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

[oldbadger]

Are you saying it's critical to find out who made the linen fabric? No, I don't know who made the grew the linen, harvested the linen, spun the yarns, and weaved the fabric. How is that even relevant?

Provenance is everything. A piece of cloth appears around 1354. Claims are made about it being the burial cloth of Jesus. There is no chain of custody or connection back to the alleged corpse of Jesus. All we have is a possibly contested age for the cloth which does nothing to fill in any of the gaps. Unanswered questions are not evidence for anything.

Yep.....absolutely.
Now if Paul had written to a congregation and included mention of such a cloth being sent to them, or if Peter had included mention in his letters.....etc etc. But there is nothing like that at all. This item seems to have sprung in to existence 700 years ago.

Have you read all the forensic reports? I have not, am just a passing observer in all this.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2084]

It's not about the image; it's about what a gospel writer says about why something happened. According to the scripture that gospel writer misquotes, he gets it wrong.

Which verse are you then referring to?

Zechariah 12:10 states: "And they shall look to Me whom they have pierced; then they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only son." In John 19:37 this verse is quoted with a significant change: "They shall look upon him whom they have pierced."

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/ar ... ariah-1210

This is an example of interpretation of OT scripture on whether Jesus was the Messiah or not. Like I said, this is a huge topic in itself and we'll get back to this after discussing the resurrection.

Since the top of the head would have been close to the cloth, there should be imaging there. In fact, if the body was bent forward the cloth would have been in contact with even more of the head before dropping perpendicular to the ground behind the body. This means that there should be a distortion image of the top of the head on the cloth. There isn't, and that is actually evidence that the images are not those of a three-dimensional head but are, rather, bas-relief images. The front and back images couldn't be made from one relief, but they could be made from two.

How would you know the top of the head should be imaged if I haven't even proposed what the imaging mechanism was?

For a bas-relief, there are so many issues with that hypothesis. We've already covered some of these before.

You can get into it later. I'll get into it now.

You can if you wish, but it does not affect if the TS is authentic or not.

[otseng]

"Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390, it still leaves several questions unanswered -- who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?"

If that date was established, then the shroud becomes a mere curiosity and the answers to the questions would only be of interest to those who care about such things.

I've argued at length against the C-14 dating and summarized it in post 1984. What counter-arguments do you have against my arguments?

HUH? Your response has nothing to do with what I said or the comment you made that I was responding to.

Then what did you mean by "if that date was established"? What dates are you referring to and how would it be established?

Are you saying it's critical to find out who made the linen fabric? No, I don't know who made the grew the linen, harvested the linen, spun the yarns, and weaved the fabric. How is that even relevant?

Provenance is everything. A piece of cloth appears around 1354. Claims are made about it being the burial cloth of Jesus. There is no chain of custody or connection back to the alleged corpse of Jesus. All we have is a possibly contested age for the cloth which does nothing to fill in any of the gaps. Unanswered questions are not evidence for anything.

I agree provenance of the Turin Shroud should be investigated, but the provenance of the linen yarn is not relevant. However, if you are talking about the C-14 dating of the linen yarn, that dating has already been refuted.

[otseng]

Myrrh and Aloes? Of course, so why haven't I read a line about any such residues? I have not read any of the lab reports from the 80's, did these refer to such residues?

Yes, it says 100 pounds of spices were brought to the tomb, but it does not state if all the spices were used, so it's conjecture how much was on the body during burial.

So far I have read that this item dates back about 700 years so it is short by One thousand Three hundred years....no?

Are you referring to the 1988 C-14 dating?

What do you see are the strongest and weakest positions of both sides so far?

Dating of the item points towards it being false.

Obviously you have not been reading my posts to refute this.

No connection between Jerusalem and Turin.
No connection between Magdalene and the other ladies and and line of handling all the way to Turin.

I have not even discussed this yet. My question to you is about what has been discussed "so far". You say you are just an "observer", but there's no evidence you've even been reading my posts on the shroud.

That so many artifacts were fashioned in order to attract pilgrims or increase faith in people...

I've already addressed this as well.

Is this because you are still researching for straws, or because you are holding them back for some debating climax?

It's because I want to keep this debate semi-organized.

Then are you willing to retract your statement, "I haven't seen any of your ideas that were based upon scientific research, is all. In my opinion all you're left with is faith"?

Yes. If your opinion is not based upon any faith then you won't have much to grasp at all......at this rate. So I take it back..... you will not be left with anything imo, if you cannot prepare a clear and concise list of evidence.

I've been providing evidence throughout this thread. Simply claiming I have not produced evidence is another baseless asssertion. Again, point to any post I've made where my arguments are based on faith and not based on evidence.

I'm just expecting a yes or no answer. It's either it's a fake or it's not a fake.

You need to show a clear conclusion showing your evidence before any such opinion could be arrived at. You tell us that haven't shown all your evidence yet.... you'll be getting to various evidences soon....yes?

Question dodging and continual baseless assertions noted.

[brunumb]

"Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390, it still leaves several questions unanswered -- who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?"

If that date was established, then the shroud becomes a mere curiosity and the answers to the questions would only be of interest to those who care about such things.

I've argued at length against the C-14 dating and summarized it in post 1984. What counter-arguments do you have against my arguments?

HUH? Your response has nothing to do with what I said or the comment you made that I was responding to.

Then what did you mean by "if that date was established"? What dates are you referring to and how would it be established?

You said ""Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390,...." What else would I be referring to? I specifically responded to you saying:
"Supposing the TS was actually dated to 1260-1390, it still leaves several questions unanswered -- who did it and how did the image on the cloth get created?"
Perhaps you should read my response in that context.

[brunumb]

I agree provenance of the Turin Shroud should be investigated, but the provenance of the linen yarn is not relevant. However, if you are talking about the C-14 dating of the linen yarn, that dating has already been refuted.

The shroud is made from the linen yarn. They are inseparable. If the linen yarn originated in the 1300s then the shroud would have to be a fake. The dating of the fabric puts it in the 1300s more or less, and although it may be disputed it has not been refuted.

[brunumb]

Myrrh and Aloes? Of course, so why haven't I read a line about any such residues? I have not read any of the lab reports from the 80's, did these refer to such residues?

Yes, it says 100 pounds of spices were brought to the tomb, but it does not state if all the spices were used, so it's conjecture how much was on the body during burial.

Why on earth would they cart such a massive amount of ointment to the tomb if they had no intention of using it? That makes no sense. If the body was anointed it would have taken a fair amount anyway and there would have to be some residue in the fabric.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2092

This is an example of interpretation of OT scripture on whether Jesus was the Messiah or not.

This is an example of a Christian writer misquoting Jewish scripture, apparently to make it look like Jesus fit the messianic framework.

How would you know the top of the head should be imaged if I haven't even proposed what the imaging mechanism was?

It isn't about what mechanism you or anyone else proposes. The whole idea of the Shroud of Turin is that some miraculous force put an image of Jesus on the cloth, and there isn't any image in a crucial place where there should be if a three-dimensional body was involved. You can play "he said-she said" between experts and would-be experts over the dating of the cloth, but the absence of an image where there would have to be one isn't an issue which can be brushed aside or obscured with murky references to "cloth-to-body angle".

Is there supposed to be some convenient excuse for there being no image where the cloth supposedly wrapped over the head when there's such clear and highly celebrated imaging everywhere else the cloth was supposedly close to the body? Are we all supposed to just ignore such a glaring discrepancy and take your word that it isn't an issue?

In his commentary on the image, Barrie Schwortz referred to a maxim of Sherlock Holmes: when we have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left----however improbable----must be the truth. The logical impossibility here is that some extranormal force would be deliberately used to put a realistic image on a piece of fabric and fail spectacularly at making the image consistently realistic.

The bas-relief scenario is far more plausible than that.

[oldbadger]

Yes, it says 100 pounds of spices were brought to the tomb, but it does not state if all the spices were used, so it's conjecture how much was on the body during burial.

I know, but I was asking about any lab reports.

Are you referring to the 1988 C-14 dating?

I read about the Oxford dating, is all.

I have not even discussed this yet. My question to you is about what has been discussed "so far". You say you are just an "observer", but there's no evidence you've even been reading my posts on the shroud.

I think it would be very easy to list your evidences in one clear concise post, but so far I have not read any evidence of yours about the shroud.... nothing.

I've already addressed this as well.

And so you have acknowledged the fact that many many artifacts have been discovered which were intended to bolster faith in the people.

It's because I want to keep this debate semi-organized.

A list of evidences on a single post would in my opinion present the strongest possible proposal that this shroud might be one that covered Jesus.

Again, point to any post I've made where my arguments are based on faith and not based on evidence.

I have already written that I have not seen any presence of faith in your posts, apart from where you wrote that you do believe in a resurrected Jesus and this shroud. I wrote to you previously:- Yes. If your opinion is not based upon any faith then you won't have much to grasp at all......at this rate. So I take it back..... you will not be left with anything imo, if you cannot prepare a clear and concise list of evidence.

Question dodging and continual baseless assertions noted.

I just want to see your list of evidence, and you are still withholding evidence to keep this debate organised. I can't answer your questions because I don't know much about this shroud, I'm just reading member's opinions and proposals.

I still wait to read your evidence, hopefully all together in one post.

[oldbadger]

I agree provenance of the Turin Shroud should be investigated, but the provenance of the linen yarn is not relevant. However, if you are talking about the C-14 dating of the linen yarn, that dating has already been refuted.

The shroud is made from the linen yarn. They are inseparable. If the linen yarn originated in the 1300s then the shroud would have to be a fake. The dating of the fabric puts it in the 1300s more or less, and although it may be disputed it has not been refuted.

That's the problem with this shroud, it seems to be about One thousand two hundred years out of date with the claims.