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]

I myself wouldn't go so far as to say that falsifying the TS would in itself falsify the resurrection, but since you're going that far let's look at the territory it takes us into.

As far as I know, I'm the only one that claims this. I've not read or heard of any other shroud proponent that makes this claim.

Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
(1Corinthians 11:14)

Would the author of those words have considered the Shroud of Turin genuine?

Actually, I do believe Paul considered the TS genuine, but that is a separate argument for later.

As for long hair, you don't even need to go to the TS to argue about hair length. People in the OT also had long hair.

[Jdg 16:17 KJV] 17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I [have been] a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any [other] man.

So, how would Paul have viewed people who vowed to be a Nazarite?

And it even seemed like Paul had long hair at some point.

[Act 18:18 KJV] 18 And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

The TS is supposed to show us what Jesus looked like, but Paul's own writing tells us that whoever supposedly met him on the road to Damascus did not look like the figure on the cloth.

The image on the TS is what Jesus looked like before the resurrection. As for what Jesus looked like after the resurrection, it is obvious from multiple passages he looked different. Even his disciples had trouble recognizing him.

[Jhn 21:4, 12 KJV] 4 But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore: but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. ... 12 Jesus saith unto them, Come [and] dine. And none of the disciples durst ask him, Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.

[otseng]

As I mentioned before, I actually believe the raw dates of the C-14 from the labs are correct. The reason it has a medieval date is because the C-14 sample also contained recent material. As proposed by Benford and Marino, it contained a cotton fabric that was used to repair that section of the shroud and it also was dyed to match the existing linen.

Supporting evidence:

1. The quad mosaic imaging shows the Raes corner is chemically different.

viewtopic.php?p=1112222#p1112222

2. Benford and Marino presented several lines of evidence the sample was not homogeneous:

- Visual differences in weaving
- Confirmation of reweave from multiple textile experts
- Testimony from Riggi other non-linen fibers were present
- Bryan Walsh analysis of data of a 97.7% chance the 3 labs samples were different

viewtopic.php?p=1113417#p1113417

3. Ray Rogers, the lead chemist of STURP, analyzed a sample from the same section used by the C-14 labs and confirmed cotton and a dye existed.

viewtopic.php?p=1113484#p1113484

4. Robert Villarreal, a Los Alamos National Lab chemist, confirmed chemical differences between the ends of the threads from the sample Rogers gave him.

viewtopic.php?p=1113618#p1113618

5. John Brown, principal research scientist at Georgia Tech Research Institute, studied some threads from the Raes sample and found evidence of cotton threads with dye applied to it.

viewtopic.php?p=1113695#p1113695

6. In Gilbert Raes' report from his sample that was cut in 1973, he had noted the presence of cotton fibers in his sample.

viewtopic.php?p=1113762#p1113762

7. Even in the official 1988 C-14 Nature report there is evidence the lab samples were not homogeneous.

viewtopic.php?p=1113787#p1113787

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #1961

As for long hair, you don't even need to go to the TS to argue about hair length. People in the OT also had long hair.

[Jdg 16:17 KJV] 17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I [have been] a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any [other] man.

So, how would Paul have viewed people who vowed to be a Nazarite?

If he considered them dishonorable, what does that say about his standing as an apostle? If he didn't consider them dishonorable, what does that say about his judgement on hair length?

And it even seemed like Paul had long hair at some point.

[Act 18:18 KJV] 18 And Paul [after this] tarried [there] yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn [his] head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

There seem to be two possibilities here. Either (1.) Paul shore his head because of his belief that having long hair dishonored him or (2.) his hair wasn't long to begin with and he shore off what little he had.

The image on the TS is what Jesus looked like before the resurrection.

If the image on the TS shows what Jesus looked like before his death, then according to Paul he was dishonorable before death. This again means that Paul, having converted to the belief that long hair is a dishonor on men, had not converted to belief in the long-haired Messiah on the TS.

As for what Jesus looked like after the resurrection, it is obvious from multiple passages he looked different. Even his disciples had trouble recognizing him.

What did he do, rise from the dead and make a quick run to the barber so his disciples wouldn't recognize him as the same dishonorable guy they had followed around for three years? Or did he get his slick new crop to hide his seedy past from Paul? If the TS image is what Jesus looked like, what would Jesus have thought of Paul's belief? Would he have thanked Paul for setting him straight after all that time embarrassing himself as a dishonorable Messiah?

[earl]

Replying to post 1963
Jesus's gospel shows no evidence that no one is required to take a vow
Therefore Paul's vow is unrelated to Jesus's gospel.
However Paul did create his own gospel ,based on Jesus's gospel ,and admits such,saying ,"my gospel", also stating he has "no commandment" to inject his personal beliefs in creating doctrines based on Jesus's gospel.
Paul ,in addition ,shows in his letters he has taken a vow of renunciation,stating he would like others to be as he is ,not touching a woman.
His hair cut would then be a personal chance to get extra credit for some belief of his not connected to Jesus's gospel.


Mark 16.12 states Jesus appeared in another form after Mary 's experience to two others.
From this the Jesus post resurrection unrecognizable bodily form began immediately after the resurrection.Note that it was only after the post resurrected Jesus said "Mary" did Mary know Jesus was before her.
Thus Paul would be correct to not recognize who he thought he should recognize. considering he never met him alive as there is no mention in the bible

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to earl in post #1964

Paul did create his own gospel ,based on Jesus's gospel ,and admits such,saying ,"my gospel", also stating he has "no commandment" to inject his personal beliefs in creating doctrines based on Jesus's gospel.
Paul ,in addition ,shows in his letters he has taken a vow of renunciation,stating he would like others to be as he is ,not touching a woman.
His hair cut would then be a personal chance to get extra credit for some belief of his not connected to Jesus's gospel.

At the same time, Paul connected himself to Jesus.

Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. (1 Corinthians 11:1)

Mark 16.12 states Jesus appeared in another form after Mary 's experience to two others.
From this the Jesus post resurrection unrecognizable bodily form began immediately after the resurrection.Note that it was only after the post resurrected Jesus said "Mary" did Mary know Jesus was before her.
Thus Paul would be correct to not recognize who he thought he should recognize. considering he never met him alive as there is no mention in the bible

Considering what Paul writes in 1 Cor. 11:14, whoever he saw could not have looked like the image on the TS, as he would not have held such an individual in high regard.

[earl]

Reply to post 1965
The length of a man's hair is clouded in Paul's letter.What is classified by Paul as long hair in his personal doctrine ?Does he even give an inch?What length is his personal standard of acceptable length for males vs females vs hair arrangements?Shoulder length vs knee length?
There are many people who cut or leave their hair uncut for extra credits in their beliefs.This extra credit has been going on for a very long time.
Paul never saw Jesus's hair length nor did he see the TS.So he is driving blind doctrine,organized uniformity,a standard only he implemented casting a shadow on hair length of unseen Jesus.

The image on the Ts was apparently extremely important ,so much that all science fields that can interact upon it have failed to discover the technique to reproduce the image,so far.As this is continuing and people continue to gaze upon the human image exposed on/in it the person must have been mighty important to ,so important that some one or something made somehow a image of that person on the TS with skill not known to human mind or hands.

So why would someone go beyond current scientific skills to make something that can't be copied or understood? Unless there was a significant reason.

[otseng]

What did he do, rise from the dead and make a quick run to the barber so his disciples wouldn't recognize him as the same dishonorable guy they had followed around for three years? Or did he get his slick new crop to hide his seedy past from Paul? If the TS image is what Jesus looked like, what would Jesus have thought of Paul's belief? Would he have thanked Paul for setting him straight after all that time embarrassing himself as a dishonorable Messiah?

The resurrection occurred before Paul had written anything. So, these would be non sequiturs and not related at all to the argument of the TS. And during the time of Jesus (and even after), the vow of the Nazarite is evidence long hair was allowed by the Jews. So, the issue of hair length in 1 Cor 11 has nothing directly related to the shroud or the resurrection.

The question is more of a hermeneutics issue of how to handle Paul's mention of hair in 1 Cor 11.

Here's the passage:

[1Co 11:1-15 KJV] 1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also [am] of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered [them] to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having [his] head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with [her] head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

Doubtful the point here is giving hair cut lessons or even making a mandate on hair length. He was using hair as an illustration of the main point about authority.

In this passage, the word used for long hair is κομᾷ. This is difficult to fully interpret because this word is only used twice in the NT and only in this passage. The root word of κομᾷ is κόμη and κόμη is only used once and only in this passage as well.

1 Cor 11:14-15 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair (κομᾷ), it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair (κομᾷ), it is a glory to her: for [her] hair (κόμη) is given her for a covering.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

There is another more commonly used term for hair in the NT - θρίξ.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

This is used 15 times in the NT and is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, 1 Peter, and Revelation. So, θρίξ is the more commonly word used for hair.

Obviously there is something different that Paul is trying to convey since he used a unique word for hair. Do we know exactly what it means? I argue we do not since we have only this passage to go from.

As for how the passage should be interpreted, I lean towards how EXB translates it. EXB says "nature" is referring to the Roman custom, not to the entire natural world.

1Cor 11:14-15
14 ·Even [Does not…?] ·nature [or custom; culture] itself teaches you that wearing long hair is shameful for a man [Greco-Roman men normally wore their hair short]. 15 But long hair is a woman’s glory. Long hair is given to her as a covering.

This would make sense to me since Paul was writing to a Roman culture audience and was trying to argue to them about the structure of authority. So he used an illustration that they would understand. So, it's not in conflict the with Jewish custom of the Nazirite vow, which the Corinthians would not have known about.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to earl in post #1966

The length of a man's hair is clouded in Paul's letter.What is classified by Paul as long hair in his personal doctrine ?Does he even give an inch?What length is his personal standard of acceptable length for males vs females vs hair arrangements?Shoulder length vs knee length?

He's distinguishing between hair as worn by men and hair as worn by women and claiming that long hair on men is contrary to nature, which is obviously false since it's nature which gives long hair to men just as it does to women.

The image on the Ts was apparently extremely important ,so much that all science fields that can interact upon it have failed to discover the technique to reproduce the image,so far.As this is continuing and people continue to gaze upon the human image exposed on/in it the person must have been mighty important to ,so important that some one or something made somehow a image of that person on the TS with skill not known to human mind or hands.

So why would someone go beyond current scientific skills to make something that can't be copied or understood? Unless there was a significant reason.

The image would have been important to whoever made it, just as it's important to those who want to believe that it's genuine. But just because it hasn't been exactly replicated doesn't mean that it can't be. Techniques have come close enough to show that the image isn't necessarily anything extraordinary.

Given all the shortcomings and inconsistency in the Christian Bible, it does no good to just say, "See?? Shroud of Turin! It's a miracle!! That proves it!!". For a miracle to mean something, it has to support a more cohesive narrative. That in itself is a clear indication that the TS has an ordinary explanation.

[earl]

Reply to post 1968
Miracle? Na ,I would not think so.
Who ever did the TS is far advanced scientifically than any current science to attempt it today and pass inspection and that was a long time ago .
Hands down it puts current science as elementary.
Because it cannot be replicated today is a stand alone statement that someone or something far scientifically superior did it.
With that intelligence to create the TS it is logically obvious that the knowledge did not evolve because if it did then a reproduction would be displayed today.

if we play the carbon 14 game then it makes it even more obvious .
And if scientific method is applied then one must make 4 to 10 exact pristine copies without fault or more to claim a technology to create exact duplicates exists.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #1967

Doubtful the point here is giving hair cut lessons or even making a mandate on hair length. He was using hair as an illustration of the main point about authority.

He's saying that men's hair and women's hair should be kept at different lengths in deference to authority.

Obviously there is something different that Paul is trying to convey since he used a unique word for hair. Do we know exactly what it means? I argue we do not since we have only this passage to go from.

He's referring to hair in the context of a covering for the head, and saying that the coverings for men and for women should not be the same.

As for how the passage should be interpreted, I lean towards how EXB translates it. EXB says "nature" is referring to the Roman custom, not to the entire natural world.

1Cor 11:14-15
14 ·Even [Does not…?] ·nature [or custom; culture] itself teaches you that wearing long hair is shameful for a man [Greco-Roman men normally wore their hair short]. 15 But long hair is a woman’s glory. Long hair is given to her as a covering.

This would make sense to me since Paul was writing to a Roman culture audience and was trying to argue to them about the structure of authority. So he used an illustration that they would understand. So, it's not in conflict the with Jewish custom of the Nazirite vow, which the Corinthians would not have known about.

It's clear enough that he invokes nature. Not "custom", not "culture"----nature. He meticulously constructs a hierarchy with God at the top, man in a distinct second position and woman in a distinct third position. He identifies a particular physical characteristic as indicative of man's and woman's proper places in that hierarchy. And he doesn't mitigate his directive by giving it "as a concession, not a command", as he does in 7:6.

If all he's talking about is authority, he could rank God, man and woman as he does without making any mention of hair. But hair is the focal point of his argument. He goes on and on about it, so he obviously isn't throwing it in as something his audience can just take or leave. It isn't about the word he uses for "hair"; it's about his use of hair length as a gender distinction.

The physical appearance of men and women was obviously important to him, so the physical appearance of his Messiah would also be important to him.