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

[otseng]

Sure it is. I'm on otseng's side now. I've switched sides....just tell me what our rational is for proceeding with our 'hypothesis', o. Is it that they can't prove it's not? I love ancient artifacts, ..they are the best sort, ...much more reliable than weeping statues. I've been victorious with less.

Let osteng speak on this ,please!

Again:
'I maintain the TS is evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ when he was buried in the tomb.'

Well, that was easy to bring you to my side... Read up on the blood stains on the TS. That will be the next topic after C-14 to demonstrate the beating, scourging, and crucifixion of Jesus.

[JoeyKnothead]

Sure it is. I'm on otseng's side now. I've switched sides....just tell me what our rational is for proceeding with our 'hypothesis', o. Is it that they can't prove it's not? I love ancient artifacts, ..they are the best sort, ...much more reliable than weeping statues. I've been victorious with less.

Let osteng speak on this ,please!

Again:
'I maintain the TS is evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ when he was buried in the tomb.'

Well, that was easy to bring you to my side... Read up on the blood stains on the TS. That will be the next topic after C-14 to demonstrate the beating, scourging, and crucifixion of Jesus.

We're still left to ponder these three facts...

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 has not been shown to belong to the human / god hybrid in question.

We can fret carbon dating till the cows come home and set up a disco, but until the above three facts are shown otherwise, well, there we go.

[Diogenes]

Are you claiming 1260 to 1390 CE somehow disputes what I wrote that it's dated to about 1300 CE?

Of course not, why would you say that? 1300 is between 1260 and 1390 and I'm simply using shorthand to refer to that date range.

The main point is that it is WAY off from the 30 CE required to prove its authenticity.

Of course.

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.

OK, let's run with C-14 dating is correct (which of course I will dispute later) and the shroud is medieval. It actually doesn't prove it's a fake nor a drawing. At the most, all it demonstrates is there is a high probability it is medieval.

Since you say it's a drawing, please provide the evidence it's a drawing.

Then, since no serious scholar doubted the reliability of the Carbon dating methods,

Actually there are many serious shroud scholars who have been studying it for decades that doubt the reliability of the C-14 dating.

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.

No, my faith is not dependent on the cloth. As a matter of fact, nobody's faith is dependent on the cloth.

The C-14 is only one line of evidence. Whatever explanation is proposed should best explain all the facts. And the C-14 evidence does not do that nor simply claiming it's a fake.

Now, I grant the C-14 dating is a major conundrum if the dating is valid. But, all the properties of the TS are a conundrum. If you demand I explain the C-14 conundrum, then you must likewise be willing to explain all the conundrums I've brought up so far (and I'll be presenting more later). So, if you charge I'm dismissing the C-14 dating, then I can likewise charge you of dismissing all the other evidence I've presented so far....

No, I haven't gone back and read every post on this lengthy thread. But the scientific consensus is for a C14 date of about 1300. The only thing raised by those that are already convinced it has to be Jesus' shroud, is that the samples were not collected correctly and for the other silly stuff I outlined about smoke and mirrors, excuse me smoke and bacteria and other garbage theories. I went back and looked and could not find the name of an expert on C-14 dating that disagreed with the 1260 to 1390 range. I DO know that the so called 'experts' cited in 'talk origins' and that ilk are outliers at best (that is being very kind).

I agree I over stated about it being a painting/drawing. HOW it got those marks seems to be a legitimate dispute, but drawing or painting would seem to be the likely method if the experts I cited are correct about the anatomical/crucifixion issues.
Anyway the C 14 dating seems to close the issue re: it being from Jesus, so I'll wait for your new evidence or theory on that. As you concede, the C14 dating is [at least] a 'conundrum;' tho' my imagination is insufficient to explain how an image made in the 1st Century gets onto fabric from the 14th...

[brunumb]

Again:
'I maintain the TS is evidence of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ when he was buried in the tomb.'

How did you establish provenance for the shroud? In other words you need to establish an unbroken link for the shroud back to the tomb and Jesus. Just saying it is possible is not the same thing. What happened to the shroud after it left the tomb? Where did it go? Whose hands did it pass through? How did it end up where it finally did? I believe your decision is somewhat premature.

[brunumb]

HOW it got those marks seems to be a legitimate dispute, but drawing or painting would seem to be the likely method if the experts I cited are correct about the anatomical/crucifixion issues.

Not knowing how the image was formed is not an argument for a supernatural resurrection cause. We can ask similar questions about that process? Why should resurrection involve some sort of physical process that would leave such an impression on a cloth and what was that process? Did the same thing happen when Lazarus was raised? A reasonable copy has been made using natural processes, so it is quite conceivable that the original was also produced by natural processes. The rather faint image may actually be unintentional and the result of the original image being removed say through cleaning and resulting in what we now see. There are countless more likely possibilities than a magical process producing the image.

[otseng]

No, I haven't gone back and read every post on this lengthy thread.

I realize it is a lot of information. But, if anyone is going to engage me on this debate and make any claims, esp if they simply find some claim on a skeptic site and just repost it here, they will need to also read through what I've already posted. I do not have the time to go over things I've already spent considerable amount of time addressing.

The only thing raised by those that are already convinced it has to be Jesus' shroud, is that the samples were not collected correctly and for the other silly stuff I outlined about smoke and mirrors, excuse me smoke and bacteria and other garbage theories.

We will cover those "garbage theories" soon enough.

I went back and looked and could not find the name of an expert on C-14 dating that disagreed with the 1260 to 1390 range.

It's actually not hard to find. I'll bring those up as well.

I agree I over stated about it being a painting/drawing. HOW it got those marks seems to be a legitimate dispute, but drawing or painting would seem to be the likely method

A drawing or painting makes no sense at all. I've covered this at length in previous posts.

if the experts I cited are correct about the anatomical/crucifixion issues.

I agree there are anatomical distortion issues. This was also covered in previous posts.

Anyway the C 14 dating seems to close the issue re: it being from Jesus, so I'll wait for your new evidence or theory on that. As you concede, the C14 dating is [at least] a 'conundrum;' tho' my imagination is insufficient to explain how an image made in the 1st Century gets onto fabric from the 14th...
[/size]

OK, let's run with the C-14 dating is correct and see what are the implications...

[otseng]

The TS was C-14 dated using accelerator mass spectrometry. However, using AMS, it has detected C-14 in coal deposits. This means according to AMS, coal deposits cannot be older than 40,000 years.

"Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS), a sensitive radiometric dating technique, is in some cases finding trace amounts of radioactive carbon-14 in coal deposits, amounts that seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

However, coal deposits supposedly have formed millions of years ago.

Coal deposits are known to have formed more than 400 million years ago. Most anthracite and bituminous coals occur within the 299- to 359.2-million-year-old strata of the Carboniferous Period, the so-called first coal age. The formation of coal deposits continued through the Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic periods into the “second coal age,” which includes the Cretaceous, Paleogene, and Neogene periods. Coals of the Cretaceous Period (145.5 million to 65.5 million years ago) are generally in the high-volatile to medium-volatile bituminous ranks. Cenozoic coals, formed less than 65.5 million years ago, are predominantly of the subbituminous and lignitic ranks.

https://www.britannica.com/technology/c ... l-deposits

So, if we trust AMS C-14 dating, then obviously coal deposits are not millions of years old, but at a maximum is 40,000 years old. If one uses AMS C-14 dating as conclusive evidence no matter what the other evidence leads to, then I can likewise claim C-14 proves deep time is false. Are you willing to accept the earth is young based on C-14 dating?

[otseng]

How did you establish provenance for the shroud? In other words you need to establish an unbroken link for the shroud back to the tomb and Jesus. Just saying it is possible is not the same thing. What happened to the shroud after it left the tomb? Where did it go? Whose hands did it pass through? How did it end up where it finally did? I believe your decision is somewhat premature.

This is a problem that any explanation will need to provide. If it's a fake, then need to explain how the shroud originated from a forger, who he was, how he did it, what was the chain of ownership to Charny. If it's legit, how did the image form when Jesus resurrected and how did it journey from Jerusalem to Turin.

[otseng]

Not knowing how the image was formed is not an argument for a supernatural resurrection cause.

I agree it's not a sufficient condition, but it's a necessary condition. Additional arguments will be added later to make the case a resurrection occurred.

A reasonable copy has been made using natural processes, so it is quite conceivable that the original was also produced by natural processes.

What "reasonable copy" are you referring to?

[JoeyKnothead]

OK, let's run with the C-14 dating is correct and see what are the implications...

We can dismiss the entire series of dating, carbon or otherwise, and we're still stuck with the three fundamental facts you choose to avoid...

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.

We see our theist here just loves to carry on about how some family was real proud of the shroud, how dating methods are problematic, and all such as that.

What is it about these three facts the theist chooses to avoid considering, or trying to refute? The observer can only guess.

Who believes a married chick got banged up by a god none can show exists?

Who has the blood of Jesus, that a DNA match was confirmed?

Who has a picture of Jesus, that an image comparison is confirming?

I propose that regardless of the age of this piece of cloth, until these three facts can be put to sleep, the most rational conclusion here is to laugh oneself into a stupor at the avoidance we see occurring in regards to these facts.