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
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 #1921

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:25 pm This hardly is analogous with the problems of the resurrection and if 'witness error' is used to excuse it, why would we credit the accounts in the first place?
The fundamental issue we're discussing is the resurrection of Jesus. What testimony from the Bible is in contrast to this actually occurring?

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 #1922

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 4:05 pm The fundamental screwup seems to be by the people who chose the sample, along with their (apparent) refusal to subsequently allow more testing to definitively answer the question as to when the shroud was made. If there was any conspiracy, it seems the finger should be pointed at the people who control access to the shroud as they evidently don't want the correct answer.
All who participated in the C-14 screwed up. Whether you believe it's primarily the church's fault or whether I believe it's primarily the labs' fault, it doesn't really matter. But, the fact there were a series of procedural violations is without question.
The others may be sloppy or not the ideal protocol, but don't necessarily render the measurement results themselves void.
Again, actually I believe the raw dates from the labs are correct. But, the procedural violations would make it a scientific "mistrial" and make the entire result void, even if they had happened to get a 1st century C-14 date.

Later I will be presenting evidence why it resulted in a medieval date.

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 #1923

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 4:05 pm along with their (apparent) refusal to subsequently allow more testing to definitively answer the question as to when the shroud was made.
Technically, I don't think the church has explicitly stated no further C-14 testing will be allowed on the shroud. However, I believe the RCC will never allow another test on the TS outside of the church, whether it be C-14 or any non-destructive testing.

The 1988 C-14 test has been the only test that has been authorized by the church. And as I've argued, the entire process of the C-14 testing was flawed. Though in some cases, the church was at fault, in the majority of cases, it was the fault of the C-14 labs and the British Museum. Not only that, the labs demonstrated improper behavior and misconduct. Their motivation was not to do unbiased science, but to further their own agenda.
Gonella accuses the laboratories of "intoxication by success" and adds: "Misconducts there
were tons. The colleagues of the 14 C behaved in a disgusting manner. Those scientists have
hatched a true plot to discredit the Shroud. At first, when they did ask us to examine a sample
of the Shroud, assured us of the utmost seriousness and completeness of the analyses, along
with the collaboration with the Custodian of the Shroud, that is the Bishop of Turin, and his
scientific advisor, i.e. the undersigned. Driven by celebrity fever, those scientists began to turn
their backs on their own commitments: no more interdisciplinary examinations, only 14 C. They
flooded even Rome with pressures so that Turin had to accept their conditions. They used the
then president of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, professor Chagas, to get the
undersigned out of the way and go their own way".

Gonella explains: "It was blackmail. They put us up against the wall just with a blackmail.
Either we accepted the test of 14 C on the terms imposed by the laboratories, or it would break
out a campaign of accusations saying the Church fears the truth and is an enemy of science."
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marinelliv.pdf

For the STURP tests, the shroud was still owned by the Savoy family, not by the RCC, so it was King Umberto II that authorized the STURP testing, not the Vatican.
Most people tend to think of the Shroud of Turin as a "Catholic" relic. While the Church does have a long history with the Shroud, many people don’t know that the Holy See only took ownership of the cloth in 1985, after the last King of Italy, Umberto II, of the House of Savoy, bequeathed it after his death in 1983.
https://www.academia.edu/51155842/The_H ... d_of_Turin

The only body that would probably be able to test the shroud now is the church's own scientific body - the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. And they release very little of their workings to the public on the shroud.

In 2002, the RCC performed a restoration of the TS. They did this without consulting any external scientific body, including any of the original STURP members.
Experts performed a top-secret restoration of the Shroud of Turin, removing centuries' old patches and replacing a backing sewn centuries ago onto what some say was the burial cloth of Jesus, Church officials announced Saturday.

The restoration was carried out with explicit Vatican permission, and aimed only to protect and document the artifact.

The project consisted of three main elements: the removal of patches and a backing sewn onto the Shroud in the 16th century; a digital scan of both sides; and photo documentation.

The restoration was done June 20 to July 23 by Shroud expert Mechthild Flury Lemberg and restorer Irene Tomedi. Vague reports of the project leaked to the media in August, enraging other Shroud experts, who argued that the work should have involved less secrecy and more international collaboration.
https://azdailysun.com/details-of-secre ... 978f2.html

The 2002 restoration is evidence the church will not allow any external body to be involved with a hands on study of the shroud anymore.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7680
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 902 times
Been thanked: 3423 times

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

Post #1924

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 5:45 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat Feb 25, 2023 10:25 pm This hardly is analogous with the problems of the resurrection and if 'witness error' is used to excuse it, why would we credit the accounts in the first place?
The fundamental issue we're discussing is the resurrection of Jesus. What testimony from the Bible is in contrast to this actually occurring?
I'm sure we have done this before - more than once, perhaps. The terminal contradictions in the story do for it. So much so that it is evidence that there was no original story - which explains why Mark doesn't have one. The crucifixion, as a contrast, does have a common original story for all four, give or take changes and additions. The last thing the Gospels agree on is the empty tomb. Not even the angelic message is reliable, as John doesn't have one. You will probably recall that I have already said that 'They all agree the resurrection' is not evidence, it is the claim they all made up their stories to validate. So the empty tomb is the last thing they all agree on and you may recall that I even raised some points about signs of plot - construction there, too.

That, succinctly, is the case.I am more than ready to deep- dive into it.

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 #1925

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:07 am I'm sure we have done this before - more than once, perhaps. The terminal contradictions in the story do for it. So much so that it is evidence that there was no original story - which explains why Mark doesn't have one. The crucifixion, as a contrast, does have a common original story for all four, give or take changes and additions. The last thing the Gospels agree on is the empty tomb. Not even the angelic message is reliable, as John doesn't have one. You will probably recall that I have already said that 'They all agree the resurrection' is not evidence, it is the claim they all made up their stories to validate. So the empty tomb is the last thing they all agree on and you may recall that I even raised some points about signs of plot - construction there, too.

That, succinctly, is the case.I am more than ready to deep- dive into it.
These are all the minor discrepancies surrounding the resurrection. Yes, your case before is the cumulative case of all these minor discrepancies make the resurrection itself suspect. This would be true if inerrancy is assumed. But, in this thread, inerrancy is not assumed.

So, you'll need to provide testimony that directly counters the resurrection. As far as I know, there is only one reference to that in the Bible. I'll leave it to you to find it.

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7680
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 902 times
Been thanked: 3423 times

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

Post #1926

Post by TRANSPONDER »

otseng wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:20 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:07 am I'm sure we have done this before - more than once, perhaps. The terminal contradictions in the story do for it. So much so that it is evidence that there was no original story - which explains why Mark doesn't have one. The crucifixion, as a contrast, does have a common original story for all four, give or take changes and additions. The last thing the Gospels agree on is the empty tomb. Not even the angelic message is reliable, as John doesn't have one. You will probably recall that I have already said that 'They all agree the resurrection' is not evidence, it is the claim they all made up their stories to validate. So the empty tomb is the last thing they all agree on and you may recall that I even raised some points about signs of plot - construction there, too.

That, succinctly, is the case.I am more than ready to deep- dive into it.
These are all the minor discrepancies surrounding the resurrection. Yes, your case before is the cumulative case of all these minor discrepancies make the resurrection itself suspect. This would be true if inerrancy is assumed. But, in this thread, inerrancy is not assumed.

So, you'll need to provide testimony that directly counters the resurrection. As far as I know, there is only one reference to that in the Bible. I'll leave it to you to find it.
The discrepancies are more than minor - there are terminally serious contradictions. Many of them omissions which by all reason should have been at least hinted at by one of the others.

I already mentioned that John has no angelic message. Moreover, when the women get back to the disciples, they do not know where Jesus has got to. This is good reason why John rebuts the angelic message.

The women run into Jesus on the way back from the tomb. Nobody else mentions this. It is solid reason why Matthew's claim is not credible.

Luke refuted John's account of doubting Thomas. Not only does he not mention in his account of Jesus turning up and his 40 day scriptural lecture afterwards, but he says the 'eleven'(less Judas) were there.

There is also Matthew's tomb - guard not hinted at by any of the others. While not 'doctrinally' important (as I recall one apologists argued about the Nativity), it shows reason (in the light of the other contradictions) why this can be considered invention, and we know why - because it was said that the disciples took the body, so Matthew invented a guard to rebut that idea. Even though they could have taken Jesus away before the guard arrived.

Reasonably, such indications of invented stories explain why Mark has no resurrection story beyond the empty tomb and angelic message which John refutes, anyway.

Even if you reject all this (and there is a lot more) it is good reason why an atheist, or even a rational Christian, would ask a few questions. I can expect excuses; I have seen many of them. The one about the women splitting up did not really wash. Nor did the one about Mary Magdalene not going into the tomb.Nor of course the argument that Jesus appears Sunday night but they all trooped off to Galilee anyway because the angelic message in Matthew and Mark (not Luke or John) said they should. Moreover, Luke makes it clear that Jesus hung around until he ascended at the start of Acts. There was no time for a trip to Galilee, even if there had been any point in it.

Even making stuff up does not work. I do not know what will other than faithbased denail. Which I expect. I do not expect attacks on my writing style as not being respectful enough.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 482 times

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

Post #1927

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #1925
This would be true if inerrancy is assumed. But, in this thread, inerrancy is not assumed.
If you're not assuming inerrancy, then you can't assume the veracity of the accounts.

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 #1928

Post by otseng »

TRANSPONDER wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:50 am
otseng wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:20 am So, you'll need to provide testimony that directly counters the resurrection. As far as I know, there is only one reference to that in the Bible. I'll leave it to you to find it.
The discrepancies are more than minor - there are terminally serious contradictions. Many of them omissions which by all reason should have been at least hinted at by one of the others.
You brought up more non-doctrinal issues and did not even address my challenge of providing a single reference that counters the claim Jesus was resurrected from the dead. Again, what you appeal to is inerrancy of scripture in which every statement in the Bible must be factually correct or else the Bible is entirely false. Inerrancy is not assumed to be true in this thread. We can even assume all the gospels are incorrect in their recollection of how many angels were at the tomb, how many women went to the tomb, and how many guards were at the tomb, and it would still not falsify the resurrection. All of these are incidental to the resurrection.
Athetotheist wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 10:41 am
This would be true if inerrancy is assumed. But, in this thread, inerrancy is not assumed.
If you're not assuming inerrancy, then you can't assume the veracity of the accounts.
How many historical documents are inerrant?

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 #1929

Post by otseng »

After the 1988 C-14 dating results, pretty much it convinced the world that the TS was a fake. Even many STURP scientists had blindly accepted it and stopped their research on it.

Many years later, it was a housewife, who was not even a shroud professional, that turned it all upside down. Sue Benford brought up her idea to her husband, Joe Marino, that the C-14 sample cloth did not look right. The yarns were not consistent on different parts of the sample.

Image

They researched and presented their invisible patch theory at the Sindone 2000 Worldwide Congress in Orvieto, Italy.

Excerpts from their paper...
Abstract: In 1988, Carbon-14 findings from three Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS)
Labs independently dated a sample removed from the Shroud of Turin: unarguably the
most widely studied linen cloth in history. The dates reported ranged between 1260 -
1390 A.D.; thus, leading to the conclusion that the cloth originated in the middle ages.
This paper, previously presented on August 28, 2000 at the Worldwide Congress
"Sindone 2000" in Orvieto, Italy, presents evidence that the sample tested by the three
AMS labs contained a "patch" of material from the 16th Century. The authors examine
the theory that this extraneous material was skillfully spliced into the 1st Century original
Shroud cloth in the C-14 sample used by the laboratories for testing. According to
hypothetical calculations performed by AMS laboratory, Beta Analytic, the world's
largest radiocarbon dating service, the observed proportion of medieval material in
relationship to assumed 1st Century material, closely matches the findings of the AMS
Labs in 1988.

In light of the compelling evidence that we are about to present, we believe that the
theory that the Shroud has literally been patched with medieval material from the 16 th
century, in the C-14 sample itself, explains the medieval carbon dating results.

Giovanni Riggi, the person who actually cut the C-14 sample, which was from the
same area from which the 1973 “Raes piece” was taken, stated:
1I was authorized to cut approximately 8 square centimetres of cloth from the
Shroud…This was then reduced to about 7 cm because fibres of other origins had become
mixed up with the original fabric …(Riggi 1988:182).

Italian author Giorgio Tessiore, discussing the sample taking, noted, “…1 cm of the new
sample had to be discarded because of the presence of different color threads” (Tessiore,
1988:44).

Upon microscopic examination of the Oxford C-14 sample, Professor Edward Hall,
head of the Oxford lab, noticed fibers that looked out of place. A laboratory in
Derbyshire determined that the rogue fibers were cotton of “a fine, dark yellow strand.”
According to Peter South of the lab, “It may have been used for repairs at some time in
the past…” (Rogue Fibres found in the Shroud, 1988:13).

Professor Raes, who extracted the above cited Shroud sample in 1973, believes
that in the 1988 Oxford sample he examined, the cotton he observed was contained inside
the threads, which could help to explain the difference in fiber diameter (Raes, 1989).
We believe that the heavier, blended material may explain why the C-14 sample
apparently weighed about twice as much as expected (Petrosillo and Marinelli, 1996:63).

Not only is the radiocarbon sample atypical of the main Shroud cloth, but statistician
Bryan Walsh shows that the data indicate that there is a 97.7% chance that the C-14
subsamples themselves are from different populations, and in this case, the population
would refer to the threads. (Walsh, 1999).

Further, to pass the Chi Square test, which determines comparability of two or more
disparate samples, statisticians tell us that the calculated value should be lower than 6.
The Chi Square test value for the Shroud is 6.4, meaning that the subsamples cannot be
considered identical, or rather, from the same representative sample (Van Haelst,
1991:5).

The labs produced a wide range of dates, with the range between 1238 and 1430 for
Arizona and the average dates for Oxford and Zurich falling between the oldest and
youngest dates obtained by Arizona.


A striking similarity can be observed between the angle at which the C-14 rate
changes and the angle at which the disparate weave intersects the Shroud weave. Note
the correlation between the angle of what appears as the patch of medieval material
spliced into the original weave, and what Walsh has portrayed statistically.

If one looks at the location from which the Shroud samples were taken for each of the
three labs, it can be seen that the C-14 dates correspond closely to the change in weave
percentage. This would resolve the question as to why Arizona’s results were both the
oldest and youngest of the three labs.

In a second blinded examination of photographs of both the Zurich and uncut C-14
samples, European-trained weaver David Pearson, owner of the French Tailors in
Columbus, Ohio, immediately recognized the disparate weave pattern and differences in
thread size, stating "there is no question that there is different material on each side…It is
definitely a patch."

Due to its adjacent location next to the excised region and C-14 sample, it is highly
likely that the Raes sample also contained the 16th century patch. In Raes’ examinations
of his 1973 samples (Raes, 1976:86) and the 1988 Oxford C-14 sample (Raes, 1989), he
reported the presence of cotton fibers. More importantly, he detected two pieces of
material sewn together, noting, “The thread used for sewing the two pieces together
is…twisted in an S-direction, whereas the individual threads are twisted in a Z-direction”
(Raes 1976:85). Here Raes is referring to the connection between the fabric and the
seam, which raises further suspicions of a patch, since studies have shown that the side
strip is, in actuality, a continuation of the main Shroud (Schwalbe and Rogers, 1982:42;
Adler, 1997).
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/marben.pdf

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 482 times

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

Post #1930

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #1928
How many historical documents are inerrant?
How many historical documents are supposed to be the basis for the belief that someone rose from the dead?

Post Reply