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

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
oldbadger
Guru
Posts: 1808
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 11:11 am
Has thanked: 312 times
Been thanked: 223 times

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

Post #2121

Post by oldbadger »

otseng wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 6:11 am This is a debate forum where evidence is valued, not opinion.
I accept that, and because I haven't seen any Primary, Secondary, Direct, Indirect or even Circumstantial evidence I am only left with personal opinion and should withdraw from this debate. But thank you for all your replies.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #2122

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 10:50 pm
I'm trying to be methodical about my arguments. I haven't even presented the arguments the body was Jesus yet.
If you want to convince us, why let being convincing take a back seat to being methodical?
This thread is too massive and complex to not have some sort of organization in it. And with the resurrection of Jesus, this will be the largest of all the subtopics, so it will require being methodical.
It's silly because skeptics use the exact same reasoning with the C-14 dating.
I believe DrNoGods addressed that in post 1979.
Can you quote the post? Post 1979 is my post on my computer.
The following is from "Investigating a Dated Piece of the Shroud of Turin", authored by R. A. Freer-Waters and A.J.T. Jull and published by the University of Arizona Department of Geosciences in 2010:

"ABSTRACT. We present a photomicrographic investigation of a sample of the Shroud of Turin, split from one used in the radiocarbon dating study of 1988 at Arizona. In contrast to other reports on less-documented material, we find no evidence to contradict the idea that the sample studied was taken from the main part of the shroud, as reported by Damon et al. (1989). We also find no evidence for either coatings or dyes, and only minor contaminants."
I'm not able to download the full paper, so can't directly comment on it.

But some questions that comes to mind - How did they get hold of the sample from the C-14 area? How large of a sample did they have? Where from the C-14 section did their sample come from? If they had a small piece and it was part of the original linen and not from the reweave patch, then of course they'd find no cotton.
"The presence of a few cotton fibers is not unusual. It is possible cotton fibers are present from wrapping the textile in a cotton cloth, a practice that is still used in textile storage. It is also possible that processing of the fibers or the loom contained remnants of cotton fibers, which contaminated the shroud. We can also state that the linen fibers in this study have only low levels of contamination by a few cotton fibers, consistent with the original observations on the shroud (e.g. Raes 1976) that there are a few cotton fibers on (or in) the shroud.[/i]"
Yes, anything is possible on the source of the cotton. But the invisible patch theory is more consistent with the source of the cotton. We can even see the difference in the reweave pattern with our own eyes, which would mean it's not just a few fibers, but an entire section of the sample. This reweave was even confirmed by 3 textile experts, which was done blind, so there's no issue of bias.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

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

Post #2123

Post by boatsnguitars »

oldbadger wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 1:53 am
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Mar 23, 2023 5:29 am Ah, non-experts, always there to tell us experts are wrong...
There are no experts.
OK, w/e
Why is it mostly Christians who think non-experts are better sources than experts?
Is that right? I'm a deist myself.
You're not claiming to be an expert, are you? Are you...? :shock:
Oh, a deist. My condolences.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Thomas123
Sage
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2020 4:04 am
Has thanked: 122 times
Been thanked: 37 times

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

Post #2124

Post by Thomas123 »

Post#109 Sun Oct 10, 2021 3:47 pm...otseng

"Another example is the Shroud of Turin. I happen to believe it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Has God protected it all these years? Yes, I believe God has. But, it has still been affected by fire and contamination"

Post#173 Fri Oct 22, 2021 8:54 am.... otseng

"I operate this forum because I believe Christianity is true. If Christianity is false, I'll let someone else run another forum (and save a lot of my money and time as well)"

This has been an exercise in sycophancy (Jamie Raskin)

I am sorry, otseng but I cannot participate in stress testing your beliefs for you. (There are too many 'rabbit holes'. Thomas123

Thanks!

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

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

Post #2125

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #2128]
Can you quote the post? Post 1979 is my post on my computer.
Just FYI ... I've seen some moving of post numbers as well recently (and in the past). Today I see the referenced post as #1985 (page 199), while a day or two ago it was indeed #1979.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

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

Post #2126

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2122
How did they get hold of the sample from the C-14 area? How large of a sample did they have? Where from the C-14 section did their sample come from? If they had a small piece and it was part of the original linen and not from the reweave patch, then of course they'd find no cotton.
But they did find low levels of cotton, and in the exerpt I cite above they indicate how there might be traces of cotton even on the main part of the cloth.

From the same source:
The sampling of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 is stated by those present (e.g. D J Donahue, personal communication, 2010) to have been taken "from the main part of the shroud." Those removing the samples at the time were aware of repair material. We conclude from our observations and the history of our sample, that our sample was taken from the main part of the shroud. There is no evidence to the contrary. We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated. Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously.
otseng wrote:Yes, anything is possible on the source of the cotton. But the invisible patch theory is more consistent with the source of the cotton. We can even see the difference in the reweave pattern with our own eyes
....which goes along with Mechthild Flury-Lemberg's statement on the technical impossibility of "invisible reweaving".

From the same source in which I cited Flury-Lemberg earlier:
Harry E. Gove helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project. He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona. Gove has written (in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon) that: "Another argument has been made that the part of the shroud from which the sample was cut had possibly become worn and threadbare from countless handlings and had been subjected to medieval textile restoration. If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing. Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #2127

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:12 pm But they did find low levels of cotton, and in the exerpt I cite above they indicate how there might be traces of cotton even on the main part of the cloth.
No doubt trace amounts of cotton (even iron particles) is present on the entire shroud.
The sampling of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 is stated by those present (e.g. D J Donahue, personal communication, 2010) to have been taken "from the main part of the shroud."
What is the "main part of the shroud" that is being referred to? There was only one section that was cut from the Raes corner that was given to the C-14 labs.
Those removing the samples at the time were aware of repair material.
Even before the theory that Benford and Marino proposed in 2000? Why did the labs not mention this before then?
We find no evidence to support the contention that the 14C samples actually used for measurements are dyed, treated, or otherwise manipulated.
I presented the evidence from Rogers' published paper in Thermochimica Acta in post 1937.
Hence, we find no reason to dispute the original 14C measurements, since our sample is a fragment cut on the arrival of the Arizona 14C sample in Tucson on 24 April 1988 by coauthor Jull, and has been in his custody continuously.
The C-14 Nature report did not mention they had any leftover samples from the testing.
...which goes along with Mechthild Flury-Lemberg's statement on the technical impossibility of "invisible reweaving".
I addressed this as well in post 2052. From her paper, she implies the repair work done on the Raes corner was the sample technique as done by the Poor Clair nuns. However, this is not the claim that is made by Benford and Marino.
Harry E. Gove helped to invent radiocarbon dating and was closely involved in setting up the shroud dating project. He also attended the actual dating process at the University of Arizona.
Which was contrary to the agreement that the labs should keep their work secret until the results were published.
Gove has written (in the respected scientific journal Radiocarbon) that: "Another argument has been made that the part of the shroud from which the sample was cut had possibly become worn and threadbare from countless handlings and had been subjected to medieval textile restoration. If so, the restoration would have had to be done with such incredible virtuosity as to render it microscopically indistinguishable from the real thing. Even modern so-called invisible weaving can readily be detected under a microscope, so this possibility seems unlikely. It seems very convincing that what was measured in the laboratories was genuine cloth from the shroud after it had been subjected to rigorous cleaning procedures. Probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again."
I can agree that the reweaving could be detected under a microscope. Did they do such an investigation to show the entire fabric had no reweaving?

It's an erroneous claim to state, "probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again." I had outlined a dozen procedural violations the C-14 labs did.

Futher, he had an entirely different opinion prior to the announcement of the C-14 dates when he stated, "I hope the three laboratories stand firm and say to hell with you, let's get a result we all believe in, or leave it undated," when they decided to not allow for his lab to be involved in the testing.

Gove had also stated prior to the publication of the Nature report that it was a "shoddy enterprise":
1988 January . Gove sent a letter to Sir David Wilson of the British Museum telling him that the
dating process had turned into a “shoddy enterprise,” which Tite and the British Museum “might live to regret.”
And yet when the dates came out medieval, Gove was happy to accept the dates at face value.
https://www.academia.edu/35676836/Polit ... Dating_N25

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #2128

Post by otseng »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri Mar 24, 2023 2:29 pm Just FYI ... I've seen some moving of post numbers as well recently (and in the past). Today I see the referenced post as #1985 (page 199), while a day or two ago it was indeed #1979.
OK, thanks for the confirmation. I'll have to research why it's different.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2690
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

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

Post #2129

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2127
No doubt trace amounts of cotton (even iron particles) is present on the entire shroud.
Yes, and the 2010 UofA paper handily explains why. A medieval flax linen could have been woven on a loom contamitated with cotton fibers and/or wrapped in a cotton cloth.
What is the "main part of the shroud" that is being referred to?
The "genuine cloth from the shroud", obviously.
It's an erroneous claim to state, "probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again." I had outlined a dozen procedural violations the C-14 labs did.
If they were going to pull a switcheroo with the samples, where did they get the replacements? If they were going to make the switch in secret, wouldn't they have gone to the trouble of making sure that their bogus samples had the same weights as the originals? And how would they have known that they would even have to take the risk of pulling a switch before the test was conducted?
In 1988 when they did the C-14 testing, AMS was a relatively new C-14 technique and had only been in use for a few years.

"In 1982, AMS labs began processing archaeological samples for radiocarbon dating."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat ... ectrometry
One would think that a more modern technique could be relied on at least as surely as could an older one. And according to your own source, the technique they used had been in development since 1939.
Bias was demonstrated by the C-14 labs in their role in kicking out STURP from participating in the tests and preventing their proposal of additional non-destructive tests to be carried through.
The Vatican subsequently decided to adopt a different protocol instead.

On April 27, 1987, a Vatican spokesperson announced to the newspaper La Stampa that the procedure would likely be performed by two or three laboratories at most;

On October 10, Cardinal Anastasio Ballestrero officially announced to the seven laboratories that the proportional counter method would not be used because this method would require too much Shroud material (gram quantities rather than milligram quantities). Only three laboratories, namely Oxford, Tucson, and Zürich, would be provided with Shroud samples to be tested.

The sole supervising institution would be the British Museum, headed by Michael Tite.

These deviations were heavily criticized.

The blind-test method was abandoned, because the distinctive three-to-one herringbone twill weave of the shroud could not be matched in the controls, and it was therefore still possible for a laboratory to identify the shroud sample. Shredding the samples would not solve the problem, while making it much more difficult and wasteful to clean the samples properly. Harry Gove, director of Rochester's laboratory (one of the four not selected by the Vatican), argued in an open letter published in Nature that discarding the blind-test method would expose the results – whatever they may be – to suspicion of unreliability. However, in a 1990 paper Gove conceded that the "arguments often raised, … that radiocarbon measurements on the shroud should be performed blind seem to the author to be lacking in merit; … lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarb ... d_of_Turin
(emphasis mine)

Even if more testing of the cloth is warrented, the bulk of the evidence so far leans toward what has already been indicated----a couple of bas-relief images impressed onto a piece of 14-century linen with some cotten fibers mixed into it.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20501
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

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

Post #2130

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Sun Mar 26, 2023 6:23 pm
No doubt trace amounts of cotton (even iron particles) is present on the entire shroud.
Yes, and the 2010 UofA paper handily explains why. A medieval flax linen could have been woven on a loom contamitated with cotton fibers and/or wrapped in a cotton cloth.
If the shroud is a fake, all the thread materials, whether linen or cotton, would be medieval. It wouldn't really matter if there was cotton in it or not; it would always date to a medieval date.

If the shroud is genuine, it should be pure linen. When the STURP team investigated the shroud, every place they inspected the shroud was made of linen. Even if there was extraneous cotton due to loom contamination, it would be trace amounts and it would all date to 1st century.

So, I don't see how a loom contamination would affect things either way.
What is the "main part of the shroud" that is being referred to?
The "genuine cloth from the shroud", obviously.
Of course it is "genuine" cloth, but it's not "main part". It was all from the Raes corner. Physically, it's in a remote corner which is not the "main" part of the cloth. Chemically, it's different from the rest of the cloth as evidenced by the quad mosaic imaging. Photographically, there is a difference in the weaving pattern. And spectroscopy shows it is a heterogeneous sample.
It's an erroneous claim to state, "probably no sample for carbon dating has ever been subjected to such scrupulously careful examination and treatment, nor perhaps ever will again." I had outlined a dozen procedural violations the C-14 labs did.
If they were going to pull a switcheroo with the samples, where did they get the replacements?
Where did I claim samples were switched?
In 1988 when they did the C-14 testing, AMS was a relatively new C-14 technique and had only been in use for a few years.

"In 1982, AMS labs began processing archaeological samples for radiocarbon dating."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerat ... ectrometry
One would think that a more modern technique could be relied on at least as surely as could an older one. And according to your own source, the technique they used had been in development since 1939.
They used the AMS technique. It was in 1982 it was first used for testing artifacts by labs.
The Vatican subsequently decided to adopt a different protocol instead.
Yes, the Vatican also shared in the procedural violations.
These deviations were heavily criticized.
Including Gove who stated:
Harry Gove, director of Rochester's laboratory (one of the four not selected by the Vatican), argued in an open letter published in Nature that discarding the blind-test method would expose the results – whatever they may be – to suspicion of unreliability.
He backtracked after the results showed a medieval date:
However, in a 1990 paper Gove conceded that the "arguments often raised, … that radiocarbon measurements on the shroud should be performed blind seem to the author to be lacking in merit; … lack of blindness in the measurements is a rather insubstantial reason for disbelieving the result."[/i]
This reveals lack of objectivity if you argue results would be unreliable unless you get the date that you want.
Even if more testing of the cloth is warrented, the bulk of the evidence so far leans toward what has already been indicated----a couple of bas-relief images impressed onto a piece of 14-century linen with some cotten fibers mixed into it.
If you really want to claim this, then we can explore this even deeper and put the discussions on the blood on hold.

Post Reply