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: 20503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 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

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 #1781

Post by Thomas123 »

A:'The clouds in the sky are composed of marshmallows.'

Would you attempt to argue against this assertion?

I wouldn't!


I would argue against the argument presented by A.
If none appeared I would agree! Sure they are.👍

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 #1782

Post by Thomas123 »

How did the Shroud get into a thread about Biblical errors?
It was planted there.

Check out Post 1596
Look at the stealth used to do this, check 1594,1595.

That is why we are wallowing in the mud of a Serengeti waterhole...brilliant O!

The Turin Shroud is real! Sure it is👍

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 #1783

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:42 am
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.
Whether thirty pieces of silver, a nickel, or two goats and a draft pick to be named later, the shroud was exchanged for something of value.
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 #1784

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Snipping to the topic...
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 7:33 am
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.
I'm content in having the observer decide if my comment is an accurate take on the biblical tale.
otseng wrote: 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 repeatedly said I do not know how the shroud came to be. I simply point out the following facts for consideration...

1. No human / god hybrids have ever 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:
JK wrote: 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 stand by the three facts I've presented. That you find these facts to be "opinions" is indicative of your faulty thinking on this matter.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote: 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.
I accept it's most probably human, while maintaining I can't confirm it to be.
otseng wrote: 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.
I merely noted it has not been confirmed to be Jesus. That's different than claiming it ain't.
otseng wrote:
JK wrote: 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.
We've gone from these facts being "silly claims", to "irrelevant", and now we're at "ranting".

I'm content having the observer decide if these facts rise to the level of " ranting".

I remind folks I've snipped stuff I didn't think was directly related to the shroud.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #1785

Post by otseng »

Thomas123 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:46 am I remember otseng bellowing the end of days at the start of Covid, ...so no worries here!
I'm entitled to my personal opinions as well. O:) But, yes, the signs in the skies are getting more evident.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #1786

Post by otseng »

Thomas123 wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:14 am How did the Shroud get into a thread about Biblical errors?
It was planted there.

Check out Post 1596
Look at the stealth used to do this, check 1594,1595.

That is why we are wallowing in the mud of a Serengeti waterhole...brilliant O!

The Turin Shroud is real! Sure it is👍
No idea what you are getting at. But this thread is not to discuss about Biblical errors. The thread is about the reliability of the Bible. And I'm just building up my case why the TS and the gospels support each other. And we have a long way to go, especially if I have to constantly deal with unsupported claims without any shred of evidence presented.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20503
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #1787

Post by otseng »

Since it's acknowledged a real body was involved, I was going to present evidence it is the body of Jesus. But, I will put this on hold and discuss this later. DrNoGods has agreed to discuss C-14, so will dive into the huge topic of Carbon 14 dating of the TS...
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:14 am
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:18 pm You've made such a deep dive into TS it would require some real interest in the subject, and effort to catch up on knowledge to date, to get into the fray. But when the C-14 stuff comes along I may jump in as that subject is much more within my bailiwick.
Excellent. Just for you, I will then take up C-14 as my next topic to discuss.
I expect the C-14 discussion will take up many pages. It is the primary evidence that is brought to argue against the authenticity of the shroud.

Critics claim the C-14 dating proves it is a fake...
Diogenes wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:43 pm Given that the test of the Shroud conclusively proved the artifact is from about 1300 CE, it seems pointless to continue the argument. It's a fake.
In 1988, radiocarbon dating established that the shroud was from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
The Turin Shroud was radiocarbon dated and the material definitively dates to sometime between c. 1260 and c. 1390.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/ ... ly-a-hoax/
Didn't scientific carbon dating prove it was a fake
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

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 #1788

Post by Thomas123 »

Otseng: 'Like all arguments I've made in this thread, I'm not out to prove Jesus was resurrected, but I will attempt to show there are evidence to support it and that it is a reasonable position to hold.'
'The thread is about the reliability of the Bible. And I'm just building up my case why the TS and the gospels support each other'

Thomas123: 'Otseng, this is a strategy of siege. You will engage people in this charade of a strategy. I could do this about any subject. I could build a connection between canals in Wales and the Egyptian Afterlife. I could spend years doing it while relying on debating strategies that are learned and practiced. I think that you are more than that..

You were playing tennis with JK, when I entered this, whatever it is. The TS has nothing to do with the Bible,even the Pope knows that. As for your other 'artifact'....maybe run with that.'
Respectfully Thanks!

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 #1789

Post by Thomas123 »

Otseng: 'We also are entering a series of judgments, which I do believe it is from God.'

Back in April 2020, we were both filled with doom and gloom, Covid was the first dragon of the Apocalypse, Federal Reserve meltdown was to be the second,. Are we still on this path where Ukraine is the third and a Chinese weather balloon is the fourth.
You are entitled to elaborate on matters of your faith
But you can hardly expect serious engagement with incredulity.

What is it about the TS that makes it related to the Bible. Tell us!

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1305
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 862 times
Been thanked: 1265 times

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

Post #1790

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:29 pm Since it's acknowledged a real body was involved, I was going to present evidence it is the body of Jesus. But, I will put this on hold and discuss this later. DrNoGods has agreed to discuss C-14, so will dive into the huge topic of Carbon 14 dating of the TS...
otseng wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:14 am
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 10:18 pm You've made such a deep dive into TS it would require some real interest in the subject, and effort to catch up on knowledge to date, to get into the fray. But when the C-14 stuff comes along I may jump in as that subject is much more within my bailiwick.
Excellent. Just for you, I will then take up C-14 as my next topic to discuss.
I expect the C-14 discussion will take up many pages. It is the primary evidence that is brought to argue against the authenticity of the shroud.

Critics claim the C-14 dating proves it is a fake...
Diogenes wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:43 pm Given that the test of the Shroud conclusively proved the artifact is from about 1300 CE, it seems pointless to continue the argument. It's a fake.
In 1988, radiocarbon dating established that the shroud was from the Middle Ages, between the years 1260 and 1390.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
The Turin Shroud was radiocarbon dated and the material definitively dates to sometime between c. 1260 and c. 1390.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/ ... ly-a-hoax/
Didn't scientific carbon dating prove it was a fake
http://www.sillybeliefs.com/shroud.html

I don't know what you are going on about. Are you claiming 1260 to 1390 CE somehow disputes what I wrote that it's dated to about 1300 CE? The main point is that it is WAY off from the 30 CE required to prove its authenticity. As I wrote at viewtopic.php?p=1110757#p1110757 in the thread: "The Debilitating Effect of Taking Genesis Literally"

After ten years or so of wrangling about how to take the samples and how many of which labs to send them to, the Carbon 14 dating put the shroud at circa 1300 CE. End of story. It's a fake, even without going into the data that indicates it's a drawing, not an impression.
Then, since no serious scholar doubted the reliability of the Carbon dating methods, they came up with all these new theories about Medieval repairs, an untested vanillin-dating process; Contamination by bacteria, reactive carbon, and smoke. Then they attacked the calculations. This was all done because the believers could not accept the truth, it is a fake. No fallacious arguments or mockery needed. Why are you so set on trying to authenticate this relic, despite the evidence? It's not like your faith is based upon a piece of cloth.


The age of the shroud has been conclusively dated as about only 700 years old, not 2000. End of story. It's a fake. Granted, there are dozens of Christian apologist blogs that specialize in rehashing (and perhaps inventing new) old arguments about why the Carbon 14 dating doesn't matter or is wrong. Are you going to trot out all of those spurious sources?
Why not settle for what the Roman Catholic church does and say:
In a carefully worded announcement, the Archbishop of Turin says that the Pope "confirms the devotion to the shroud that millions of pilgrims recognise as a sign of the mystery of the passion and death of the Lord".

You'll notice that this says nothing about its authenticity. The Catholic Church takes no official position on that, stating only that it is a matter for scientific investigation. Ever since radiocarbon dating in 1989 proclaimed the 14ft by 4ft piece of linen to be roughly 700 years old, the Church has avoided claiming that it is anything more than an "icon" of Christian devotion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33164668
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
otseng wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 4:29 pm Since it's acknowledged a real body was involved...
What?! Where did you come up with that? The scientific consensus is the opposite. Even the church pronounced it a fake.
In 1389, the bishop of Troyes sent a memorial to Antipope Clement VII, declaring that the cloth had been "artificially painted in an ingenious way" and that "it was also proved by the artist who had painted it that it was made by human work, not miraculously produced". In 1390, Clement VII consequently issued four papal bulls, with which he allowed the exposition, but ordered to "say aloud, to put an end to all fraud, that the aforementioned representation is not the true Shroud of Our Lord Jesus Christ, but a painting or panel made to represent or imitate the Shroud "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Anatomical forensics
Full length negatives of the shroud.

A number of studies on the anatomical consistency of the image on the shroud and the nature of the wounds on it have been performed, following the initial study by Yves Delage in 1902.[102] While Delage declared the image anatomically flawless, others have presented arguments to support both authenticity and forgery.

The analysis of a crucified Roman, discovered near Venice in 2007, shows heel wounds that are consistent with those found on Jehohanan but which are not consistent with wounds depicted on the shroud. Also, neither of the crucifixion victims known to archaeology shows evidence of wrist wounds.[103]

Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.[28][104]

In 2018, an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.[105]

As Raymond E. Brown noticed, it is impossible for a corpse lying prostrate to cover his own genitals.
ibid
___________________________________

Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves

— Confucius

Post Reply