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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2006

And if Paul had seen Jesus with long hair on the TS, why would he then write a mandate to all mankind that men should have short hair?

That's exactly my point----he wouldn't have, since he himself claimed to "imitate Christ" (1Corinthians 11:1). Therefore, whoever Paul believed he saw on the road must not have looked to him like the image on the TS.

And before you bring up the Nazarite vow again, please provide scriptural evidence that Jesus ever took such a vow.

The point of the passage is we are all one in Christ.

.....which means that "custom" and "culture" would make no difference. All in Christ would be considered made in the image of the same God, and that's the God Paul says made the heads of women to be covered and not the heads of men.

If people want to use the apocrypha or any other written text as evidence, go for it. But for the purpose of this thread, what is meant by the Bible is the 39 books of the OT and the 27 books of the NT.

So Catholics can't participate in this thread? You total the books of the Bible to 66. Their Bible has 73, so what about those other seven? Are they "the Bible" or are they not? And who gets to say?

I'm not saying everything written is trustworthy and authoritative. I'm saying inerrancy is not a necessary condition for a text to be trustworthy and authoritative.

If inerrancy doesn't invalidate any religious text you consider false, then what does?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to earl in post #2009

Does any one have any written text(s) to mention here modern or olden that labels a method or gives credence to how might the human like image is bonded into the TS ?

If Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu, as some Hindus believe, that would explain it.

[otseng]

If it's so compelling, why won't the Church say it?

And if the church says it's authentic, then you'd immediately believe in it? I doubt it. So, why does it matter what the church says?

Where are the Nobel Prizes?

What are you talking about? If there is a lack of a Nobel prize in something is not evidence something is not true.

I also don't debate with Flat Earthers, or Moon Landing Deniers.

I don't either.

So, if I have evidence that a person produces a dollar bill, and ALL other dollar bills are counterfeit, I have every reason to believe his dollar is fake too.

It's not evidence the dollar bill in my wallet is fake.

If you believe the TS is a fake, please present your evidence instead of just making unsupported assertions. Is this so hard for skeptics to provide evidence with references?

That's your burden. You have to show there is a thing called "Supernatural", You have to make your case that the TS is real - and you have not done this.

I've been providing numerous pages of evidence with references. If you reject them, it's not on logical grounds since nobody yet has rationally countered them with evidence. Please provide one example in the discussions so far where this has been done.

If you had, you'd be famous. Are you famous? No.

Ad hom fallacy.

Religious people, more than any time in history, have to obey the rules of logic and make a positive case for their beliefs, since NONE of their supernatural claims have been proven. Not one. Why do religious people still think they get a pass?

Another ad hom fallacy.

Also, there is a a reason I spent considerable time in cosmology in this thread. Cosmology has already breached into non-natural explanations. Please review that starting in post 1107.

I want to add to this. We are well past the idea that these topics 'deserve ample discussion' - they have been discussed for centuries. Yet, not one of these supernatural claims have been proven.

I'm not out to prove anything. As I stated on the outset:

Like all arguments I've made in this thread, I'm not out to prove Jesus was resurrected, but I will attempt to show there are evidence to support it and that it is a reasonable position to hold.

They have either been shown to be fakes, frauds, false, mistakes, etc,, or, they are gaps in our knowledge. Not ONE has been proven to be "This is Supernatural".

Why do you keep bringing up other relics? I'm not claiming any of those are authentic. It could be true that all other relics are fake, but it still does not show the TS is a fake.

Not ONE has been shown to support religion. Islam, Mormons, Christians all claim the same kinds of things, and use the same kind of arguments.
Nothing is funnier than watching Mormons argue with Christians about the validity of historical documents, etc. It's like watching toddlers talk about physics.

If it's so childish to believe the TS is authentic, it should be easy to refute it on rational grounds instead of continually making ad hom statements.

I really must insist that the people with the burden is firmly on the supernatural, religious claim - and, again, they have all failed. I am sure you would also avoid arguing with someone on the possible existence of Yeti's, Pixies, Santa, etc. Or a flat earth, or lizard people, or... on and on.... You probably even scoff at some of these. You probably wont debate many Muslims or Hindus about their claims because you don't feel they even have a seat at the table.

Of course the burden is mine to show the TS is authentic. However, the burden is not mine to show any other relic is authentic.

That is where the TS is. It hasn't earned a seat at the table.

This shows your lack of knowledge of the TS. I have to ask, have you even read through all what I've been posting on the TS? Have you read through the accompanying references?

All these claims religious people have: They do some Googling, then post them on religious forums.

Ad hom.

It's like the guys who don't like Evolution. They steer far away from any actual science forum. They know their claims are bunk. I believe you know your claims are bunk. If not, go to a science forum, make your case, and post the discussion here.

How would you know "I know my claim is bunk"?

I've stated this before and I'll state it again, I'm willing to challenge anyone to a paper submission to any refereed shroud journal. I'll write a paper on the TS with my arguments it is authentic into a paper. You all can be co-authors on your best arguments against the TS. And we can submit our papers for review and let's see what happens. Any takers? If nobody takes me up on this, it reveals the skeptics have no rational arguments but can only rely on fallacious arguments.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2006

And if Paul had seen Jesus with long hair on the TS, why would he then write a mandate to all mankind that men should have short hair?

That's exactly my point----he wouldn't have, since he himself claimed to "imitate Christ" (1Corinthians 11:1). Therefore, whoever Paul believed he saw on the road must not have looked to him like the image on the TS.

I don't follow. Who do you claim Paul saw on the road?

And before you bring up the Nazarite vow again, please provide scriptural evidence that Jesus ever took such a vow.

Never claimed that Jesus took a Nazarite vow. All I'm saying is we have examples of Jews in the OT that had long hair and there was no prohibition against it.

Another example of a person with long hair in the OT is Absalom.

[2Sa 14:25-26 NET] 25 Now in all Israel everyone acknowledged that there was no man as handsome as Absalom. From the sole of his feet to the top of his head he was perfect in appearance. 26 When he would shave his head - at the end of every year he used to shave his head, for it grew too long and he would shave it - he used to weigh the hair of his head at three pounds according to the king's weight.

The point of the passage is we are all one in Christ.

.....which means that "custom" and "culture" would make no difference.

I don't follow your argument. Specifically what Greek words are you referring to in the passages?

All in Christ would be considered made in the image of the same God, and that's the God Paul says made the heads of women to be covered and not the heads of men.

You can't just cherry pick verses from different parts of the Bible to try to support an extreme minority claim.

So Catholics can't participate in this thread? You total the books of the Bible to 66. Their Bible has 73, so what about those other seven? Are they "the Bible" or are they not? And who gets to say?

Actually, I welcome Catholics to participate in this discussion. Yes, Catholics believe there are more books in the Bible, but at a minimum, we agree the 66 books are canonical. If they want to refer to any deuterocanonical books, they are free to use them. As a matter of fact, I might even refer to them as additional textual evidence.

I'm not saying everything written is trustworthy and authoritative. I'm saying inerrancy is not a necessary condition for a text to be trustworthy and authoritative.

If inerrancy doesn't invalidate any religious text you consider false, then what does?

I'm saying inerrancy is not relevant as a factor in any discussion. A text is trustworthy if it is corroborated by external evidence. If there's a lack of external evidence, then its veracity is suspect.

[earl]

In reference to post 2009,
I found this
Youtube article "Science and the shroud of Turin?Feat ,Robert Rucker .Posted 2 months ago.
He states @ 9.58 a minus 15 second to produce a macro not a micro image by using a infrared pulse .
He was not able to produce a micro image.
He stated he could not produce a micro image.Or yet to.
He stated @48.53 an extremely short burst of radiation from within the body.
He stated the image was radiation controlled by information.
He has written a paper titled Vertically collimated Radiation Burst or VCRB.
This material being recent now is compared to a earlier text called
The Urantia Book ,published 1955
@ Paper 189.2.1 "We do not propose to employ our technique of dematerialization ,we merely wish to invoke the process of accelerated time.
@ 189.2.4 "As they made ready to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb preparatory to according it the dignified and reverent disposal
of near instantaneous dissolution ,it was assigned the secondary morantia midwayers to roll away the stones from the entrance of the tomb."

From the two methods @ 189.2.7 the natural mode of dissolution was performed .
This method was near instantaneous .
It was controlled
It was a matter of seconds to perform.
@ 189.2.7 "....afford it a special and unique dissolution ...a return to dust to dust...

The video and book text both agree on a form of shroud imaging , in a matter of seconds

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2014

I don't follow. Who do you claim Paul saw on the road?

Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?

Never claimed that Jesus took a Nazarite vow. All I'm saying is we have examples of Jews in the OT that had long hair and there was no prohibition against it.

Then Paul has no scriptural basis for his prohibition against it.

I don't follow your argument. Specifically what Greek words are you referring to in the passages?

I'm referring to φύσις----"physis" (Strong's G5449), which is translated in 1Cor. 11:14 as "nature".

Romans 1:26
2:27
11:24

Galatians 2:15

Replace the word "nature" with the word "custom" in the verses above and see if they make any sense.

If Paul means "custom" in 1Cor. 11:14, why doesn't he use συνήθεια
"synētheia", as is used in John 18:39 to refer to an obvious custom?

All in Christ would be considered made in the image of the same God, and that's the God Paul says made the heads of women to be covered and not the heads of men.

You can't just cherry pick verses from different parts of the Bible to try to support an extreme minority claim.

Putting things in context isn't cherry picking.

I'm saying inerrancy is not relevant as a factor in any discussion. A text is trustworthy if it is corroborated by external evidence. If there's a lack of external evidence, then its veracity is suspect.

Then where is there external evidence of a massacre in Bethlehem ordered by Herod?

[Athetotheist]

In reference to post 2009,
I found this
Youtube article "Science and the shroud of Turin?Feat ,Robert Rucker .Posted 2 months ago.
He states @ 9.58 a minus 15 second to produce a macro not a micro image by using a infrared pulse .
He was not able to produce a micro image.
He stated he could not produce a micro image.Or yet to.
He stated @48.53 an extremely short burst of radiation from within the body.
He stated the image was radiation controlled by information.
He has written a paper titled Vertically collimated Radiation Burst or VCRB.
This material being recent now is compared to a earlier text called
The Urantia Book ,published 1955
@ Paper 189.2.1 "We do not propose to employ our technique of dematerialization ,we merely wish to invoke the process of accelerated time.
@ 189.2.4 "As they made ready to remove the body of Jesus from the tomb preparatory to according it the dignified and reverent disposal
of near instantaneous dissolution ,it was assigned the secondary morantia midwayers to roll away the stones from the entrance of the tomb."

From the two methods @ 189.2.7 the natural mode of dissolution was performed .
This method was near instantaneous .
It was controlled
It was a matter of seconds to perform.
@ 189.2.7 "....afford it a special and unique dissolution ...a return to dust to dust...

The video and book text both agree on a form of shroud imaging , in a matter of seconds

I'm only about half an hour into the video, but the Catholic priest presenting it asks about "other ways" to test the cloth. I can't help but think that might involve "testing" it in whatever way will deliver a desired result.

I'm particularly skeptical of the claim about the coins on the image's eyes. It's been asserted that details detected on the coin images bolster the claim that the image is genuine, but in my reckoning it does just the opposite. If the coins were over the tops of the eyelids and it's the body which was supposedly resurrected, there should be nothing of the coins on the cloth other that blank discs where they sat beneath it.

[brunumb]

If it's so compelling, why won't the Church say it?

And if the church says it's authentic, then you'd immediately believe in it? I doubt it. So, why does it matter what the church says?

It goes to credibility. If the church knows/believes that the shroud is authentic, why would they not openly declare it as such? I think they are are concerned that should it ever be confirmed as a fake they would look complicit if they had previously backed it to the hilt. This way they have an escape. I believe that they know it is a fake and are doing their best to keep it at arms length from those who could actually prove it.

By the way, your comment reminded me of something I have encountered so many times in exchanges with believers. They often claimed to have proof/evidence of something, like a miracle for example, but when asked to present it they declined and set up a brick wall with the excuse "what is the point, you wouldn't believe it anyway". Preempting non-acceptance of evidence should not be an excuse for refusing to present that evidence. It tells me that scrutiny of said evidence is going to show up all its faults and that the claimant is fully aware of that.

[earl]

Reply tp Athetotheist on post 2017
Nothing was mentioned in this video about coins in the eyes
The presenter is Mike Creavey.The Gracious Guest Show .Do not know his religious practice.
The one you may be viewing may not be this one

[Athetotheist]

Reply tp Athetotheist on post 2017
Nothing was mentioned in this video about coins in the eyes
The presenter is Mike Creavey.The Gracious Guest Show .Do not know his religious practice.
The one you may be viewing may not be this one

Hmm.....maybe not. I found a youtube video with the title "Science and the Shroud of Turin with Fr. Robert Spitzer". Must have gotten cross-threaded somewhere.