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

[Adonai Yahweh]

How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

Provide scriptural texts and context of the chapters to prove your claim that the bible is a doctrine of inerrancy , If your unable to , your claim is baseless and an emotional appeal

[Diogenes]

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.

The 'crown' on the "Shroud of Turin" presents a thorny problem for Shroud Believers. Surely the friendlies who buried the body would have removed the crown before placing the facecloth on the face of the deceased. It was a crown of derision, mocking the supposed 'King of the Jews,' adding insult to injury. His followers would have quickly removed it out of reverence before wrapping the body in clothes and 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes.

Yet the S of T forging artist was eager to paint a crown on the head of Jesus to match the Gospel accounts that mentioned he wore a 'crown of thorns.' Without the crown, I imagine the forger reasoned, the image would not be specific to Jesus . . . and could represent any ol' crucifixion victim. So the artist could not resist adding the crown, despite the improbability of his burial still wearing it.

There are about 500 of these thorny crowns saved as "relics."
https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real- ... 8e8bcdd72d

[otseng]

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.

I was going to say the same thing about your post.

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.

There is nothing obvious about your statement. It doesn't even make any sense.

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.

If you believe the 1988 C-14 dating is valid, then please address my challenges to it instead of continually asserting the C-14 dating is valid.

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.

I've already argued the blood stains were not painted on. Please provide evidence with a reference it was painted.

Are there any Carbon 14 tests from independent scientists that concluded the 'shroud' is from the 1st Century?

No C-14 test have been able to definitively date the shroud, not even the 1988 test. As for other dating techniques pointing to the 1st century, I'll provide those later.

No, they say 14th Century, consistent with the lack of provenance and ZERO mentions in history until then.

As I've mentioned multiple times, I'll get to the history of the TS later.

Even the religious leaders of the 14th Century pronounced it a fake.

You talking about the d'Arcis memo?

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.'

No, STURP wanted further tests on the shroud. It is actually the C-14 members that blocked any further involvement of the STURP team and hijacked the testing so that in 1988, only the C-14 testing was done. So, who's the one blocking who?

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)

Please cite the source where the church says the TS is a fake.

They don't want more samples taken because:
They are afraid of having holes punched in their theories. Literally

Is this your opinion or can you quote any church member stating this?

Any objective observer can see it is a painting because it does not match human anatomy.

What are you referring to?

On this issue, you've become like a Flat Earther/Young Earth Creationist, believing what you want, not what the evidence leads one to.

More ad hom accusations.

[otseng]

How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

Provide scriptural texts and context of the chapters to prove your claim that the bible is a doctrine of inerrancy , If your unable to , your claim is baseless and an emotional appeal

This thread is not about debating inerrancy. It is about arguing for the authority of the Bible without assuming the Bible is inerrant.

[Athetotheist]

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.

You throw the words "image projection" out there, but have you explained what you mean by them?

[otseng]

You throw the words "image projection" out there, but have you explained what you mean by them?

The idea is modeling any 3-D object onto a 2-D surface which would involve some sort of image projection technique.

I mentioned it here:

That also is a clue to how the image got formed. There are many possible ways to project a 3-D body onto a 2-D surface. This is akin to having several ways the earth can be represented on a 2-D map. Here's a sampling:

Stereographic



Conic Projection



Cylindrical Projection



Robinson



And there are many more methods to create a 2-D map.

[brunumb]

How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

Provide scriptural texts and context of the chapters to prove your claim that the bible is a doctrine of inerrancy , If your unable to , your claim is baseless and an emotional appeal

I read that as a question, not a claim. Can you answer the question?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2266

The idea is modeling any 3-D object onto a 2-D surface which would involve some sort of image projection technique.

You include six images of a 3-D object projected onto a 2-D surface.

Not one of them has a big gap in the middle.

[Diogenes]

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.

There is nothing obvious about your statement. It doesn't even make any sense.

If you really believe "It doesn't even make any sense," it should be easy for you to explain why. Of course, you didn't. Why does it not make sense that the napkin was removed after death? It was reportedly found set aside. If it was used, then it HAD to be set aside if the report is accurate. Or are you claiming it was never used? That it never covered the face of Jesus body? Why was it there at all then?

You make a claim, "It doesn't make sense," but you have no explanation as to why. This is so weak you'd have been better off ignoring it, like you do the best arguments against your magical claim. Your remaining arguments here are just as weak and have been answered previously.

Any objective observer can see it is a painting because it does not match human anatomy.

Otseng:

What are you referring to?

I've carefully explained this more than once. The face is too long. The eyes are too close to the top of the head, just the way Gothic artists of the time drew humans. This is still a common anatomical error made by young student artists. The eyes should be in the middle of the face.

Where are the C14 findings the cloth is from the 1st Century? The only ones we have date it to the 14th as I have pointed out repeatedly. You don't like it, but you don't want any more tests. Neither does the Vatican or STURP. You complain about how the tests were done, but the locations were selected by the Vatican/STURP.

"Bloodstains on Shroud of Turin are probably fake"

https://nypost.com/2018/07/16/bloodstai ... stigation/

As I have previously documented, the Church calls it an "icon" not a relic. An icon that is not an authentic relic, but is claimed to be, is a FAKE. This is what the 14th Century Archbishop said about it when it was first displayed. I have documented that previously.

For 600 Years, Shroud of Turin Has Been Known as a Forgery
The report was sent to Pope Clement VII by Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, in 1389. This was some 35 years after the shroud appeared in France - inexplicably and with no account of its earlier whereabouts.

The bishop's text began: ''The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church . . . falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/13/opin ... 26388.html

Christians of today agree it is forged.

Due to several lines of evidence, we think that the Shroud of Turin is not the authentic burial cloth of Jesus Christ:

Morphology: Several features of the man in the Shroud appear to be distorted, and he is unusually tall, compared to the average height of a first-century Jewish man. Also, he was clearly not wrapped in the cloth, as the image does not show the sides of the head or body.
[more on this later ]

Physical Chemistry: It is also questionable why the blood stains have remained red so long after death.
[obviously 2000 (and 700) year old blood would no longer be red]

Nuclear chemistry: Pro-Shroud researchers have always called the reliability of the multiple carbon dates that have been obtained from the Shroud into question. However, despite their attempted re-evaluation of the radiocarbon dates, the only conclusion one can draw from them is that the Shroud is not 2,000 years old. We reject the idea that Jesus’ body disappeared from within the Shroud while emitting neutron radiation, which supposedly left traces on the front and rear sides of the Shroud.

Provenance: Many false relics are known from the Middle Ages, including many from the regions of northern Italy and France. This raises the suspicion that the Shroud is also a forgery, since it was first displayed in the 14th century in France. There is no ‘paper trail’ that gives us a clear chain of custody and it cannot be known that earlier objects with similar claims (e.g. the Image of Edessa) are one and the same.

Manufacturing: It is possible that the image on the Shroud was formed by common biochemical reactions called Maillard reactions. But, even if the Shroud was once wrapped around a human body, this would preclude the body of Jesus because these reactions are associated with decomposition. We should also not overlook the ingenuity of medieval artisans. For example, Leonardo da Vinci was known for his detailed descriptions of anatomy and the mechanical structures that he engineered.

In the end, we do not know how the Shroud was made, but neither do we need to know. We lose nothing if it is not authentic. Even the Apostles did not appeal to physical evidence for the Resurrection. Instead, they appealed to eyewitness testimony. Those testimonies are still with us today, in the pages of the New Testament.

https://creation.com/turin-shroud

[JoeyKnothead]

Delete post, my comments only duplicated a prior poster's.