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]

Here's another, perhaps overlooked, development from 2005:

https://phys.org/news/2005-06-turin-shroud-fake.html

[JoeyKnothead]

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'll ask a few of them seeking to control a woman's right to her own bodily affairs and get back to ya.

[oldbadger]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7417300092

After a detailed analysis of these particles by using various types of microscopes and by performing different spectral analyses like Raman and EDX, the results obtained are commented, reaching the conclusion that the analyzed reddish material, corresponding to some TS bloodstain area, contain human blood reinforced with pigments. It can therefore be supposed that the bloodstains, originally composed of blood, have been refreshed by some artist perhaps during the XVII century.

http://psjd.icm.edu.pl/psjd/element/bwm ... 9c7656d384

New studies based on X-Ray photographs of the Turin Shroud (TS) from 1978 and new quantitative tests induced the author to reexamine the viability of a hypothesis he had discussed in a prior work [1] where he stated that “A possible explanation for the presence of blood and pigments in the samples studied is that the bloodstains were originally produced by human blood which faded with time … (and) have been reinforced by artists in the past centuries.” In fact, the new quantitative results exclude red ochre/iron oxide and vermillion/mercuric sulfide as being responsible for the redness of the stains of blood that are visible with the naked eye on the TS. Having ascertained this result, two problems now arise. First, the origin of the additional reddish material found in correspondence with the TS bloodstains needs an explanation. A hypothesis to be confirmed is that the over 50 documented painted copies of the Relic made in past centuries may have deposited some pigment when they were pressed onto the TS, to be sanctified into higher order relics. The second problem concerns the explanation of the continued redness of the TS bloodstains. In addition to the hypothesis regarding the effects of ultraviolet rays on the high bilirubin content in the bloodstains on the TS and of the presence of carboxyhemoglobin, the author considers the redness of blood coming from an alleged Eucharistic Miracle.

I reduced your post to isolate these two outline reports. As can be read in these, the traces of redness on the shroud are in fact of blood which has faded and been enhanced at times. The shroud itself is still dated to the 13th century by the 3 university tests carried out in the early 1980s.

But let's pretend that this cloth was produced from flax which grew, was broken down and spun somewhere in Palestine in the early first century or before. That would be helpful, but so far the evidence is clear that this cloth was produced in the early 13th century. Even then it would be impossible to link it to Jesus.

Various articles exist in European churches and claimed to be real fragments of the cross, at least one large cut nail, and more, all intended to prove that the Jesus story was real. In a recent television program I saw a nail which is housed in a beautifully made case, said to be 'one of the nails'. As Christianity wanes so the need to reinforce it with artifacts increases, 'they' have even found houses now in Nazareth which Jesus could have lived in, etc.

Sadly:-
There is no record in the gospels of Magdalene or anybody else removing any articles which might have been connected to Jesus.
Execution stakes, poles and beams would not have been removed from site, although beams could have been taken down between such occasions.
Convicts were lashed to execution crosses and stakes and any nails were probably used to pin hands so that they could not interfere with the lashings. The Romans would not have left large expensive hand-cut nails.
Local people observing an execution would have been kept back and out of the way of working soldiers and any who approached would have been kicked and beaten away........ Magdalene and the other women watched from 'afar'.
Magdalene is not reported in the gospels to have removed anything from that tomb....... if she had then I feel sure that it would have been reported.

Christianity is left with its Faith, and no amount of articles or items can buttress this. Christians believe or they don't.

[oldbadger]

What skeptics need to do is produce evidence to support an alternative claim. If the TS is a fake, then skeptics need to produce evidence that it is a fake.

People saw him afterwards because he was physically resurrected.

As for if Jesus was actually dead, the TS is evidence he was dead since he was in a state of rigor mortis. See post 1737.

I've been posting them ever since I started discussing the TS in post 1599. If there's a specific challenge to the evidence I've posted already, you can quote it and we can discuss.

Thank you for your posts.
And NO, skeptics don't have to do anything, we simply have to look at evidence and think for ourselves. There is absolutely no link between this cloth and Jesus, the early 1st century or Jerusalem.

I think people saw him afterwards because he was alive.

TS evidence such as indicating rigor mortis doesn't help the Jesus story, because any 13th century convict could have been used in its production.

I'm not challenging your evidence, I'm simply not seeing any. In my opinion you are simply left with your Faith and which I would never challenge, but the production of such artifacts as a shroud, or a nail or whatever don't influence me at all..... so far.

[boatsnguitars]

Can you use your exceptional research abilities and tell me what the Subject of this thread is?

Here you go:

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

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.

Do you feel you are addressing the OP, or have you highjacked your own thread?

[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 a smarmy response. Why would the Church claim Jesus rose from the dead, then? After all, I won't believe them.
Why would Scientists claim the shroud is from Medieval times, if you won't believe them?

Do you see why your response is simply wrong. It's painful to watch people of Faith reduced to these tactics. Let your "Yes" be "Yes", etc. Right?

[otseng]

Sure, but what does the TS have to do with it?

As I explained before on why the TS relates to the trustworthiness of the Bible...

How is discussion of the Shroud of Turin relevant to the topic of this thread and the OP?

I posted ...

One of the most important doctrines in Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus and is one of the beliefs necessary for salvation.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Also, if Jesus was not resurrected, then all of Christianity is undermined. If the resurrection of Jesus is falsified, then Christianity is falsified.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If he was not resurrected from the dead, he would be no different than any other person, including any other prophet or saint in any religion. But, if he was resurrected from the dead, then he would be quite unique and set him apart from all else.

The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to be a historical event and is not a make believe event that we should accept by blind faith. And if it is a historical event, then it should be able to be validated like any other historical event.

For any historical event, there are two main methods to demonstrate its historicity - artifacts and written records. We had talked about the account in the Bible of Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem. Without any artifacts or written records, there would be no corroborating evidence to support the Biblical claim. Then in 1830, Colonel Taylor discovered Sennacherib's Prism which is a written account that remarkably matches the Biblical account from the Assyrian perspective. So, there is no now doubt among historians that the Jerusalem siege actually occurred.

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.

We can trust the Bible is a reliable account of a foundational claim of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. I believe the Shroud of Turin is a corroborating artifact that supports the Biblical narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

How does this make us trust the Bible? After all, there are other things that are wrong in the Bible. The OT stole the Flood story, so I'd assume the Bible stole the Resurrection Story from the ancient Summerian tale of Dumuzid and Inanna.

I spent considerable time in this thread discussing the flood as well.

As for other "resurrection" accounts in other cultures, we can discuss those after the TS. But in the meantime, if they have an artifact of their resurrection stories, feel free to present that evidence.

Do you feel you are addressing the OP, or have you highjacked your own thread?

As I posted...

We can trust the Bible is a reliable account of a foundational claim of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. I believe the Shroud of Turin is a corroborating artifact that supports the Biblical narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

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 a smarmy response. Why would the Church claim Jesus rose from the dead, then? After all, I won't believe them.

Do you see why your response is simply wrong. It's painful to watch people of Faith reduced to these tactics. Let your "Yes" be "Yes", etc. Right?

It doesn't matter what the church says about the shroud or the resurrection of Jesus. If it claims it is authentic and Jesus rose from the dead, would it make any difference to skeptics? So, why are you asking why won't the church state that it's authentic?

Also, they cannot prove that it is authentic. Nobody can. There will always be an element of faith involved in order to believe it is authentic.

Why would Scientists claim the shroud is from Medieval times, if you won't believe them?

If they had actually followed standard scientific procedures, I'd believe them. But since they had violated over a dozen procedures, no, I don't believe them. Also, it doesn't help that they had sampled a heterogeneous sample.

[otseng]

In other words, someone has thrown out the idea that the cloth got paint on it from copies. Hypothesis doesn't qualify as evidence.

Finding a few paint particles as well is not evidence all the blood is red due to touch up painting.

Odd. In your post #2048, the link to #2041 takes me to #2035.

Have no idea why yours is different than mine. Can you provide the link to the post?

Competent 14th-century historians could have known how the Romans carried out crucifixions. That's easy enough to understand, isn't it?

Do we have competent historians now? Even we do not fully know how crucifixions were carried out by the Romans. Apart from the TS, we only have one small archaeological artifact of a crucifixion. And it was only after scientists had studied the TS do we now know the common misconception of the nail going through the palm was incorrect.

If you can bring up textual records of medieval historians explaining how crucifixions were done that'd be great.

You can hardly argue that he was resurrected from the dead without arguing that he was the Messiah from a Christian perspective.

Though I would agree with this, technically they are not directly related. One can still believe Jesus was resurrected without believing he was the Jewish Messiah.

It's questionable that Jesus even received a spear wound. The only gospel writer to mention it is John, and he claims it as the fulfillment of a scriptural passage which he misquotes.

Even if the beloved disciple misquoted the OT, it does not negate that he saw his side being pierced.

Even if Jesus did receive a spear wound, it wouldn't have been the prophetic fulfillment that John says it was.

Maybe so, but it would be additional corroboration between the TS and the Bible since they both testify of a side wound.

"Flax fibers are inherently strong, which is why linen is so long-lasting. They are also not very elastic."

https://www.linenbeauty.com/blog/does-l ... ic-stretch

Are you claiming a linen cloth cannot be stretched?

At least some of these sources have been deemed questionable.

"Another of the four co-authors is University of Padua professor Guilio Fanti, whom I know as a zealous pro-shroud researcher (author of a book, Il Mistero della Sindone, i. e., “The Mystery of the Shroud”) and one who uses highly dubious tests to supposedly authenticate the shroud as Jesus’ burial cloth."

If you think Fanti is unreliable, then why'd you use him as a source in post 2057?

Though I don't believe everything Fanti says, I believe he is a credible source. As for his "highly dubious tests" of dating the shroud, if there's evidence his tests are inaccurate, then that evidence should be produced.

"But even if the samples had been valid, the claims made from them are not. Carlino et al. are drawing conclusions from a fiber with “red crusts” which they assume to be blood, based on the discredited work of John Heller and Alan Adler who lacked the necessary expertise. They claimed to have “identified the presence of blood, “ but used an additive approach (this plus that) while lacking any definitive test for blood."

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/turin ... till_fake/

That's quite a claim to say Heller and Adler lacked expertise. Also I posted the evidence for it being real blood in post 1701. And if the stains are not real blood, what would it be?

Here's another, perhaps overlooked, development from 2005:

https://phys.org/news/2005-06-turin-shroud-fake.html

Please state what you are claiming instead of simply providing a link. I as well can just provide a bunch of links for everyone to read, but it would not be a constructive debate.

[otseng]

As can be read in these, the traces of redness on the shroud are in fact of blood which has faded and been enhanced at times.

I agree except for the term "enhanced". There's no evidence the paint particles were of sufficient quantity that an artist could've later enhanced the blood stains.

The shroud itself is still dated to the 13th century by the 3 university tests carried out in the early 1980s.

I've disproved this in post 1984. If you have counter-evidence to my arguments, please present them.

Various articles exist in European churches and claimed to be real fragments of the cross, at least one large cut nail, and more, all intended to prove that the Jesus story was real.

Nobody is arguing the other relics are legit -- though there is one other that I believe is legit, I'll be arguing for that after the TS.

There is no record in the gospels of Magdalene or anybody else removing any articles which might have been connected to Jesus.

Why is this a necessary condition?

Christianity is left with its Faith, and no amount of articles or items can buttress this. Christians believe or they don't.

Actually, everything I've been posting has been backed with evidence. Please show any argument that I've made that has been based on faith. If that can be shown, I'm willing to retract it.

And NO, skeptics don't have to do anything, we simply have to look at evidence and think for ourselves. There is absolutely no link between this cloth and Jesus, the early 1st century or Jerusalem.

What do you think the TS is then?

TS evidence such as indicating rigor mortis doesn't help the Jesus story, because any 13th century convict could have been used in its production.

Evidence please. Who punished convicts in the 13th century by crucifixion?

I'm not challenging your evidence, I'm simply not seeing any. In my opinion you are simply left with your Faith and which I would never challenge, but the production of such artifacts as a shroud, or a nail or whatever don't influence me at all..... so far.

Again, all I'm claiming so far is a body was involved with the TS and that it was not artwork. Do you agree or disagree with my claim?

[boatsnguitars]

Sure, but what does the TS have to do with it?

As I explained before on why the TS relates to the trustworthiness of the Bible...

How is discussion of the Shroud of Turin relevant to the topic of this thread and the OP?

I posted ...

One of the most important doctrines in Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus and is one of the beliefs necessary for salvation.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Also, if Jesus was not resurrected, then all of Christianity is undermined. If the resurrection of Jesus is falsified, then Christianity is falsified.

1 Corinthians 15:17
And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins.

If he was not resurrected from the dead, he would be no different than any other person, including any other prophet or saint in any religion. But, if he was resurrected from the dead, then he would be quite unique and set him apart from all else.

The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to be a historical event and is not a make believe event that we should accept by blind faith. And if it is a historical event, then it should be able to be validated like any other historical event.

For any historical event, there are two main methods to demonstrate its historicity - artifacts and written records. We had talked about the account in the Bible of Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem. Without any artifacts or written records, there would be no corroborating evidence to support the Biblical claim. Then in 1830, Colonel Taylor discovered Sennacherib's Prism which is a written account that remarkably matches the Biblical account from the Assyrian perspective. So, there is no now doubt among historians that the Jerusalem siege actually occurred.

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.

We can trust the Bible is a reliable account of a foundational claim of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. I believe the Shroud of Turin is a corroborating artifact that supports the Biblical narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

How does this make us trust the Bible? After all, there are other things that are wrong in the Bible. The OT stole the Flood story, so I'd assume the Bible stole the Resurrection Story from the ancient Summerian tale of Dumuzid and Inanna.

I spent considerable time in this thread discussing the flood as well.

As for other "resurrection" accounts in other cultures, we can discuss those after the TS. But in the meantime, if they have an artifact of their resurrection stories, feel free to present that evidence.

Do you feel you are addressing the OP, or have you highjacked your own thread?

As I posted...

We can trust the Bible is a reliable account of a foundational claim of Christianity, the resurrection of Jesus. I believe the Shroud of Turin is a corroborating artifact that supports the Biblical narrative of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus.

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 a smarmy response. Why would the Church claim Jesus rose from the dead, then? After all, I won't believe them.

Do you see why your response is simply wrong. It's painful to watch people of Faith reduced to these tactics. Let your "Yes" be "Yes", etc. Right?

It doesn't matter what the church says about the shroud or the resurrection of Jesus. If it claims it is authentic and Jesus rose from the dead, would it make any difference to skeptics? So, why are asking why won't the church state that it's authentic?

Also, they cannot prove that it is authentic. Nobody can. There will always be an element of faith involved in order to believe it is authentic.

I assume you mean "faith" the way Matt Dillahunty defines it: "The excuse people give for believing something they have no good reason to believe."

I love the fact that you simply claim, wihout irony, that you simply use Faith to tip the scale in your favor on something you can't accept has been proven otherwise. Just because you ignore facts, then claim it's uncertain, then claim you use Faith to prove that it's true... I mean ... wow.

Wait, though, I just used Faith to conclude you are wrong about the TS. Is that the right way to use Faith, or are only Christians allowed to use Faith to contradict scientific claims?

Why would Scientists claim the shroud is from Medieval times, if you won't believe them?

If they had actually followed standard scientific procedures, I'd believe them. But since they had violated over a dozen procedures, no, I don't believe them. Also, it doesn't help that they had sampled a heterogeneous sample.

you really miss the point.
You said, "Why would the Church claim something if you (boatsnguitars) isn't going to believe it?"

That was your claim. The church doesn't check to see who is or isn't going to believe something, especially me, but anyone outside the Church, yet that was your response.

It's troubling that you simply can't even admit it was an error, but you seem to always assume you are right about everything. Very bad form.