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]

Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?

Jesus. Does it mention anything about how long his hair was when he saw Jesus on the road?

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

So, what is wrong then is your interpretation that Paul is mandating for short hair.

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

Here's definition from BLB of physis - φύσις:

nature
A. the nature of things, the force, laws, order of nature
i. as opposed to what is monstrous, abnormal, perverse
ii. as opposed what has been produced by the art of man: the natural branches, i.e. branches by the operation of nature
B. birth, physical origin
C. a mode of feeling and acting which by long habit has become nature
D. the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others, distinctive native peculiarities, natural characteristics: the natural strength, ferocity, and intractability of beasts

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

Like a lot of words used in the Bible, there is a wide range of meaning in physis. So, it will depend on the context of the passage to determine what is the exact meaning.

When interpreting a passage, many things has to be considered to determine what the author was conveying. One also has to be careful to do exegesis instead of eisegesis. Trying to force one's own belief into the text is not properly interpreting it. One telltale sign of eisegesis is it is in opposition to other passages in the Bible.

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

Irrelevant to the discussions.

[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?

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.

If I told you a Pope had claimed it was authentic, would it be considered credible evidence for skeptics?

[otseng]

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.

I'm skeptical also. There are several tiers of evidence for the authenticity of the shroud in terms of credibility. I would consider this to be in the third tier and I will not be using this to argue for the TS.

[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.

If I told you a Pope had claimed it was authentic, would it be considered credible evidence for skeptics?

That's not the issue. They are displaying it and treating it as if it is authentic, but they won't go as far as declaring that they know/believe that it is indeed authentic. It goes to their own conviction. That said, the Pope is the last person whose word I would take.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2021

Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?

Jesus. Does it mention anything about how long his hair was when he saw Jesus on the road?

No, but Paul mentions what length of hair was a "dishonor" on a man.

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

So, what is wrong then is your interpretation that Paul is mandating for short hair.

What's wrong is my "interpretation" of what Paul not only wrote, but backed up with an argument?

Like a lot of words used in the Bible, there is a wide range of meaning in physis. So, it will depend on the context of the passage to determine what is the exact meaning........

Trying to force one's own belief into the text is not properly interpreting it.

Right----that's why you can't write off Paul's judgement of hair length as mere "custom" after he goes to such lengths to establish it as part of a divine order.

One telltale sign of eisegesis is it is in opposition to other passages in the Bible.

A passage being in opposition to other passages is evidence that the passages conflict. Presuming that every biblical conflict is mere "eisegesis" simply makes the claims of the Bible unfalsifiable, which you said earlier was not your intention.

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?

Irrelevant to the discussions.

Irrelevant? Hardly. You stated that a lack of external evidence makes a text suspect, and this thread is about the trustworthiness of the Bible without inerrancy, so if a lack of external evidence of a Bethlehem massacre makes the Christian Bible suspect without inerrancy, that's relevant to the discussion.

The Christian Bible states that Herod ordered a massacre in Bethlehem. It does not state that an image of Jesus would appear on his burial cloth. Therefore, the lack of external evidence of the alleged massacre is weightier than any image on any cloth.

[boatsnguitars]

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?

This is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever seen. It doesn't matter to you what the Church says? Yet, you base your belief on EXACTLY that. There is not story of Jesus - EXCEPT - what the Church says. There are no Gospels, or Letters from Paul except for what the Church has passed down.

Suddenly, you don't care what the Church says? Not only do I not believe you, I find it incredibly disingenuous. Honestly, I think you are being so obtuse that I don't know if it's worth talking to you.

Sure, I don't care what the Church says: The Church says "this is the Canon, and these are the legitimate gospels telling of Jesus's life.

But the Christian Church exists because of what the Church says. They say "Jesus rose from the dead" - does that matter? They say "Jesus is the Son of God", does that matter? They claim Wine and Bread literary transform into the blood and flesh of Jesu - does that matter?

Yet, the one thing they can't do is say the TS is authentic. It matters. To pretend that it doesn't because I, an atheist, won't accept it is the most anemic, obtuse and smarmy position I've seen in a while.

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.

Wow, again, an obtuse, smarmy and disingenuous answer! The Nobel Prize honors significant work that helps give us insight into our Reality. Discovering the cloth of the Risen Jesus would qualify, and I am stunned you'd pretend otherwise.

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

I don't either.

Then you understand how I feel about your position. Really think about that. I think of your position the same as you think about Moon Landing Deniers. It should give you pause.

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.

Really? If every dollar bill ever presented is fake? How would it be real? Magic?
Do you believe someone has a legitimate Monopoly dollar? Is this the level of credulity we're dealing with here?
Do you think someone has a real "Credit" from Star Wars? Because, as far as I know, all of them are fake. They don't actually obtain in reality. They don't actually exist.
This is the analog for supernaturalism. We've read about it in books, seen it in movies, but no one has shown it to actually obtain in reality.

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 exactly what Moon Landing Deniers would say. See above.

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.

No, you've been providing Tucker Carlson-level "asking questions" and anomalies and gaps that you try to insert God into.

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

Ad hom fallacy.

Yet, not untrue.

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.

Again, not untrue. We don't listen to Phrenologists anymore either. We don't need to. Sometimes, you just have to accept the ad hom is accurate.

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.

No it hasn't.

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.

Yet, here we are. Jesus still not risen, God doesn't exist, supernatural not real, and the TS not authentic.... Not my fault.

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.

Sure, all other relics are fake - but the Medieval one isn't...
You know, I have a bridge you might be interested in buying. It's really nice, and I'll sell it cheap. You interested?

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.

Really? Have you proven Joseph Smith's Golden Plates are fake?
Have you proven the Blarney Stone doesn't give kissers the gift of the gab?
Blood of San Gennaro, Muhammad's Beard, Mary's Holy Belt, John the Baptist's Head, Buddha's Tooth, The Tunic of the Blessed Virgin, The Grapevine Cloth, Footprint of the Prophet Muhammad, The Chains of St Peter... Have you proven those all false, yet?
What about Jesus's Forskin?
Or, The Veil of Veronica? (odd, isn't it, that there was another Medieval wrapping that was claimed to have wrapped Jesus around the head, and it had his likeness on it? Seems to be a fad of the time..)

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.

No, of course not. You'd have to apply the same reasoning....

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?

Again... Moon Landing Deniers. As you said, "the burden is not mine to show any other relic is authentic".

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

Ad hom.

Yet, apt.

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"?

Because I don't believe you are stupid.

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.

Go for it. You seem really Passionate about it. Not me, though, life is too short. It's already been looked at better scientists that myself and you. When you win your Nobel, please come back and gloat.

[oldbadger]

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?

I noticed this sentence, and your reply.

Is that right, that the church does not claim authenticity for the Turin shroud? The Catholic church?
Are there any churches that claim the Turin shroud is real?

I've never heard of any line of connection between early 1st century Jerusalem and Turin in the late 16th century, and so if some folks want to believe in it then that's fine, but if they seek to prove anything about it then it would help if they could actually get the Catholic Church to support it as real.

[otseng]

That's not the issue. They are displaying it and treating it as if it is authentic, but they won't go as far as declaring that they know/believe that it is indeed authentic. It goes to their own conviction. That said, the Pope is the last person whose word I would take.

Like I said, even if the Pope, who holds the highest authority in the RCC, states that it is authentic, it would make no difference to skeptics. So, who cares what anybody thinks if it's authentic or not? It doesn't matter. What counts is evidence not someone's opinion, including the Pope or anyone in the Catholic church.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2021

Who did Paul claim he saw on the road?

Jesus. Does it mention anything about how long his hair was when he saw Jesus on the road?

No, but Paul mentions what length of hair was a "dishonor" on a man.

So why do you bring up what Paul saw on the road to Damascus?

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

So, what is wrong then is your interpretation that Paul is mandating for short hair.

What's wrong is my "interpretation" of what Paul not only wrote, but backed up with an argument?

Cherry picking scripture is not a valid argument. You take passages out of context, have an interpretation that is not backed up by any other verses, and is in conflict with other verses.

Do you have any reference to any other source other than you that has this interpretation from Corinthians that Paul is mandating for all men to have short hair?

Right----that's why you can't write off Paul's judgement of hair length as mere "custom" after he goes to such lengths to establish it as part of a divine order.

Where does it says "divine order"?

Presuming that every biblical conflict is mere "eisegesis" simply makes the claims of the Bible unfalsifiable, which you said earlier was not your intention.

There's no conflict. I've provided multiple passages from the OT that long hair was allowed in the OT. Paul got his theology from the OT. As a matter of fact, out of all the authors in the NT, he arguable knew the OT the most. He was writing to the Corinthians on the need for order and harmony. He used the custom of short hair among the Greco/Roman citizens as an illustration of order.

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

Irrelevant to the discussions.

Irrelevant? Hardly.

We are talking about the TS and the resurrection now. If we want to talk about the massacre, we can add it to the queue of topics to be discussed later.

[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?

This is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever seen. It doesn't matter to you what the Church says?

Like I asked before:

If I told you a Pope had claimed it was authentic, would it be considered credible evidence for skeptics?

Honestly, I think you are being so obtuse that I don't know if it's worth talking to you.

Ad hom.

But the Christian Church exists because of what the Church says. They say "Jesus rose from the dead" - does that matter? They say "Jesus is the Son of God", does that matter? They claim Wine and Bread literary transform into the blood and flesh of Jesu - does that matter?

Yet, the one thing they can't do is say the TS is authentic. It matters. To pretend that it doesn't because I, an atheist, won't accept it is the most anemic, obtuse and smarmy position I've seen in a while.

We are talking about the TS. No, it doesn't matter what the RCC says if it's authentic or not.

The Nobel Prize honors significant work that helps give us insight into our Reality. Discovering the cloth of the Risen Jesus would qualify, and I am stunned you'd pretend otherwise.

Well, I can't wait to get my Nobel prize then.

Then you understand how I feel about your position. Really think about that. I think of your position the same as you think about Moon Landing Deniers. It should give you pause.

Yes, I understand how ridiculous it sounds to claim we actually have the burial shroud of Jesus locked in a box in Turin, Italy. It is also ridiculous that it is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history. It is also ridiculous that all the evidence points to its authenticity and there is no viable argument that it is a fake. And all the naturalistic methods to attempt to try to replicate the shroud are ridiculous.

Really? If every dollar bill ever presented is fake? How would it be real? Magic?

Do real dollar bills exist?

This is the analog for supernaturalism. We've read about it in books, seen it in movies, but no one has shown it to actually obtain in reality.

I've already spent considerable time in showing cosmologists are proposing non-natural/supernatural explanations. So, the case against supernaturalism is long dead.

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 exactly what Moon Landing Deniers would say. See above.

Skeptics like to make claims, but rarely can provide evidence with references. Why is this so hard?

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.

Go for it. You seem really Passionate about it. Not me, though, life is too short. It's already been looked at better scientists that myself and you. When you win your Nobel, please come back and gloat.

I'm willing to put my ideas to the test under shroud professionals who know more about the shroud than 99.99% of the world population. If skeptics here think their arguments are so sound, why would they be unwilling to do the same?