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
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[otseng]

Kinda hard to support my position with you chasing me down threatening to ban me.

Just follow the rules, stop with your rants, and provide evidence with references. Otherwise, any rule violation will result in the next step of disciplinary action. You are being treated no differently than what is expected with any member of this forum.

[otseng]

In 1988 when they did the C-14 testing, AMS was a relatively new C-14 technique and had only been in use for a few years.

"In 1982, AMS labs began processing archaeological samples for radiocarbon dating."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat ... ectrometry

It would be unwise to rely solely on a new technique and would've made more sense to also use the conventional method (decay counting) of C-14 dating.

Measurements are traditionally made by counting the radioactive decay of individual carbon atoms by gas proportional counting or by liquid scintillation counting. For samples of sufficient size (several g carbon) this method is still widely used in the 2000s. Among others, all the tree ring samples used for the calibration curves, were determined by these counting techniques. Such decay counting, however, is relatively insensitive and subject to large statistical uncertainties for small samples. When there is little carbon-14 to begin with, the long radiocarbon half-life means that very few of the carbon-14 atoms will decay during the time allotted for their detection, resulting in few disintegrations per minute.

https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Radiocarbon_dating

Though AMS is more sensitive than decay counting, by using the traditional method also, it would've been evidence to validate the results of AMS.

This was originally the plan; they would use both decay counting and AMS to date the shroud. Four labs would use the traditional method and three labs would use the new method.

- the test would be performed concurrently by seven laboratories, under the joint supervision of the Pontifical Academy of Science, the archbishop of Turin, and the British Museum;
- both dating methods would be adopted

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin

However, the church changed the procedure and said only AMS can be used and this meant only 3 labs can do the test.

The Vatican subsequently decided to adopt a different protocol instead.

- On April 27, 1987, a Vatican spokesperson announced to the newspaper La Stampa that the procedure would likely be performed by two or three laboratories at most;

- On October 10, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero officially announced to the seven laboratories that the proportional counter method would not be used because this method would require too much Shroud material (gram quantities rather than milligram quantities). Only three laboratories, namely Oxford, Tucson, and Zürich, would be provided with Shroud samples to be tested.

The labs heavily criticized this change as reported in New Scientist (Jan 1988):


https://books.google.com/books?id=S98wC ... on&f=false

"If one of the laboratories pulls out, then the test will be virtually meaningless."

"As you are aware, there are many critics in the world who will scrutinize these measurements in great detail. The abandonment of the original protocol, and the decision to proceed with only three laboratories will certainly enhance the scepticism of these critics."

Harry Gove (who was one of the defacto leaders of the C-14 labs and also from one of the labs that got booted) stated, "I hope the three laboratories stand firm and say to hell with you, let's get a result we all believe in, or leave it undated."

So, by the labs own testimony, the C-14 results are virtually meaningless, the scepticism has been enhanced, and it has a result we all don't believe in.

[otseng]

It was bad enough to only pick a single sample spot for the C-14 dating. But, if you're going to pick a single spot, you should at least sample from the least contaminated section. Instead, it was sampled from one of the most contaminated sections on the shroud.

When the TS was on public exhibitions in the past, we know they often held it to display it. And the Raes corner would've been a place they held it. The following illustrate how they held it:



















(Photos are from the Russ Breault presentation at the 2017 The Shroud of Turin Conference in Pasco, WA.)

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1856]

These have been discussed earlier. C-14 dating is not some panacea for dating things under about 50,000 years old, but neither is any other sophisticated measurement technique measuring anything else. The reason we use any measurement instrumentation (eg. MRIs, CT scans, NMRs, Gas Chromatagraphs (GC), the Large Hadron Collider instruments, LIGO, and countless over examples) is to get the best information possible.

All of these instruments and techniques require maintenance, calibration, know-how for operating and interpretation, and properly prepared samples. Some are purely analytical (eg. a GC) in that samples with known values for the property being measured are subjected to analysis, and if a range of such samples produce correct results then the probability is high that an unknown sample can also be measured reliably.

In the case of the shroud, the issue seems to be with the sample itself and nothing to do with the AMS C-14 measurements themselves. If that is the case, then the discussion is not about C-14 dating at all but whether the sample taken is actually representative of the original shroud, and if it was did it get contaminated over time to skew the C-14 results, or was there contamination between the time it was extracted from the shroud and received by the labs that somehow (???) resulted in roughly AD 1300 dates by all 3 labs. If any of these things happened then of course the C-14 results would not be accurate ... but this would be no fault of the AMS C-14 measurements themselves, or that technique in general. It would be a sample problem not a C-14 problem.

Still seems strange that if they really wanted the C-14 dating results to provide a definitive answer, they would have taken more samples from different areas of the shroud. But again, the people involved evidently believed that this particular area was original material or the whole effort would have been a poorly planned effort that was a waste of time and money.

I think this is what Otseng is getting at is that there are two different dates that have been given. One was in the early '80s and one in the late 80's. And the test in the late '80s is very suspect, because of the procedure that they used. As this study confirms. https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html

And carbon 14 dating is not the only method of dating. There is also "Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering" (WAXS) which does confirm that the Shroud is from the time of Christ.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2022/a ... ists-death

[Diogenes]

It was bad enough to only pick a single sample spot for the C-14 dating. But, if you're going to pick a single spot, you should at least sample from the least contaminated section. Instead, it was sampled from one of the most contaminated sections on the shroud.

The statement above appears to be factually incorrect.

The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip.

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

The samples were not taken from a single "spot," but from a strip. And THREE samples were taken from the strip, AND they were purposely taken "away from any patches or charred areas."
"The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
ibid
C-14 dating was hardly a "new and untried technique in 1988, having been invented in 1946 and was and is widely used by geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other investigators.
https://www.acs.org/education/whatische ... ating.html

A cardinal and the archbishop's scientific expert were present, among others. Another sample was taken in 1977. How many holes and strips do you want cut from this 'Holy Relic' that you believe touched the body of Christ?

The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr). These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

The results of radiocarbon measurements from the three laboratories on four textile samples, a total of twelve data sets, show that none of the measurements differs from its appropriate mean value by more than two standard deviations. The results for the three control samples agree well with previous radiocarbon measurements and/or historical dates.

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm shows the procedure and catalogues the results in detail.

Nonetheless, yes "After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces."
This flaw of course does not invalidate the C-14 dating of 1988. It just suggests more testing samples is advised. I would love to see more samples taken from other parts of the shroud. There's only one problem with that. The Vatican does not want further testing, and they have the shroud.

"The researchers suggest that new studies must be conducted on the shroud if its true date is to be ascertained. For that to happen, the Vatican will once again have to provide access to the shroud, which appears to be in doubt, as officials with the church have proven reluctant to allow further testing. "
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-shroud-turin.html

There is an axiom of law that suggests the trier of fact may presume that the "lost information was unfavorable to the party." We can presume the Vatican knows that taking and testing more samples will only confirm previous tests, that the shroud is mediaeval.

[otseng]

I think this is what Otseng is getting at is that there are two different dates that have been given. One was in the early '80s and one in the late 80's. And the test in the late '80s is very suspect, because of the procedure that they used.

To be clear, I've only been referring to the 1988 C-14 dating.

There is also "Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering" (WAXS) which does confirm that the Shroud is from the time of Christ.
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/cwn/2022/a ... ists-death

I'll be covering the other dating techniques much later.

[otseng]

It was bad enough to only pick a single sample spot for the C-14 dating. But, if you're going to pick a single spot, you should at least sample from the least contaminated section. Instead, it was sampled from one of the most contaminated sections on the shroud.

The statement above appears to be factually incorrect.

The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip.

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm

The samples were not taken from a single "spot," but from a strip. And THREE samples were taken from the strip, AND they were purposely taken "away from any patches or charred areas."

I don't know what you mean by "factually incorrect". What fact are you referring to? That I said "spot"? The point of my statement is not the size of the sample, but the number of sample locations. There was only one single area that was sampled.

As for 3 samples from the strip, what is your point?

As for contamination, I provided evidence through historical records of the exhibitions of the shroud that it was held by many people at this corner. Now, if anyone wants to legitimately argue against me on this point, it would be the residue from touching the shroud from even a million people would not bring the date of the shroud from the 1st century to the 13th century. That I would not deny. But, that is not my point. The point is the standard procedure of finding places to sample would be the using the least contaminated section, not from a section that we know contains more contamination.

As for taking samples from any patched areas, that should be obvious it should not be taken from those spots. It would make the sample heterogeneous, and not homogeneous. The failure would not be contamination per se. Contamination would be introducing impurities through contact. Heterogeneous would mean there's a piece of cloth that is from a different time period, like from a patch.

As for charred areas, I'm not so sure that would make much of a difference. DrNoGods can correct me on this, but I don't believe charring would introduce any new organic material.

"The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

Yes, this statement is from the official Nature C-14 report. This conclusively proves the report is overstating their findings. The C-14 dating is not conclusive evidence as I've already argued. If anyone wants to accept the TS C-14 dating is conclusive evidence, then C-14 dating of coal deposits is conclusive evidence evolution is wrong.

C-14 dating was hardly a "new and untried technique in 1988, having been invented in 1946 and was and is widely used by geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other investigators.

Where did I say say C-14 dating was "new and untried technique in 1988"? Please point to the post where I said that, otherwise this is the false attribution fallacy.

How many holes and strips do you want cut from this 'Holy Relic' that you believe touched the body of Christ?

My personal belief is the C-14 scientists had their shot at dating it and they botched it. They do not deserve a second chance.

Nonetheless, yes "After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces."

Yes, this is just one of the many flaws in the testing procedure.

I would love to see more samples taken from other parts of the shroud.

The problem is C-14 is a destructive test. How many destructive tests do skeptics need? What I would love to see are more non-destructive tests done.

We can presume the Vatican knows that taking and testing more samples will only confirm previous tests, that the shroud is mediaeval.

How would the Vatican know this? All other evidence points to its authenticity. It is only the 1988 C-14 dating that points to it being medieval.

[Diogenes]

It was bad enough to only pick a single sample spot for the C-14 dating. But, if you're going to pick a single spot, you should at least sample from the least contaminated section. Instead, it was sampled from one of the most contaminated sections on the shroud.

The statement above appears to be factually incorrect.

The strip came from a single site on the main body of the shroud away from any patches or charred areas. Three samples, each ~50 mg in weight, were prepared from this strip.

https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
The samples were not taken from a single "spot," but from a strip. And THREE samples were taken from the strip, AND they were purposely taken "away from any patches or charred areas."

I don't know what you mean by "factually incorrect". What fact are you referring to? That I said "spot"? The point of my statement is not the size of the sample, but the number of sample locations. There was only one single area that was sampled.
As for 3 samples from the strip, what is your point?
As for contamination, I provided evidence through historical records of the exhibitions of the shroud that it was held by many people at this corner. Now, if anyone wants to legitimately argue against me on this point, it would be the residue from touching the shroud from even a million people would not bring the date of the shroud from the 1st century to the 13th century. That I would not deny. But, that is not my point. The point is the standard procedure of finding places to sample would be the using the least contaminated section, not from a section that we know contains more contamination.
As for taking samples from any patched areas, that should be obvious it should not be taken from those spots. It would make the sample heterogeneous, and not homogeneous. The failure would not be contamination per se. Contamination would be introducing impurities through contact. Heterogeneous would mean there's a piece of cloth that is from a different time period, like from a patch.
As for charred areas, I'm not so sure that would make much of a difference. DrNoGods can correct me on this, but I don't believe charring would introduce any new organic material.

"The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.

Yes, this statement is from the official Nature C-14 report. This conclusively proves the report is overstating their findings. The C-14 dating is not conclusive evidence as I've already argued. If anyone wants to accept the TS C-14 dating is conclusive evidence, then C-14 dating of coal deposits is conclusive evidence evolution is wrong.

C-14 dating was hardly a "new and untried technique in 1988, having been invented in 1946 and was and is widely used by geologists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other investigators.

Where did I say say C-14 dating was "new and untried technique in 1988"? Please point to the post where I said that, otherwise this is the false attribution fallacy.

How many holes and strips do you want cut from this 'Holy Relic' that you believe touched the body of Christ?

My personal belief is the C-14 scientists had their shot at dating it and they botched it. They do not deserve a second chance.

Nonetheless, yes "After studying the data for two years, the new research team announced that the study from 1988 was flawed because it did not involve study of the entire shroud—just some edge pieces."

Yes, this is just one of the many flaws in the testing procedure.

I would love to see more samples taken from other parts of the shroud.

The problem is C-14 is a destructive test. How many destructive tests do skeptics need? What I would love to see are more non-destructive tests done.

We can presume the Vatican knows that taking and testing more samples will only confirm previous tests, that the shroud is mediaeval.

How would the Vatican know this? All other evidence points to its authenticity. It is only the 1988 C-14 dating that points to it being medieval.

It would help your argument if you used legitimate scientific sources instead of spurious, highly interested, non scientific, non peer reviewed specious religious blogs and conferences that make money bilking the gullible. This entire thread of yours has consisted, from one issue to the next, by quoting sources every bit as reliable as "Aliens Created the Pyramids" books and blogs. You do this with the FACT of evolution and the goofy films on the "history" of the Israelites. It does not matter HOW MANY spurious sources you use, Zero + Zero x Zero = ZERO.

Earth "Science" Guy does the same thing, using nonsense like "ResearchGate" and other social networking sources that allow people to share all kinds of unscientific, non peer reviewed worthless gunk along with actual scientific papers.

The Vatican itself does not claim the shroud to be authentic, but a matter of faith or an "icon." The Church has stated this on numerous occaisions, including:
"On 30 March 2013, as part of the Easter celebrations, there was an exposition of the shroud in the Cathedral of Turin. Pope Francis recorded a video message for the occasion, in which he described the image on the shroud as "this Icon of a man", and stated that "the Man of the Shroud invites us to contemplate Jesus of Nazareth."[38][39] In his carefully worded statement, Pope Francis urged the faithful to contemplate the shroud with awe, but "stopped firmly short of asserting its authenticity".[39]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

The CHURCH controlled where and how the samples were taken. The CHURCH could take more samples from many places on the 'shroud.' The CHURCH is in complete and sole possession of this object. They aren't interested in providing more proof that it is a FAKE.

My personal belief is the C-14 scientists had their shot at dating it and they botched it. They do not deserve a second chance.

I found this particularly revealing, that YOU don't want it retested either. Yes, let's talk about it, use fake resources of the order of Erich von Däniken, but whatever you do, for Heaven's Sake, DON'T TEST IT.
As DrNoGods wrote, the issue is not with C-14 dating, but on the sample THE VATICAN CHOSE, to let them test.



Still waiting for your "new evidence" on C-14 dating. So far all you've got is YOUR claim that C-14 dating disproves evolution.

[Thomas123]

This Turin Shroud charade is starting to really get up my nose. I want it gone,...I feel like knocking tables!

Disgraceful!

Within a hierarchial church the power and influence, of the Pope and his Cardinals is 'breathtaking'. Just like Putin's nuclear arsenal, they continue to pull the strings on events.

They are so unsure of themselves that they run for cover on this. Nobody should want this thing authenticated more than the Church. Are they so enfeebled that they need the support of a worthless rag?
What a sad joke!

[otseng]

It would help your argument if you used legitimate scientific sources instead of spurious, highly interested, non scientific, non peer reviewed specious religious blogs and conferences that make money bilking the gullible.

It would help if you addressed my questions, instead of constantly making baseless accusations.

Please cite where I've used sources that are "spurious, highly interested, non scientific, non peer reviewed specious religious blogs and conferences that make money bilking the gullible" regarding the TS. Instead of questioning me and my sources, you need to provide counter-evidence.

And how exactly is your citation of Erich von Däniken relevant to the TS except for the purpose of mocking? Why should skeptics constantly need to resort to the appeal to ridicule fallacy?

The Vatican itself does not claim the shroud to be authentic, but a matter of faith or an "icon."

Interesting that you'd quote the Vatican as evidence. If they said it was authentic, would you accept that?

The CHURCH controlled where and how the samples were taken. The CHURCH could take more samples from many places on the 'shroud.' The CHURCH is in complete and sole possession of this object.

Yes, but the C-14 labs agreed to them. They had the chance to withdraw as Gove had quipped, "I hope the three laboratories stand firm and say to hell with you, let's get a result we all believe in, or leave it undated."

As I mentioned at the outset, everyone involved in the C-14 dating was guilty in contributing to the procedural problems:

Before I get into the details of the procedural problems, I want to note not one particular group involved bears all the guilt, but all groups involved in the C-14 dating bears responsibility. Some even might have good reasons to introduce procedural violations. But for the most part, they should've known better.

I found this particularly revealing, that YOU don't want it retested either.

I'm not against another C-14 testing provided they can avoid procedural problems. The C-14 testing failed miserably at this, so I'm highly doubtful a second chance would be free of procedural problems.

But again, each time C-14 testing is done it destroys part of the shroud. Why are skeptics so keen on destroying it?

There are plenty of non-destructive tests on the shroud that have not even been done yet. The STURP II team proposed over two dozen additional tests. Why should tests that have not been done yet be completely rejected in favor of repeating a test that is destructive? These additional proposed tests should take precedence over another C-14 test.

As DrNoGods wrote, the issue is not with C-14 dating, but on the sample THE VATICAN CHOSE, to let them test.

Do you agree that the C-14 labs went along with it? If you agree, then they are culpable also.

So far all you've got is YOUR claim that C-14 dating disproves evolution.

I'm not claiming I've disproved evolution. I'm simply showing the reasoning that if C-14 conclusively shows the TS is a fake, then the same thing can be said to conclusively show evolution is a fake. It is not me that is claiming C-14 is conclusive evidence, but shroud skeptics. So, if they are to be consistent and not appeal to special pleading, then C-14 tests likewise conclusively disproves evolution.