most of which was done to avoid offending women in public readings!

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 #1772

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 9:57 pm
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?
My point is that one can doubt the shroud represents Jesus, but still consider him a half god.

otseng wrote:
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?
[/quote]
A human. I don't hold myself to the bounds of your options.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #1773

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:41 pm My point is that one can doubt the shroud represents Jesus, but still consider him a half god.
Can you point to any Christian doctrine that states Jesus was a "half god"? Who believes Jesus was a "half god"? Evidence please, otherwise it's just another baseless opinion.
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?
A human. I don't hold myself to the bounds of your options.
This is a debate, you can't just claim the shroud image is not Jesus and not have an alternative. If you have none, then you likewise cannot claim it was not Jesus depicted on the shroud. You'll need to choose either scenario #1 or #2 or present an alternative scenario to debate on the shroud. All other skeptics take a position on this, some even position #3. No serious skeptic on the shroud simply claims it was not Jesus. The top skeptics - Walter McCrone, Michael Tite, Edward Hall - all have a position on what they think the shroud is. These are the most informed shroud skeptics and even they don't just stop at saying the shroud is not Jesus.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #1774

Post by otseng »

In 1453, the Charny family sold the shroud to the Savoy family.

"In 1453 Margaret de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... d_of_Turin

It was exchanged for the castle of Varambon and revenues from the Miribel estate.
When Humbert died in 1438 the Shroud became the possession of his widow, Margaret de Charny. She is believed to have given the Shroud to Duke Louis I of Savoy, in exchange for estate revenues and a castle.
http://www.manoftheshroud.org/shroudhistory/
Margaret de Charny, at Geneva, receives from Duke Louis I of Savoy the castle of Varambon and revenues of the estate of Miribel near Lyon for 'valuable services'. Those services are thought to have been the bequest of the Shroud.
https://www.shroud.com/history.htm
By an accord drawn up in Paris, Duke Louis I of Savoy agrees to pay the Lirey canons an annual rent, to be drawn from the revenues of the castle of Gaillard, near Geneva, as compensation for their loss of the Shroud. (This is the first surviving document to record that the Shroud has become Savoy property) The accord specifically notes that the Shroud had been given to the church of Lirey by Geoffrey de Charny, lord of Savoisy and Lirey, and that it had then been transferred to Duke Louis by Margaret de Charny.
https://www.shroud.com/history.htm

The Varambon castle is large, even by modern standards.

Image
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File ... on_(2).JPG

Though I cannot find any documentation on exactly how large the castle was in 1453, it's not unreasonable it was fairly close to what we see today. But, what we do know is the shroud was considered of great value by both the Charny family and the Savoy family. It was probably worth even more and the Savoy family got a great deal from it since Margaret de Charny sold it under financial stress since her husband was deceased.

This is the only evidence we have of the financial value of the shroud. And obviously it was worth a lot. This is evidence against Charny acquiring the shroud from a forger since it's doubtful he had that kind of money to buy the shroud. It is also evidence against King Philip giving the shroud to Charny since there's no reason for a King to give a knight anything of such value.

Amazingly, the Savoy family owned the shroud since 1453 until 1983. Now, the owner of the shroud is the Catholic Pope.
March 18, 1983: Death of ex-king Umberto II in Cascais. The Shroud's formal owner, his will discloses that he has bequeathed the Shroud to the Pope and his successors, with the proviso that the cloth stays in Turin.
https://www.shroud.com/history.htm

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 #1775

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:55 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:41 pm My point is that one can doubt the shroud represents Jesus, but still consider him a half god.
Can you point to any Christian doctrine that states Jesus was a "half god"? Who believes Jesus was a "half god"? Evidence please, otherwise it's just another baseless opinion.
In the human species, at least during the time in question, a pregnancy occurs when a female is empregnated by a male. In the Christian story, God empregnates Mary, thereby producing a half human / half god hybrid.
otseng wrote: This is a debate, you can't just claim the shroud image is not Jesus and not have an alternative.
Site rulings indicate I'm not bound to provide alternative explanations for your claims.

Beyond that, as you asked me my opinion, I presented it as my opinion, and will not restrict my opinion to only those answers you deem acceptable.
otseng wrote: If you have none, then you likewise cannot claim it was not Jesus depicted on the shroud.
I've merely pointed out that the blood and image on the shroud can't be confirmed as belonging to a half human / half god hybrid as related in biblical tales.
otseng wrote: You'll need to choose either scenario #1 or #2 or present an alternative scenario to debate on the shroud.
I will not bind myself to only those answers that bring you comfort.

Site rules indicate I'm under no obligation to provide alternative explanations for your claims.
otseng wrote: All other skeptics take a position on this, some even position #3.
Maybe you'll find more comfort debating those skeptics whose arguments bring you comfort.

I will not be bound to either their arguments, or your preferred arguments.
otseng wrote: No serious skeptic on the shroud simply claims it was not Jesus.
Implies I'm not serious or sincere, though I've maintained this argument with you over the course of a multitude of posts.

I do not know, nor have any means to confirm who, or what, is involved in the shroud image. I can only maintain that it does strike a human appearance.

If you can't offer us some means to confirm it's the biblical Jesus, why fuss at me for not accepting the claim that it is?
otseng wrote: The top skeptics - Walter McCrone, Michael Tite, Edward Hall - all have a position on what they think the shroud is. These are the most informed shroud skeptics and even they don't just stop at saying the shroud is not Jesus.
Maybe you'd find more comfort engaging them then.

I simply will not be bound to anyone's arguments but my own. Where such arguments may align, so be it.

Where they don't bring you comfort, don't fuss at me.

My argument, as I've said over and over, is...

1. There's no confirmed record of a human / god hybrid ever producing viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.

How come you're so happy to debate all that other bunch of skeptics, but so reticent to consider the three facts above?

The observer is left to wonder.
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 #1776

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:58 am ...
But, what we do know is the shroud was considered of great value by both the Charny family and the Savoy family. It was probably worth even more and the Savoy family got a great deal from it since Margaret de Charny sold it under financial stress since her husband was deceased.

This is the only evidence we have of the financial value of the shroud. And obviously it was worth a lot. This is evidence against Charny acquiring the shroud from a forger since it's doubtful he had that kind of money to buy the shroud. It is also evidence against King Philip giving the shroud to Charny since there's no reason for a King to give a knight anything of such value.
...
Many folks place value on their allegedly 'holy' stuff.

Placing value on a piece of cloth that's known to be a revenue generator ain't so special.

Nothing in your post here offers us a means to confirm the following...

1. A human / god hybrid produced viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud belongs to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud belongs to the human / god hybrid in question.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #1777

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:44 am
otseng wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 6:55 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 10:41 pm My point is that one can doubt the shroud represents Jesus, but still consider him a half god.
Can you point to any Christian doctrine that states Jesus was a "half god"? Who believes Jesus was a "half god"? Evidence please, otherwise it's just another baseless opinion.
In the human species, at least during the time in question, a pregnancy occurs when a female is empregnated by a male. In the Christian story, God empregnates Mary, thereby producing a half human / half god hybrid.
Again, it's just your personal unsupported opinion since you have not provided any reference.
Site rulings indicate I'm not bound to provide alternative explanations for your claims.
True, there's no rule against people who cannot debate rationally. But, if you want to debate me, you'll need to step up your game.
Beyond that, as you asked me my opinion, I presented it as my opinion, and will not restrict my opinion to only those answers you deem acceptable.
I've never asked for your opinion. As a matter of fact, I don't want your opinion. I want a logical debate. This means I make a claim, then provide evidence and show where I got that evidence. You make a counter-claim, provide evidence and show where you got that evidence. This is how debates work. If you do not accept this, then you are not debating, but only providing personal opinions.

C'mon, you attack fundamentalist Christians all the time about them not providing evidence and backing up their claims. Why do you fail to do what you continually demand others to do?
I've merely pointed out that the blood and image on the shroud can't be confirmed as belonging to a half human / half god hybrid as related in biblical tales.
It's not pointing out anything. It's you stating your opinion on something. More than that, it's simply ranting by the sheer number of times you've stated this opinion.
I will not bind myself to only those answers that bring you comfort.
You don't want to make a claim because it will make you uncomfortable. It's not picking at the low hanging fruit which you are comfortable with. Making a claim and defending it is not comfortable or easy work. It takes a lot of research and effort in composing posts. And it easily takes me over an hour to compose each of my arguments. And I've been doing this for all the topics I've debated in this thread. So, comfort is the last thing to describe myself.
Site rules indicate I'm under no obligation to provide alternative explanations for your claims.
Hmm, maybe I should change the site rules then to enforce people to debate logically....
Maybe you'll find more comfort debating those skeptics whose arguments bring you comfort.
Actually, it's the other way around. Skeptics have been uncomfortable debating me and left, as testified by you...
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:56 am otseng

There's some great noms herein, but otseng is smart, tenacious, and ever thoughtful, no matter if I disagree on so much of his position.

I'm reminded of a video I once saw forever ago. A water buffalo was left alone from the protection of the herd, facing a pride of hungry lions. There was a chase, an attack defended. Another chase, another attack defended. For a good fifteen minutes the battle raged, neither side gaining the edge. Finally, the lions started dispersing. First one, then another, until the remainder of the pride decided it just wasn't worth risking them horns, that fury, that massive bulk.

otseng ain't no buffalo - I wouldn't want to dismiss his humanity - but that's just a quirk of his birth.

It's time he got his propers.
No serious skeptic on the shroud simply claims it was not Jesus.
Implies I'm not serious or sincere, though I've maintained this argument with you over the course of a multitude of posts.
Your own testimony reveals you are not a serious skeptic...
JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Jan 26, 2023 2:27 pm
otseng wrote: A few more questions for you:
Have you even been studying the Shroud of Turin?
I've studied it right up until I ran headlong into the three facts I've presented.
otseng wrote: What sources have you been reading from?
The Big Book of Facts otseng Considers Irrelevant.
otseng wrote: Can you post the urls for those sources?
I present my arguments as a reasonable and logical conclusion based on the available facts
otseng wrote: From your reading, what shroud skeptics do you find the most convincing?
Me.
otseng wrote: What are the top claims by shroud skeptics to argue against the authenticity of the shroud?
1. No human / god hybrids have ever been shown to produce viable offspring
2. The blood on the shroud can't be shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question
3. The image on the shroud can't be shown to be that of the human / god hybrid in question
I do not know, nor have any means to confirm who, or what, is involved in the shroud image. I can only maintain that it does strike a human appearance.
We agree it was a human involved. But I maintain it is Jesus and you do not. So, you have to provide the evidence why it's not Jesus. Otherwise, you have no justification for it being someone other than Jesus.
If you can't offer us some means to confirm it's the biblical Jesus, why fuss at me for not accepting the claim that it is?
Of course I'll get to that and provide evidences. But are you willing to do the same for it being someone else?
otseng wrote: The top skeptics - Walter McCrone, Michael Tite, Edward Hall - all have a position on what they think the shroud is. These are the most informed shroud skeptics and even they don't just stop at saying the shroud is not Jesus.
Maybe you'd find more comfort engaging them then.
If they want to join this debate, that'd be incredible. But, highly doubtful since McCrone and Hall are both dead. And Tite is quite advanced in age.
Where they don't bring you comfort, don't fuss at me.
The repeated charge of my comfort is ridiculous. It's like a lone water buffalo attacking a pack of lions and saying the buffalo is afraid to fight.
My argument, as I've said over and over, is...

1. There's no confirmed record of a human / god hybrid ever producing viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
More ranting.
How come you're so happy to debate all that other bunch of skeptics, but so reticent to consider the three facts above?
Why should I respond to unsupported baseless personal opinions?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #1778

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 7:55 am Many folks place value on their allegedly 'holy' stuff.

Placing value on a piece of cloth that's known to be a revenue generator ain't so special.
OK, then please provide evidence of a financial transaction of another relic and let's compare the values. Otherwise it's just more of your personal opinions being offered.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
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 #1779

Post by otseng »

The evidence against the authenticity and reliability of the d'Arcis memo is overwhelming. To recap:

1. The letter is unsigned, undated, and there is no record of it ever sent to Antipope Clement VII. We cannot verify who wrote it, when it was written, and if it ever left the trash can.

2. The alleged forger was not named. Without a name, it's a baseless claim it was a forgery.

3. Relics were throughout churches in Europe. It makes no sense to critique a single church for activity that was done in all churches in Europe, including D'Aris's own church.

viewtopic.php?p=1108860#p1108860

4. All churches were expected to have a relic. It makes no sense to attack a church for a particular relic if all churches have a relic which all pilgrims believed they are genuine.

viewtopic.php?p=1109029#p1109029

5. The d'Arcis memo was written 33 years after the first public showing of the shroud. 3 bishops presided during those 33 years and none of them complained about the shroud. It makes no sense the 3 prior bishops made no complaints and the 4th bishop afterwards then makes a complaint.

viewtopic.php?p=1109213#p1109213

6. The Lirey church display of the shroud never claimed it was the true burial cloth of Jesus. It makes no sense to critique Charny if he never claimed it was genuine.

7. Scriptural justification against the authenticity of the shroud also would apply to the most famous relic, the True Cross. This would make many other churches throughout Europe guilty.

8. The d'Arcis memo refers to "Lord Geoffrey de Charny", but to be more precise, it should've been "Lord Geoffrey II de Charny, Knight." Was d'Arcis confused when he wrote this?

viewtopic.php?p=1109367#p1109367

9. D'Arcis had the ecclesiatical power to handle the dispute himself. There was no need to appeal to the Pope.

viewtopic.php?p=1109439#p1109439

10. The Lirey church was an insignificant church is a small town. It should not have been considered any threat to the massive churches in Troyes. Why attack a small church if it was obviously a fake?

viewtopic.php?p=1109508#p1109508

11. Charny never put the shroud on display in the Lirey church. His family did after he had died. So, the charge in the d'Arcis memo is factually incorrect.

viewtopic.php?p=1109636#p1109636

12. There is no record of the d'Arcis memo in Promptuarium Tricassinae Diocesis of the canon Nicolas Camusat. There is no corroborating evidence to support the authenticity of the d'Arcis memo.

13. Bishop Henri de Poitiers (Charny's bishop) makes no mention of the shroud.

14. Papal Bulls never mention the d'Arcis memo. Again, there is no corroborating evidence to support the authenticity of the d'Arcis memo.

viewtopic.php?p=1109867#p1109867

15. The financial value of the shroud was recorded in textual records to be very high. It's doubtful Charny had the means to buy the shroud near this price even if it was a forgery.

viewtopic.php?p=1110247#p1110247

In conclusion, the d'Arcis memo as one of the top two shroud skeptics arguments is totally flawed.

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 37 times

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

Post #1780

Post by Thomas123 »

JoeyKnothead:
'My argument, as I've said over and over, is...

1. There's no confirmed record of a human / god hybrid ever producing viable offspring.
2. The blood on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.
3. The image on the shroud has not been confirmed as belonging to the human / god hybrid in question.'

Thomas123
I was walking past the waterhole and I smelt buffalo blood. Thomas the hyena here. I thought I heard that Otseng believes the Shroud of Turin is real, maybe not! It is the dry season for debate here so therefore I'm inclined to linger a while unless otseng uses his horns!

You are making a mess of this kill ,JK!
If there is any blood , of any sort on the cloth at all then you have no argument. The same applies to an image.
You can examine and dismantle the authentication evidence presented by otseng but you cannot persue your line without assumption. You flounder in the mud.
I'm hungry, let him go to the edge. I remember otseng bellowing the end of days at the start of Covid, ...so no worries here!

Keep debating ,people!

Post Reply