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: 20689
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 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
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20689
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #1871

Post by otseng »

Another evidence the Raes corner is not representative of the shroud is the Quad Mosaic imaging.

Image
These color images should be interpreted as chemical composition maps. We
don't know from the images what these chemicals are, only that they are not
the same everywhere. The same color in two locations indicates a likelihood that the
same chemistry exists at both locations.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/quad.pdf

So, chemically, the Raes corner is an anomalous section of the shroud. This is another clue why the C-14 dating is suspect. I'll get into the details of that later when discussing theories why the C-14 has a medieval date.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 898 times
Been thanked: 1309 times

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

Post #1872

Post by Diogenes »

[Replying to otseng in post #1871]

The complete quote with emphasis applied to the part you did not include:
"These color images should be interpreted as chemical composition maps (emphasis
mine). We don't know from the images what these chemicals are, only that they are not
the same everywhere. The same color in two locations indicates a likelihood that the
same chemistry exists at both locations. Beware that these are radiometrically
uncalibrated cameras. One must be cautious in over interpreting them since we had to
struggle to get them into a form we could enhance, a process requiring some creativity.

It is unquestioned that the Church selected the location for the sample that is dated to about 1300 CE. It is not questioned that the church refuses to provide additional samples. The major complaint about the C-14 dating by STURP is the location of the sample.
It is worse than silly to blame STURP for the location of the samples which were chosen by the Vatican, hence the comparison to von Däniken.

Yes C-14 dating is destructive, but with the AMS technique as little as 20 milligrams (0.000705479 oz. or .02 gram) is required.
https://www.radiocarbon.com/accelerator ... ometry.htm
Surely the Church could take random samples of that size if they really wanted it retested.

It is unquestioned that the Church does not claim the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus. It has previously been pronounced a fraud by Church leaders. There is no mention of the Shroud of Turin earlier than the C-14 date suggests for it. There have been specious claims that the Image of Edessa is a reference to the Shroud of Turin, but there is no linkage to the ST.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_of_ ... entury.jpg
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
The Nice Centurion
Guru
Posts: 1011
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 12:47 pm
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 106 times

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

Post #1873

Post by The Nice Centurion »

There is at least one another burial cloth of Christ.
https://www.catholicculture.org/culture ... ecnum=3953

Resources HomeLibraryWhat You Need to KnowCatholic DictionaryCatechismChurch FathersMost CollectionFree eBooks
Catholic Culture News
The Other Shroud of Christ

by Mary Jo Anderson

DESCRIPTION
An analysis of the evidence supporting the Sudarium—the face cloth used in the burial of Christ—and its relationship to the Shroud of Turin. The blood type on the Sudarium is the same as that of the Shroud, as well as the pattern of the blood on the cloth. This is significant, for unlike the Shroud, the history of the Sudarium is known. It can actually be traced back with certainty to 718 A.D. If the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium were both used for the same man, this may solve the disputes over the Carbon-14 test that dated the Shroud to the 14th century.

LARGER WORK
Crisis

PUBLISHER & DATE
The Morley Institute, April 2001


Shop: Roman Catholic "RC" Brand Original Black Logo Collection Mug
A little-known relic in Oviedo, Spain, called the Sudarium, the cloth said to have covered Jesus' face after He was crucified, may be the key to unveiling the mystery of the Shroud of Turin. The history and scientific findings respecting the Sudarium, often called the "Cloth of Oviedo," provide an unfolding story that rivals the most pious fiction.

As debates have intensified about the Shroud, the 14-foot swath of linen enshrined in the Cathedral of Turin, Italy, that is believed by many to be the burial cloth of Christ, it appears that the Sudarium may be evidence of the authenticity of the Shroud. Hidden from public view for more than a millennium, the Sudarium of Oviedo is thrusting into the modern world fresh testimony about the suffering and death of a man crucified many centuries ago.

New investigations of the two burial cloths have compared blood types, patterns of stains, facial geometry, and pollen in an effort to find scientific data from the Cloth of Oviedo that might prove whether it covered the same man whose tortured image is preserved on the Shroud.
“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. But if you drown a man in a fish pond, he will never have to go hungry again🐟

"Only Experts in Reformed Egyptian should be allowed to critique the Book of Mormon❗"

"Joseph Smith can't possibly have been a deceiver.
For if he had been, the Angel Moroni never would have taken the risk of enthrusting him with the Golden Plates❗"

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 898 times
Been thanked: 1309 times

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

Post #1874

Post by Diogenes »

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1873]

More utter nonsense of course.
The cloth has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo

Despite being dated 600 years earlier than the Shroud of Turin, believers have linked the two. A 6 century discrepancy aside, one would think the facecloth would have been the cloth closest to the face of the deceased. Yet it is less distinct than the image on the Shroud of Turin.

Image
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20689
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #1875

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 3:01 pm [Replying to otseng in post #1871]

The complete quote with emphasis applied to the part you did not include:
"These color images should be interpreted as chemical composition maps (emphasis
mine). We don't know from the images what these chemicals are, only that they are not
the same everywhere. The same color in two locations indicates a likelihood that the
same chemistry exists at both locations. Beware that these are radiometrically
uncalibrated cameras. One must be cautious in over interpreting them since we had to
struggle to get them into a form we could enhance, a process requiring some creativity.
Yes, I'm not claiming it is conclusive evidence (unlike skeptics that like to overstate their claims). I only present this as additional corroborating evidence the Raes corner is not representative of the entire shroud (in addition to the evidence it was a spot commonly held). I'll present more evidence later it is an anomalous sample when discussing theories why the C-14 dating is a medieval date.
It is unquestioned that the Church selected the location for the sample that is dated to about 1300 CE.
Like I mentioned before, all parties were involved in the procedural errors, including the RCC. I'll next be presenting procedural errors that the church was not responsible for.
It is worse than silly to blame STURP for the location of the samples which were chosen by the Vatican[/size], hence the comparison to von Däniken.
What are you talking about? Who's blaming STURP? Why make up a claim in order to justify bringing up von Däniken (which also has nothing to do with the shroud)?
Yes C-14 dating is destructive, but with the AMS technique as little as 20 milligrams (0.000705479 oz. or .02 gram) is required.
Each lab got a postage stamp sized area of the shroud. It's easily visible that a section is missing for any casual observer of the shroud.
Surely the Church could take random samples of that size if they really wanted it retested.
Like saying anyone can cut a section of the Mona Lisa to date it, it'd only be a small section.
It is unquestioned that the Church does not claim the shroud is the burial cloth of Jesus.
Since you accept the testimony of the RCC, Pope Benedict XVI has said it is authentic:
Dismissing skeptics on Sunday when he visited the Shroud of Turin, Pope Benedict XVI said the burial cloth was none other than the same robe that once 'wrapped the remains' of Jesus Christ.
https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/ ... e-of-Jesus
There is no mention of the Shroud of Turin earlier than the C-14 date suggests for it.
I had already discussed the Pray Codex, which dates before the 1260 - 1390 C-14 dating.
The Pray Codex, also called Codex Pray or The Hungarian Pray Manuscript, is a collection of medieval manuscripts, dated to the late 12th to early 13th centuries. In 1813 it was named after György Pray, who discovered it in 1770. It is the first known example of continuous prose text in Hungarian. The Codex is kept in the National Széchényi Library of Budapest.

One of the most well-known documents within the Codex (f. 154a) is the Funeral Sermon and Prayer (Hungarian: Halotti beszéd és könyörgés). It is an old handwritten Hungarian text dating to 1192-1195.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_Codex

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20689
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #1876

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:30 pm [Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #1873]

More utter nonsense of course.
The cloth has been dated to around 700 AD by radiocarbon dating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudarium_of_Oviedo
I'll talk about the Sudarium of Oviedo after I talk about the TS, which will be much later.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20689
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #1877

Post by otseng »

Rigorous scientific tests should involve blind testing.
In a blind or blinded experiment, information which may influence the participants of the experiment is withheld until after the experiment is complete. Good blinding can reduce or eliminate experimental biases that arise from a participants' expectations, observer's effect on the participants, observer bias, confirmation bias, and other sources.

Blinding is an important tool of the scientific method, and is used in many fields of research. In some fields, such as medicine, it is considered essential.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blinded_experiment

In addition to testing the shroud, control samples with known dating to the overseer, but unknown to the labs, would test the accuracy of the C-14 results. All of the samples should not be known by the labs whether it is the actual shroud or control samples. By doing a blind testing, it would remove all bias.

However, blind testing was not done. All labs knew which sample was from the shroud. Further, all labs knew ahead of time the dates of the control samples.
The blind-test method was abandoned, because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, and it was therefore still possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin
The laboratories were not told which container held the shroud sample. Because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, however, it was possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample.
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
The three control samples, the approximate ages of which were made known to the laboratories, are listed below.
https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm
All was proceeding well until, one by one, the protocols established by Tite to
ensure an accurate dating were, for various reasons, set aside. This included the
"Blind Test" provision. Tite had failed to find suitable medieval linens with the same weave as the Shroud as control samples.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n89part2.pdf
Regarding the control samples, the labs were inexplicably told beforehand the dates of the
samples, negating any significant value to that aspect.

The labs were told the age of the historical
known-age control pieces, a fact that rather diminished their value as controls.
Paradoxically, the pretense of "blind testing" was maintained for the whole dating
exercise, despite the fact that everyone knew that the Shroud weave was easily recognizable.
http://newvistas.homestead.com/POLITICS ... UD_PT2.pdf

Prior to the dating results, Harry Gove criticized discarding blind testing. But after the results were announced, he backtracked on his own criticism.
In a later letter to the editor in Nature, a reader asked about the
procedures. Tite would answer that it happened to follow the blind procedure,
even if this aspect was “quite illogical, because in that moment we knew that
because of the unusual weaving of the Shroud, the blind test was not feasible
without unraveling the samples.
http://newvistas.homestead.com/POLITICS ... UD_PT2.pdf
Harry Gove, director of Rochester's laboratory (one of the four not selected by the Vatican), argued in an open letter published in Nature[28] that discarding the blind-test method would expose the results – whatever they may be – to suspicion of unreliability. However, in a 1990 paper Gove conceded that the "arguments often raised, … that radiocarbon measurements on the shroud should be performed blind seem to the author to be lacking in merit; … lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin

Seriously? "lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result"? Instead, this is another breach of the scientific process.
On the following day the Vatican Press Office issued a bulletin, published by the
Osservatore Romano 92 , where, among other things, it is written: “The samples, of the total
mass of about 150 mg, were obtained by cutting a strip of about 1 cm x 7 cm”. It is also
specified that the control samples “come from a cloth dating from the first century A.D. and a
cloth from the eleventh century A.D.; a fourth sample, dating from about 1300 A.D., was
provided as an additional control. There is also a specification on the sampling area: “The
sampling site was chosen so as to ensure that the sample belonged to the main body of the
Holy Shroud and that its removal could cause the least possible damage to the fabric”.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marinelliv.pdf
The fact is that having inopportunely renounced the double-blind
procedure, they calmly told the laboratories the ages of the witness samples!
The results were invalidated by procedural defects.

Dr. Jerome LeJeune of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences,
September 1989.
https://www.academia.edu/35676841/Polit ... Dating_S25

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1360
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 898 times
Been thanked: 1309 times

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

Post #1878

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:58 pm Each lab got a postage stamp sized area of the shroud. It's easily visible that a section is missing for any casual observer of the shroud.
....
Since you accept the testimony of the RCC, Pope Benedict XVI has said it is authentic:
....
What are you talking about? Who's blaming STURP? Why make up a claim in order to justify bringing up von Däniken (which also has nothing to do with the shroud)?
You did. You claimed they bungled their testing and shouldn't have a second chance, ignoring the fact the Vatican selected the sample for them to test.

As for the Mona Lisa, no one is disputing the date of its production by 1300 years. But I agree they are similar in that they are both works of the artists' hand. :)

By fussing about postage stamp sized holes being taken from the shroud, you are ignoring what I wrote. New testing methods would only require 20 milligrams, a pin point, not a postage stamp. Neither you nor the Church really want it tested. You can make all the excuses you want, but you admitted you don't want a retest.

As to Pope Ratzinger, whose allegiance was to Nazi Germany until 1945,
Image

he did not speak ex cathedra. He just lipped off with his opinion which contradicts the RCC position on the shroud being a symbol, but never endorsed as authentic.
If you can, please cite an authentic reference re: the Vatican or the RCC pronouncing the Shroud of Turin to be authentic as the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth.
The STURP report itself says it has no reason to dispute the "14th Century" dating" despite the questions raised.
[see #2, https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wmeacha ... turp88.pdf ]
___________________________________

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

— Confucius

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 #1879

Post by Thomas123 »

Just another post for this thread,....I still haven't, totally calmed down, osteng. This comes to mind...

Matthew 23
23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

The truth will out,.....eventually!

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20689
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

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

Post #1880

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 8:26 pm
otseng wrote: Wed Feb 15, 2023 7:58 pm What are you talking about? Who's blaming STURP? Why make up a claim in order to justify bringing up von Däniken (which also has nothing to do with the shroud)?
You did. You claimed they bungled their testing and shouldn't have a second chance, ignoring the fact the Vatican selected the sample for them to test.
Please cite the post where I said STURP was responsible. Also, in the future, if you claim I said something, post the reference to it also instead of just making the assertion.
As for the Mona Lisa, no one is disputing the date of its production by 1300 years. But I agree they are similar in that they are both works of the artists' hand.
OK, produce your evidence the TS is the work of an artist. I've been waiting for this for a long time in this thread and nobody has produced any.
New testing methods would only require 20 milligrams, a pin point, not a postage stamp.
Smaller than a postage stamp, but it would not be a "pin point". The total mass of the 1988 C-14 cut strip was 200 mg with an area of 10 cm^2. so 20 mg would be 1 square centimeter.

"In April 1988, about 10 cm^2 (or approximately 200 mg) of Shroud material was removed for radiocarbon dating from a single location near that of the 1973 Raes sample."
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wmeacha ... turp88.pdf

The diameter of a pin point is roughly 1.5 mm, which would make the area of the point 1.77 mm^2. This is not even close to 1 cm^2.
Neither you nor the Church really want it tested. You can make all the excuses you want, but you admitted you don't want a retest.
Do you want the other dozens of tests proposed by STURP II to be done?
Why should another C-14 take precedence to tests that have not been done?
How do you know the C-14 test would be able to follow basic procedures if they can't the first time?

For my position, if the sample was actually a pin point and all the basic procedures are followed, then I would not be opposed to another C-14 test after all the other STURP II tests have been done.
As to Pope Ratzinger, whose allegiance was to Nazi Germany until 1945
However, he still managed to become the Pope.
he did not speak ex cathedra.
Did any of the Popes say anything about the shroud ex cathedra?

Post Reply