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]

When the C-14 results were announced, the media published the article titled, "Turin shroud shown to be a fake", with the lead C-14 scientists in the photo.



But, even though it's claimed to be a fake, the main questions about the shroud were left unanswered, "who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?" Does it make any sense to just blindly say, "We know it's a medieval fake, but as for how the image got there, we have no idea."? It doesn't make any more sense than "someone just got a bit of linen, faked it up and flogged it."

[JoeyKnothead]

...
We're talking about the C-14 dating now. We will eventually get to other arguments later.

Someone let me know when the argument starts addressing all the facts.

I've been told my contributions risk having me sanctioned, at least I guess until all the facts become once again open to consideration.

[brunumb]

At most, all that we can say for sure is an actual body was involved.

I don't think even that is a given. The anatomy is not right and stuff like blood can easily be splattered on without having a body present. If the cloth was wrapped around the head the image would be laterally distorted. So far all we have is an unverified magical resurrection process employed to account for the 'flat' image instead. Such processes can't be used as an explanation if they have never been demonstrated to occur. Cart before the horse.

[JoeyKnothead]

At most, all that we can say for sure is an actual body was involved.

I don't think even that is a given. The anatomy is not right and stuff like blood can easily be splattered on without having a body present. If the cloth was wrapped around the head the image would be laterally distorted. So far all we have is an unverified magical resurrection process employed to account for the 'flat' image instead. Such processes can't be used as an explanation if they have never been demonstrated to occur. Cart before the horse.

Very much. It should strike us all a bit concerning when the only available answer is "because supernatural". It's not even as good as "beats me."

[otseng]

I don't think even that is a given. The anatomy is not right and stuff like blood can easily be splattered on without having a body present. If the cloth was wrapped around the head the image would be laterally distorted. So far all we have is an unverified magical resurrection process employed to account for the 'flat' image instead. Such processes can't be used as an explanation if they have never been demonstrated to occur. Cart before the horse.

I've already addressed most of these. Have you read through my posts?

It's not even as good as "beats me."

We are considering if the shroud is a fake now. And it sure does sound like "beats me" is the answer to how the image got on the shroud.

[otseng]

So far, we have the evidence of the C-14 dating to demonstrate that it is a fake. It's a necessary condition, but it's not sufficient. You need to have additional evidence to prove it's a fake. As I argued earlier, C-14 evidence by itself is not conclusive evidence of anything.

If it's a fake, all we need is corroborating evidence like:
- paint was on the shroud (as claimed by McCrone)
- textual record of how he did it (like Da Vinci did with his works)
- apprentices who learned from this master (like many other artists had)
- prototypes of the shroud
- etc

However, this evidence is lacking. So, really the only evidence that skeptics can provide is the C-14 dating. And in order to bolster this solitary evidence, just put an exclamation mark on it, proclaim it loud, cross your arms, look convinced, and mock the other position.

[JoeyKnothead]

It's not even as good as "beats me."

We are considering if the shroud is a fake now. And it sure does sound like "beats me" is the answer to how the image got on the shroud.

Unfortunately, I was warned of sanctions for trying to discuss some of the facts surrounding the shroud. All I feel safe replying here is...

1.
2.
3.

[Bust Nak]

Unfortunately, I was warned of sanctions for trying to discuss some of the facts surrounding the shroud. All I feel safe replying here is...

Moderator Warning


Quit it. Posting the same thing over and over again goes beyond mere discussions. It's not safe to push the boundary.

Please review our Rules.


______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[JoeyKnothead]

Delete post cause now I'm afraid to present anything in this thread. I'll make another'n.

[otseng]

To summarize my argument of assuming the C-14 dating is correct...

Even if the C-14 dating is correct and dates the shroud between 1260 and 1390, it is not conclusive evidence.

As testified 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.

[Replying to otseng in post #1820]

This is precisely my point. So, the question is, should this also apply to the TS?

Yes ... it should apply to any C-14 measured by AMS (or radiometric analysis).

So, if anyone accepts C-14 as conclusive evidence against the mountain of evidence that supports the shroud, then one can use C-14 also to argue against deep time, even if there is a mountain of evidence to support deep time.

C-14 supporters claim the shroud is a fake. But, really the only other evidence presented to support that is the D'Arcis memo. And I've already presented a lengthy argument on why it is highly questionable and not reliable.

Other than the D'Arcis memo, there is no other evidence. It is quite remarkable if it's a fake that nobody knows who the forger is and how he did it. If these basic questions cannot be answered, how can one claim it's a fake?

Next, I will present evidence the entire C-14 procedure was flawed.