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]

The cloth is said to bear miraculous images attesting to Jesus's resurrection, yet with all the accounts of miraculous events recorded in Christian texts like Acts, there is no known mention of the shroud before the 14th century.

What is interesting to me is prior to the late 19th century, the shroud was relatively unknown. And even then, it was not until after the 1978 STURP research that it became more well known worldwide. So, it is only recently has it been widely known.

As for textual evidence it existed prior to the 14th century, though there are no explicit written records of it, there are references to it that match the descriptions of the shroud. I'll present those when I get to the history of the shroud.

I don't think it mere coincidence that the noticeably enlongated features of the image [face, arms, fingers] match the Gothic art style of the period to which the cloth has been dated (one forearm is actually longer than the other).

I don't think it's coincidence either. I addressed the longer arm in:

Another interesting thing about the hands - one hand extends longer than the other. Why would that be the case? It was because his right shoulder was dislocated when he fell while carrying the cross.

The elongated features of the shroud such as face and fingers are due to how the image was formed. Discussions on that started at:

I already said "X-ray effect easily explains the fingers being too long." But another factor is image projection distortion. The image we see on the shroud is not actually a photographic-like image. Rather, it is a projection of a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface that was curved. The shroud was laying on the body, so there are curves in the shroud that follow the body. This image projection can distort features, like the fingers.

Why would miraculously produced images of Jesus depict him as being seven centimeters taller from the back than he was from the front? (The front image measures 1.95 meters in length while the back image measures 2.02 meters.)

The image lengths are different, but it is still compatible proportionally if a body was involved.

The front image on the shroud is 1.95 metres (6 ft 5 in) long, and is not exactly the same size as the rear image, which is 2.02 metres (6 ft 8 in) long.[107] Analysis of the images found them to be compatible with the shroud having been used to wrap a body 1.75 metres (5 ft 9 in) long.[107]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

We are also talking about a cloth, not a piece of wood or stone. A cloth is prone to stretching and cannot be expected to stay the same size, esp when its been handled multiple times and been under various environmental conditions. However, not sure though if the cloth not maintaining the same size is sufficient to account for the length differences. I was trying to read the paper that was referenced in the above mentioned link [107], but I'm not able to get the full paper.

[otseng]

If it has no other support in scripture, that's Paul's issue and not mine.

Yes, it's your issue if you claim Jesus cannot have long hair and have no scriptural basis for this from the OT.

Even if we grant Paul was mandating for short hair (which is false), it would be immaterial to the TS since it was written after the resurrection.

Again, Paul is the one pronouncing the edict and so he would have to back it up from scripture, not I.

What do you mean not you? You're the one incorrectly interpreting the passage as if its a mandate that all men should have short hair. We have no scriptural basis for this in the OT and even have a passage that Paul had long hair at one point.

Then you're inadvertently arguing that the text of any religion can be considered trustworthy and authoritative without inerrancy.

Of course. And not only the text of any religion, but any text that has ever been written.

We're talking about humans in past ages having done something even when we don't know how they did it.

Though we don't know exactly how they did it, it does not negate that they did do it.

That additional evidence will have to provide better explanations for the problems with the images which have already been noted.

The verdict that is arrived at is not based on being able to answer every single issue, but based on which of all possible scenarios is the most reasonable. If the TS is not the burial shroud of Jesus, what other alternative are you suggesting? If it's crafted by clever medieval artists, please present your evidence of who they were and how they produced it.

[otseng]

My point was that this is not the case, especially if one accepts that the medieval C-14 results are not due to errors in those dating measurements, but rather in the sample not being representative of uncontaminated, original shroud material.

Yes, I agree. My point is simply a skeptic needs to be consistent in applying the same standards to coal and the TS with C-14 dating.

I agree that the dating result may be invalid IF the supplied sample was not original shroud material, and/or was contaminated.

I presented evidence the sample was not homogeneous:
viewtopic.php?p=1113898#p1113898

If there's no counter evidence, the evidence favors it was contaminated.

If neither of these conditions are met, I'd side with a preponderance of the evidence pointing to the C-14 results being in the correct ballpark (ie. sufficient to distinguish a medieval date from a 1st century date).

Please present evidence the sample was a homogeneous sample.

On another point made in post #1984 (item 2), if the requirement to accept a medieval date requires knowledge of who did the work, and exactly how they did it, could not the same be said for the claim of a 1st century date?

Well, to get to the punchline, I claim it was a resurrection miracle done by God.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #1999]

Please present evidence the sample was a homogeneous sample.

I missed that one, so maybe my phrasing should have been more generic like "sample problems" to include anything that would produce incorrect C-14 results unrelated to the actual C-14 testing process itself. But if the original sample was split into thirds and sent to 3 different labs, and they all got similar results, then it would suggest at least that the three samples were similar in overall composition.

Well, to get to the punchline, I claim it was a resurrection miracle done by God.

I'll head back over to the Science and Religion section. I've got no counter for that that wouldn't be biased by my atheist position and lack of belief in gods and miracles.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #1992

Even if we grant Paul was mandating for short hair (which is false), it would be immaterial to the TS since it was written after the resurrection.

It wasn't immaterial to Paul, nor according to him was it immaterial to any of the churches. And what does "after the resurrection" have to do with it? Was Jesus resurrected with the nail wounds in his hands and feet and the spear wound in his side.....but not with all of his hair?

You're the one incorrectly interpreting the passage as if its a mandate that all men should have short hair.

How am I misinterpreting Paul's argument which leads him to conclude that it's a "dishonor"?

We have no scriptural basis for this in the OT

As I point out every time you repeat this, if we don't have any scriptural basis for it then neither does Paul. And you can't just ignore what he said and pretend that he didn't say it because it has that weakness.

and even have a passage that Paul had long hair at one point

We can reasonably assume that he didn't when he wrote of it being a dishonor.

We're talking about humans in past ages having done something even when we don't know how they did it.

Though we don't know exactly how they did it, it does not negate that they did do it.

Right----and that applies to the TS.

The verdict that is arrived at is not based on being able to answer every single issue, but based on which of all possible scenarios is the most reasonable. If the TS is not the burial shroud of Jesus, what other alternative are you suggesting? If it's crafted by clever medieval artists, please present your evidence of who they were and how they produced it.

First you say that not knowing how doesn't negate that they did it, now you're insinuating that it does----but only in the case of the TS. That's a double standard.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #1991

"X-ray effect easily explains the fingers being too long."

Then why does the x-ray effect appear only on the hands? Why don't we see any other bones of the body, particularly the ribs? Why do we see a face instead of a skull?

The image we see on the shroud is not actually a photographic-like image. Rather, it is a projection of a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface that was curved. The shroud was laying on the body, so there are curves in the shroud that follow the body.

Then there should be images of the sides of the head.

The image lengths are different, but it is still compatible proportionally if a body was involved........We are also talking about a cloth, not a piece of wood or stone. A cloth is prone to stretching and cannot be expected to stay the same size, esp when its been handled multiple times and been under various environmental conditions.

We are indeed talking about a cloth and not a piece of wood or stone......and not a piece of silly putty. How would one end of the cloth be stretched and not the other?

[otseng]

And what does "after the resurrection" have to do with it?

When Jesus was resurrected, had Paul written anything yet?

How am I misinterpreting Paul's argument which leads him to conclude that it's a "dishonor"?

I already addressed this:

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 was shameful not in reference to the entire world, since the Jews had long hair with the Nazarite vow. It was shameful for the Corinthians and Romans, since their culture had short hair for men.

if we don't have any scriptural basis for it then neither does Paul.

Exactly.

And you can't just ignore what he said and pretend that he didn't say it because it has that weakness.

It's your interpretation that is being rejected, not what the Bible says.

Though we don't know exactly how they did it, it does not negate that they did do it.

Right----and that applies to the TS.

Of course.

The verdict that is arrived at is not based on being able to answer every single issue, but based on which of all possible scenarios is the most reasonable. If the TS is not the burial shroud of Jesus, what other alternative are you suggesting? If it's crafted by clever medieval artists, please present your evidence of who they were and how they produced it.

First you say that not knowing how doesn't negate that they did it, now you're insinuating that it does----but only in the case of the TS. That's a double standard.

I'm not insinuating any double standard. I claim Yahweh created the TS and I likewise have a theory what happened to explain most, if not all, of the features we see on the shroud. I'm not going to just simply say "some clever deity did it" and not even attempt to explain the features of the TS.

[otseng]

Then why does the x-ray effect appear only on the hands? Why don't we see any other bones of the body, particularly the ribs? Why do we see a face instead of a skull?

Because it's only an x-ray effect. No x-rays were actually involved. The theory that I'll be presenting to explain what happened during the resurrection will account for this.

Then there should be images of the sides of the head.

Lack of features on the sides of the head will be explained with the theory as well.

How would one end of the cloth be stretched and not the other?

A cloth does not necessarily stretch uniformly. But, again, I do not believe the cloth stretching can fully account for the differences, but it cannot be ruled out to contribute to it. The article that is cited to account for differences states:

Turin Shroud: Compatibility Between a Digitized Body Image and a Computerized Anthropomorphous Manikin

The front image of the Turin Shroud, 1.95 m long, is not directly compatible with the back image, 2.02 m long. In order to verify the possibility that both images were generated by the same human body, a numeric-anthropomorphous manikin was constructed by computer and wrapped in the digitized front and back images. The manikin was made to move, within the limits allowed by normal limb movements, with the aim of finding correspondences between predefined anthropometric points on the Shroud and on the manikin itself. Kinematic analysis showed the most probable position of the arms, which are not completely visible on the Shroud, due to damage during the fire of 1532. A part from the hands afterward placed on the pubic area, the front and back images are compatible with the Shroud being used to wrap the body of a man 175±2 cm tall, which, due to cadaveric rigidity, remained in the same position it would have assumed during crucifixion. The position of this man was assessed in terms of the angles of the legs and arms and the forward tilt of the head.

https://library.imaging.org/jist/articles/54/5/art00012

Again, I'm not able to read the entire article, so I don't know the details of what it says. But, it appears it posits the difference is due to some projection artifact of the body to the cloth.

[otseng]

But if the original sample was split into thirds and sent to 3 different labs, and they all got similar results, then it would suggest at least that the three samples were similar in overall composition.

Depends on what you mean by similar. Did they get their sample from the same area? Yes. Did they have compatible dates with each other? No.

As I posted in post 1963, their dates had differed and the labs' dates have a linear correlation with the distance from the edge. Also, the raw data proves their dates were not compatible with each other. So, they had to manipulate the data in order to make it appear the results from the three labs were compatible with each other.

I've got no counter for that that wouldn't be biased by my atheist position and lack of belief in gods and miracles.

For my position, I have no presupposition for the explanation of the shroud. It could be a naturalistic explanation or it could be a non-naturalistic explanation. I do not like to automatically jump to a non-naturalistic explanation and it's got to have overwhelming evidence for me to accept a non-naturalistic explanation. And what is very interesting to me is we have overwhelming evidence with the TS.

The top two arguments from skeptics for a naturalistic cause are the d'Arcis memo and the C-14 dating. I've argued both of these can be dismissed as summarized in post 1784 and post 1984.

As for a non-naturalistic cause, I'll be presenting that later when I present the theory that best explains the features we see on the shroud.

[boatsnguitars]

The top two arguments from skeptics for a naturalistic cause are the d'Arcis memo and the C-14 dating. I've argued both of these can be dismissed as summarized in post 1784 and post 1984.

This isn't true.

There are very strong arguments for a naturalistic cause.

1. There is no other known method than a natural cause.
2. There is nothing supernatural about the TS.
3. Experts have weighed in over the centuries and no Nobel Prize have been awarded, no changes to our understanding of Physics, etc. A Supernatural discovery would be Earth shattering. This has not happened.
4. The Shroud was declared a fake before the Church changed their position - based on none of the reasoning you provide today (known to be motivated by making money from relics, known to lie). However, the Church now tries to have it both ways:

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]

They want to make money from it, but they need to pretend to be reasonable and not declare it authentic. The Pope would have every reason to want it to be authentic, would have every reason to announce it as real, and would joyfully proclaim it as real - if he believed it to be real. The Pope probably has the original receipt from the artist, since the CC has more documents than it reveals.
5. The vast amount of evidence shows it is Medieval in origin. The anomalies are just that. Anomaly hunting is the preferred exercise of purveyors of woo, conspiracy theorists, and other supernatural/superstitious groups.
6. It simply doesn't make sense that it would be used in ancient Jerusalem, disappeared/forgotten/lost, then show up in Medieval France, with Medieval fabric, a Medieval image of a man. The practice of saving relics started in 200CE (in the form of ashes from martyrs). So, what, Christians saved a shroud, but didn't save Jesus's body when he died the second time? (No one likes to talk about this... but Jesus would have lived out his life until he died. His body would have been lying around somewhere. Of course, some argue he was bodily taken to Heaven - after Jesus makes it very clear that the flesh is not of Heaven... Religion, eh?)
7. It doesn't make sense that it would look like art. It's absurd, in fact. Cover yourself in oil and have someone wrap you in cloth. It's not going to look like the TS. They've tried it.
8. Religious people make fake relics all the time. It is more likely it is a fake than authentic, just based on the probabilities.
9. It is more likely a forgery by aliens than a cloth from 60 CE.