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

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2246

Do you concede that there could be naturalistic explanations for the TS?

Sure there could be one in the future. Now your turn to answer my question.

My turn to answer your question? You still haven't answered my question about the absence of wraparound distortion.

There is no wrap around distortion. Further, this is evidence against a bas-relief, where a cloth would be pressed against the body.

Since you won't answer my question, I'll answer it for you. There are no viable naturalistic explanations for the TS. Otherwise scientists would not be still studying this to try to figure out how it was made. Also, if there was a viable naturalistic explanation, one can easily then fully replicate it, which nobody has done so far.

Since there exists no viable naturalistic explanation, a non-natural explanation can then be entertained. And as I've noted previously, cosmology and physics have already been doing this.

[otseng]

Both McCrone and the STURP team studied the samples from the sticky tapes. However, there was one crucial difference. McCrone only studied the samples while they were on the tape. STURP was able to study the samples by removing them from the tape and the adhesive.

In sharp contrast, Heller and Adler removed all the specimens from the tapes before their
studies. Then, they removed the adhesive with toluene and verified the final removal of the
adhesive under UV irradiation (the adhesive gives a bluish-white fluorescence).

www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

Observing the samples while on the tape would've affected the refractive indices.

Heller noticed that the Mylar tape was optically active so that any red particle looks
birefringent when the light has to pass through the tape and particle 28 . Certainly, the tape also
changes the measured refractive indices of the particles.

www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

Visual analysis of particles through a microscope is also subjective.

His identification of iron-oxide was based on neither chemical testing nor physics-based testing, but consisted simply of looking through his microscope and seeing particles that seemed to have the appearance and crystalline characteristics of ironoxide.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ford1.pdf

So, though iron oxide and vermillian were detected by both McCrone and STURP, there were false positives that were likely observed by McCrone. This is evidenced by his claims differing over time.

From McCrone himself, it is clear that most of his observations were performed on the
anisotropic Mylar tapes that change the optical properties.
It is important to notice that McCrone’s claims about the red particles have changed at various
times 72 : the paint was composed of 1) simply iron oxide particles, then 2) jeweller’s rouge, an
iron oxide available only after about 1800, identical to hematite, then 3) earth iron oxide
pigment: the red ochre in a proteinous binder and finally, after the discovering of Vermilion
by McCrone associates, 4) his final claim of liquid earthy iron-oxide paint with liquid
vermilion paint to enhance the red color of the “blood”.

www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

And polarized light microscopy is considered an antiquated technique, even during the time when McCrone tested the samples. From his own paper:

Very few chemistry students, undergraduate or
graduate, have ever looked through a microscope except,
perhaps, in high school biology. The direct micro-
scopical approach to the solution of chemical problems
has been largely lost during the past three decades.
This project on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
has been an excellent opportunity to gain wide publicity
for the unique capabilities of polarized light microscopy,
providing a real impetus to its deserved renascence.

http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads ... 560933.pdf

[otseng]

As for detection of albumin, it is not the only evidence of blood. Heller and Adler performed a battery of chemical tests to analyze the blood, with several pointing to it being human/primate blood.

To summarize, they found:

- Proteins: fluorescamine testing, FTIR microspectrometry and proteases testing.
- Albumin of primate origin: microchemical testing, immunological testing.
- Porphyrin: hydrazine/formic acid fluorescence specific test. This porphyrin is not from
vegetal origin.
- Hemoglobin/methemoglobin: specific Soret bands in spectra, indicative reflection spectra ∗ ,
positive hemochromagen tets, positive cyanmethemoglobin tests.
- Specifically, methemoglobin in its para-hemic form found particularly in hemolysed blood
(spectra).
- High levels of bilirubin (microchemical testing), consistent with the para-hemic
methemoglobin, both consistent with the partial hemolysis of the blood of a tortured living
man.
- Relatively low amounts of iron liberated only after digestion with Aqua Regia as expected
for heme bound iron, contrary to the iron of iron oxide pigments.
- Iron content (XRF) consistent with blood.
- Absence of any visible iron oxide residue after dissolution with both proteases and
hydrazine.
- Positive highly specific immunological tests with antibodies against whole human serum,
human albumin, blood type antigens and human globulins.
- Laboratories experiments with blood+bilirubin matching the microspectrometry spectra
observed on the Shroud fibers and showing a complete mismatch with iron oxide+vermilion
in gelatine paint simulacra.

The only possible conclusion is that the “blood” on the Shroud is real old denaturated human (or at least primate) blood.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

A CHEMICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN
JOHN H. HELLER AND ALAN D. ADLER

We have in our opinion confirmed that the "blood" is in fact real blood (cf., Table 5) and this
is in agreement with spectroscopic 11-15 and forensics studies. We have shown that the bulk of
the iron present on the Shroud is in the cellulosic bound form and shown that it is readily
accounted for by a well understood natural process, viz., retting, that the linen of the Shroud
must have been subjected to, and that this conclusion is supported by the X-ray data. 15 We
find the iron in the blood areas behaves as heme bound iron. We find iron oxide concentrated
in the water stain margins and it is not bound there by a protein. We have demonstrated that
iron is present in all the old linens we have tested and retting is a reasonable explanation for
its occurrence there. Our conclusions are not only self-consistent, but agree with the X-ray"
and spectroscopic" studies which have shown that "iron-oxide" does not correlate with the
visually observed image and cannot account for it.
We have further shown that the body image, in fact, is not produced by any pigments, stains,
or dyes and is specifically not accounted for by "age yellowed" protein. Protein is present
only in blood and in the halo area around some blood. The image arises from dehydratively
oxidized cellulose and can be accounted for, but a specific mechanism cannot be provided
(see below). This conclusion is consistent with previous work, 9-16 in particular the
microscopic observations, 16 that show there is no evidence of cementation of the body image
fibrils to one another, no capillarity or penetration of the color below the top surface fibrils on
the crowns of the fibers of the weave, no evidence of brush marks, etc.
We have also seen vermillion (in a "blood" area, though a different sample from that where
McCrone identified it). We feel that it is more easily explained as evidence that artists have
copied the Shroud (an historically verifiable fact 6, 7, 9 )48
and not that an artist has rendered it (a severely disputed historical fact 7 ). In this regard it is
interesting to note that the elements other than Hg detected by McCrone's analysis, viz., Na,
Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, Fe and Cu, are in fact all found in whole blood. 81 However, it
would be a most peculiar minerological assemblage that would provide these elements and
not the expected iron earth pigment impurities, i.e., Mn, Co, and Ni. His "particle medium
agglomerates" where he has detected these elements are the same as our globs which we have
shown contain only low amounts of heme bound iron and no visually detectable amounts of
Hg. In this regard it should be noted here that the "red color" seen arises from the porphyrin
rings present and not the iron contained therein. 14, 33 In fact, insertation of iron into a
porphyrin lowers its intrinsic extinction. Therefore, the "iron" we see in the globs is at the
lower limits of our detection, which would place the "mercury" that McCrone sees at trace
levels far below the limits that would provide a visually detectable color evident to the eye.
This is entirely consistent with contamination due to the artists who have copied the Shroud.
Finally, any applied pigment is incapable of rendering all of the image characteristics found
on this cloth. It is highly improbable that any 14 th century artist would produce a "reversed"
image or could encode the degree of three dimensional, computer readable information 9
found in this image and leave no other surviving historical evidence of his evident genius.
It is remarkable how closely all these results were predicted by Rogers prior to the actual
investigation of the Shroud. 82 Until further studies are made, the explanation of the image on
this intriguing and controversial relic remains a mystery.
Using a Kevex ISI 100B Energy Dispersive Spectrometer. we have examined 16 different
globs and fibrils from blood image, body image, and non-image tape samples. The fibrils all
show strong Ca and Fe signals. The globs all show Na, Mg, Al, Si, P, S, Cl, K, Ca, and Fe.
Some also show Cu and Zn. Fibrils and globs from the cinnabar "track" area on 6BF also
show Hg. Most importantly, there is no Co, Mn, or Ni detected anywhere and the Hg is only
detectable in "track" samples. Similar results were obtained by J. Jackson and W. Ercoline in
their SEM studies. These results and the conclusions to be drawn therefrom are identical with
those from the microchemistry.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part3.pdf

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2251

There is no wrap around distortion. Further, this is evidence against a bas-relief, where a cloth would be pressed against the body.

There is no wrap around distortion. This is evidence against the involvement of a body, which would have had a three-dimensional head over which the cloth would have gone.

[Diogenes]

In short, the material on the cloth has not been proven to be human blood.

As discussed, cross-reactivity precludes a definitive assignment of human or even primate blood being present on the Shroud; the blood is most correctly classified as species unknown. In cases where the objects’ origin and history are relatively unknown, it is best to both: i) consider a wide-range of possibilities for species origin, and ii) ensure that cross-reactivity and specificity of serological reagents are well-defined.'
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 0720300190

Sure, I can accept it has not been proven to be human blood, but prior evidence supports it to be human blood. This report does not claim it cannot be human blood either. Instead, it notes, "Unfortunately, the amount of Shroud samples that were available to further confirm these results were limited, and the findings were never fully completed...

It's almost as if the Vatican and STURP found enough evidence to realize they did not want further tests. As you've argued, they don't want to unnecessarily destroy parts of the artifact, but since the Vatican does not deem it a 'relic,' but a mere icon, why be so conservative? It's not as if it actually is the burial cloth of Jesus.

If I were the judge and this was a legal case, I'd direct the jury to presume evidence hidden from the other party would be adverse to their claim.

“Adverse-inference instructions were developed on the premise that a party's intentional loss or destruction of evidence to prevent its use in litigation gives rise to a reasonable inference that the evidence was unfavorable to the party responsible for loss or destruction of the evidence."

****************************

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall you addressing the issue of the face cloth covering the body of Jesus, as reported in the New Testament:

"Two men, [John the Apostle and Simon Peter] who personally investigated the tomb of Jesus early on the morning of the disappearance of his body, present testimony which seriously jeopardizes the validity of the famous shroud of Turin.*
....
they also found a facial napkin used to wrap the head. The use of such a napkin would have prevented an image of the face from forming on the outer linens. The Shroud of Turin is a fake."
https://www.chick.com/battle-cry/articl ... rin-a-fake

See Post #2233, viewtopic.php?p=1118033#p1118033

[otseng]

It's almost as if the Vatican and STURP found enough evidence to realize they did not want further tests.

I'd agree. There's so much evidence for its authenticity no further tests are necessary.

As you've argued, they don't want to unnecessarily destroy parts of the artifact, but since the Vatican does not deem it a 'relic,' but a mere icon, why be so conservative? It's not as if it actually is the burial cloth of Jesus.

Yes, it actually is the burial cloth of Jesus. And since that's the case, we should handle it with the utmost care and respect.

Again, I'm not against further tests, but we should explore all non-destructive tests before any further destructive tests are conducted.

If I were the judge and this was a legal case, I'd direct the jury to presume evidence hidden from the other party would be adverse to their claim.

There was no hiding of the evidence. The shroud was allowed to be tested twice. Once in 1978 with STURP and again in 1988 with C-14. If there's any hesitancy now with further testing, I fault the debacle with the C-14 dating procedures.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall you addressing the issue of the face cloth covering the body of Jesus, as reported in the New Testament:

Yes, I already addressed it:
viewtopic.php?p=1118086#p1118086

[otseng]

There is no wrap around distortion. This is evidence against the involvement of a body, which would have had a three-dimensional head over which the cloth would have gone.

It's not evidence though against explanations that involve image projection.

[otseng]

Summary of arguments against McCrone and his findings:

1. McCrone might've believed he was on the STURP team, but in actuality he was not.

viewtopic.php?p=1117304#p1117304

2. McCrone only studied from 32 sticky tape samples, which would be a very small subset of the entire shroud.

viewtopic.php?p=1117304#p1117304

3. Though McCrone believed the TS was painted, he admitted he could not scientifically demonstrate this.

"I am not saying the Shroud is not authentic. I am saying that the image area has a lot of iron
oxide and a lot of artist's pigment associated with it but I do not know whether the amount of
iron oxide present is sufficient to explain the entire image."

viewtopic.php?p=1117304#p1117304

4. McCrone believed the iron oxide could be a result of touch up paint.

"I know that a great deal of iron oxide is present in ways telling me it was done by an artist. I
do not know whether or not it is the entire image; it could be enhancement of an earlier
image."

viewtopic.php?p=1117304#p1117304

5. The sticky tape samples were not officially given to McCrone by STURP, but was loaned to him by Rogers.

viewtopic.php?p=1117473#p1117473

6. McCrone admits he cannot scientifically prove the TS is a fake.

"I think it was a fake but I cannot prove it as a scientist."

viewtopic.php?p=1117605#p1117605

7. After STURP reviewed McCrone's paper, it was deemed to not be scientifically rigorous.

viewtopic.php?p=1117745#p1117745

8. Since McCrone studied the samples while it was on the sticky tape, it could make anything appear birefringent.

viewtopic.php?p=1117745#p1117745

9. There are a multitude of flaws with McCrone's explanation of how the shroud was created.

viewtopic.php?p=1117997#p1117997

10. McCrone admits only a very small amount of iron oxide and vermilion are present and is much less than a normal painting.

viewtopic.php?p=1118175#p1118175

11. McCrone does not challenge the STURP explanations of the presence of iron oxide thru flax retting and vermilion with replicas pressed against the TS to be blessed.

viewtopic.php?p=1118175#p1118175

12. There are many extraneous particles found on the TS that could be lifted by sticky tape, but that doesn't mean the entire shroud image would've been made by those particles.

viewtopic.php?p=1118175#p1118175

13. Heller and Adler performed their tests by removing the sticky tape and adhesive, whereas McCrone did all his observations with the sticky tape intact.

viewtopic.php?p=1118269#p1118269

14. Visual analysis through a microscope is subjective.

viewtopic.php?p=1118269#p1118269

15. Polarized light microscopy is considered an antiquated technique and "has been largely lost during the past three decades."

viewtopic.php?p=1118269#p1118269

16. Heller and Adler performed a battery of chemical tests to show it is real blood.

viewtopic.php?p=1118271#p1118271

[Diogenes]

It's almost as if the Vatican and STURP found enough evidence to realize they did not want further tests.

I'd agree. There's so much evidence for its authenticity no further tests are necessary.

As you've argued, they don't want to unnecessarily destroy parts of the artifact, but since the Vatican does not deem it a 'relic,' but a mere icon, why be so conservative? It's not as if it actually is the burial cloth of Jesus.

Yes, it actually is the burial cloth of Jesus. And since that's the case, we should handle it with the utmost care and respect.

Again, I'm not against further tests, but we should explore all non-destructive tests before any further destructive tests are conducted.

If I were the judge and this was a legal case, I'd direct the jury to presume evidence hidden from the other party would be adverse to their claim.

There was no hiding of the evidence. The shroud was allowed to be tested twice. Once in 1978 with STURP and again in 1988 with C-14. If there's any hesitancy now with further testing, I fault the debacle with the C-14 dating procedures.

Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall you addressing the issue of the face cloth covering the body of Jesus, as reported in the New Testament:

Yes, I already addressed it:
viewtopic.php?p=1118086#p1118086

You were SERIOUS about that?
Every answer you've given in this post is testament to your amazing credulity and unearthly bias for your unsupported belief as opposed to careful, scientific judgment. Obviously the 'napkin' had been removed AFTER the body was stolen, removed, or if you insist, raised from the dead to go walking about the countryside until it floated up into heaven.

You've gone completely off the tracks now, concluding it is the burial cloth of Jesus when, even if it WERE from a real body, it could have been ANY body from the 14th Century. I suppose you are equally credulous about the fake 'Crown of thorns' obviously PAINTED above the head in a way to prove the faker, thorns having the same effect on the cloth as blood and body.

Are there any Carbon 14 tests from independent scientists that concluded the 'shroud' is from the 1st Century? No, they say 14th Century, consistent with the lack of provenance and ZERO mentions in history until then. Even the religious leaders of the 14th Century pronounced it a fake.

The evidence is hidden in that the church/STURP won't allow further tests even tho' they admit theirs are inconclusive (rather than admit the truth, they say 'inconclusive.' That is the sense in which they are hiding evidence- they won't allow further tests despite the scientific community AND the Vatican's admission it is a FAKE (an icon, not a relic)
They don't want more samples taken because:

They are afraid of having holes punched in their theories. Literally

Any objective observer can see it is a painting because it does not match human anatomy. Every solid proof it is not authentic, you will tell us about later. On this issue, you've become like a Flat Earther/Young Earth Creationist, believing what you want, not what the evidence leads one to.
Rather, you insist this one fake relic, out of the tens of thousands of fake relics, this one, just this one is real.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_as ... with_Jesus

[brunumb]

Rather, you insist this one fake relic, out of the tens of thousands of fake relics, this one, just this one is real.
[/size]

I was just wondering if anyone kept the crown of thorns as a precious souvenir.