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: 20463
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
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6601 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

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

Post #1811

Post by brunumb »

otseng wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:40 am
brunumb wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 5:40 pm 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.
No. It's not the same. The fake aspect is very open ended. In fact the main claim is simply that it is most likely not authentic. On the other hand, the claim that it is the actual shroud that was used to 'wrap' the body of Jesus is very specific and needs to meet all steps in the authentication process. Start with the provenance. What have you got?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
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 #1812

Post by otseng »

brunumb wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:57 am
otseng wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:40 am 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.
No. It's not the same. The fake aspect is very open ended.
What do you mean "open ended"? If it's a fake that dates to around 1300, then obviously some forger created it. Are you saying you do not need to explain how a forger did it, who is he, and what is the record trail, yet I have to produce all of these if I claim it's authentic? Again, I sense differing standards.
In fact the main claim is simply that it is most likely not authentic.
If it's not authentic, then what exactly is it? What do you claim it is?
On the other hand, the claim that it is the actual shroud that was used to 'wrap' the body of Jesus is very specific and needs to meet all steps in the authentication process. Start with the provenance. What have you got?
We will eventually get to the history of the TS. We are currently discussing the C-14 and after that the blood stains. The C-14 issue will be a very large topic, so it'll be awhile before we get to the history of the TS. Now, if you want to discuss the provenance of the fake, you are free to present it now.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2715
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 591 times
Been thanked: 1639 times

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

Post #1813

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #1812]
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.
There is a lot more to this story as well, as you'd expect. C-14 dating is no different from other sophisticated methods and requires properly working and calibrated equipment, properly trained operators, and critically ... samples that are not contaminated and are prepared correctly. There are known scenarios where it doesn't work because of issues with the samples. One common example is the reservoir effect:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 17RG000588

https://heritagesciencejournal.springer ... -7445-1-24

This can impact dating of marine and freshwater specimens, as well as animals (including humans) who consumed them before death. Nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s also created the "bomb effect":

https://www.radiocarbon.com/carbon-dati ... carbon.htm

As for C-14 in coal, the common suspects are production of C-14 by radioactive decay of other atoms in the vicinity (expecially uranium/thorium), as well as potential production by fungal and bacteria action. Like the reservoir effect, these would violate the basic assumption in C-14 dating that the sample has remained in equilibrium with the environment continuously so that when it was living (as a plant, or animal, or something made from them) it consumed carbon compounds that were metabolized in the body and as a result the distribution of carbon isotopes in the living organism should match those of the environment. At death, there is no more intake of food, water, air, etc. so the C-14 present at death decays according to is half-life while C-12 concentrations remain stable.

I don't think the C-14 in coal issue is a strong argument against AMS and the dating process for the TS samples. AMS has proved reliable in far too many other cases to discredit it due to an effect that may result in more C-14 in the sample that is independent of the AMS process (ie. AMS measures C-14 correctly, but there is simply more of it in cases where it is produced outside of the basic assumption above for C-14 dating, such as the marine reservoir effect).

To me, a bigger concern might be the fact that so few TS samples were tested, and all from a single "patch" about 3" x 1" in size. The fact that three indpendent labs all obtained similar results is certainly supportive of the results, but I would have thought more samples from different locations would have been taken if they really wanted to get the best results and put the issue to rest. Using one example where AMS (or C-14 dating in general) produces anamolous results in coal does not outweigh the much higher rate of "normal" results the method has produced. If one wanted to cast doubt on the C-14 dating, it seems to me the target should be not the C-14 dating process itseld, but in the limited area that was tested (although presumably this patch was chosen in the belief that it best represented the original shround and not a later repair effort, obviously).
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5992
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6601 times
Been thanked: 3208 times

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

Post #1814

Post by brunumb »

otseng wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:58 am
brunumb wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:57 am
otseng wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:40 am 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.
No. It's not the same. The fake aspect is very open ended.
What do you mean "open ended"? If it's a fake that dates to around 1300, then obviously some forger created it. Are you saying you do not need to explain how a forger did it, who is he, and what is the record trail, yet I have to produce all of these if I claim it's authentic? Again, I sense differing standards.
In fact the main claim is simply that it is most likely not authentic.
If it's not authentic, then what exactly is it? What do you claim it is?
On the other hand, the claim that it is the actual shroud that was used to 'wrap' the body of Jesus is very specific and needs to meet all steps in the authentication process. Start with the provenance. What have you got?
We will eventually get to the history of the TS. We are currently discussing the C-14 and after that the blood stains. The C-14 issue will be a very large topic, so it'll be awhile before we get to the history of the TS. Now, if you want to discuss the provenance of the fake, you are free to present it now.
OK. Let me take a step back. I am not claiming that the shroud is certainly a fake. I don't know and I am not obliged to prove it is a fake On the other hand the claim being made that the shroud did indeed wrap the body of Jesus does hold the burden of proof. As with authentication of artworks, establishing the provenance of the work is a key part of the process. So, starting with the provenance, what have you got?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
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 #1815

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 2:02 pm There is a lot more to this story as well, as you'd expect. C-14 dating is no different from other sophisticated methods and requires properly working and calibrated equipment, properly trained operators, and critically ... samples that are not contaminated and are prepared correctly.
This is precisely my point. So, the question is, should this also apply to the TS?

It appears to be a firm no, as evidenced by...
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.
Diogenes wrote: Sat Feb 04, 2023 6:09 pm The age of the shroud has been conclusively dated as about only 700 years old, not 2000. End of story. It's a fake.
Diogenes wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:55 pm 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]
Diogenes wrote: Sun Feb 05, 2023 3:55 pm 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.
What Diogenese is doing is claiming the C-14 is the final arbiter of the shroud. It doesn't matter if all the other evidence points to its authenticity. It doesn't matter if there are theories of contamination. It doesn't matter if there are potential procedural problems. It doesn't matter if specimens are not prepared correctly. They are all "silly stuff", "smoke and mirrors", and "garbage theories". The C-14 result makes it "pointless to continue the argument", "end of story", "it's a fake", issue is "closed".

So, I'm simply using his argument and showing the fallacy of it...
otseng wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:29 am OK, let's run with the C-14 dating is correct and see what are the implications...
To me, a bigger concern might be the fact that so few TS samples were tested, and all from a single "patch" about 3" x 1" in size.
This is only one of a mountain of concerns. But, I will get to those later after I explore more the attitude of the C-14 being conclusive evidence.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
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 #1816

Post by otseng »

brunumb wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 5:23 pm OK. Let me take a step back. I am not claiming that the shroud is certainly a fake. I don't know and I am not obliged to prove it is a fake.
You don't believe it's a fake?
On the other hand the claim being made that the shroud did indeed wrap the body of Jesus does hold the burden of proof.
That's what I've been doing all along and building up my case for it.

But, if anyone else believes it is a fake, then they likewise need to provide evidence. Right now we're discussing the C-14 evidence. If you have any other evidence against its authenticity (which is doubtful there are any), we can discuss those after the C-14.
As with authentication of artworks, establishing the provenance of the work is a key part of the process. So, starting with the provenance, what have you got?
I already responded to this...
otseng wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 8:58 am We will eventually get to the history of the TS. We are currently discussing the C-14 and after that the blood stains. The C-14 issue will be a very large topic, so it'll be awhile before we get to the history of the TS. Now, if you want to discuss the provenance of the fake, you are free to present it now.
As people have noticed, I'm the only buffalo in the fight. People will have to get in line if there are other issues they want to discuss. Cutting in line will not be allowed.

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 #1817

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:18 am ...People will have to get in line if there are other issues they want to discuss. Cutting in line will not be allowed.
I propose "cutting in line" is nigh on useless when you repeatedly avoid even considering, nevermind attempting to refute the facts...

1. No human / god hybrid has 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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
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 #1818

Post by otseng »

The attitude the C-14 dating is conclusive evidence is not limited to Diogenes, but is actually quite prevalent. Even the C-14 scientists had this attitude...
Hall, together with Dr Michael Tite of the British Museum and Oxford laboratory's Dr Robert Hedges, on 13 October 1988, in front of a blackboard on which was written, "1260-1390!" announced at a press conference in the British Museum that the three laboratories' combined average date of the Shroud was 1260-1390. Hall told reporters present that: "There was a multimillion pound business in making forgeries during the fourteenth century. Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it."
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2015/08/

They had the dates "1260 - 1390!" on the board behind them as they publicly announced the results of the C-14.

Image

What does the exclamation point mean? They are signifying it is conclusive evidence and that the shroud is positively within 1260 - 1390. Really, is this how data should be reported by scientists? Hall even commented afterwards, "Someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it." Obviously he had no knowledge of the shroud outside of his own C-14 testing. Is there any hint of bias in any of this by the C-14 scientists? The answer is obviously yes.

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 #1819

Post by JoeyKnothead »

But... But... But the C14!

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.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

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

Post #1820

Post by Bust Nak »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue Feb 07, 2023 6:41 am But... But... But the C14!

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.
Moderator Intervention

You've made your point, there is no need to repeat it post after post. It will be considered spam if you persist.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

Post Reply