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]

[Replying to otseng in post #2122]

Why do persons on this site think the cloth in question might be the burial cloth of Jesus? Might it not be the burial cloth of some other person? At about the time this "Jesus" was alleged to have died, were there not tens of thousands of other men who died, too, who also might also have had cloth placed over their body?

What is it beyond blind faith that leads some persons to claim that the cloth holds image of the dead son of God?

I doubt that this cloth is old enough, and would trust carbon dating results before other proposals. And although this cloth was wrapped around a body, it was a DEAD body and imo the stains and discolorations would have occurred over a much longer time than the 1.5 days (a Friday sunset to a Sunday dawn) that Jesus is claimed to have lain within it, before rising.
And so the Turin Shroud can prove nothing in support of Christianity, either way.
All the Turin Shroud shows us is that the New Testament did NOT provide enough for Christianity because it needs to show bits of wood, the odd nail, a piece of old cloth, or statues weeping blood to hold the faith of the followers. And also, to point at some ancient ruin upon Nazareth or a place in Bethlehem with claims such as 'this is the place!' are sad to see and hear. And so these items are no friends of Christianity in my opinion, they simply demonstrate a lack of evidence from the gospels themselves.

The most accurate bible account (G-Mark imo) shows us two persons with the (translated) name of 'Jesus', the one who was loved through to the bitter end and survived, or the one that was turned upon, executed and came back to life........ take your pick.

[otseng]

[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.

I simply answered the question you posed: "You throw the words "image projection" out there, but have you explained what you mean by them?"

As for what method was used for image projection on the TS, I'll be discussing that towards the end of this discussion on the shroud.

[otseng]

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.

Yet you never explained why your claim was so obvious... anyways, here's why it makes no sense:

Let's suppose the body was stolen. Why would anybody want to steal a body? There's no market then for body parts to sell. If anything, there'd be a market for the linen cloths, yet they remained. So, this scenario doesn't make any sense.

Let's suppose it was removed by the disciples to make it appear Jesus was resurrected. All the disciples had fled, except Peter and the beloved disciple, and were all afraid when Jesus was arrested. Peter had denied him three times. When the beloved disciple saw the linen clothes, he believed. Who would've removed the body then? How could they have removed the body with the guards at the tomb? Why is the face cloth mentioned to be folded, yet the shroud was not? Why even bother to fold the facecloth after removing the body and not fold the shroud? What evidence is there the body had a facecloth on when the shroud was wrapped around it? How did the body image form on the shroud? So, this scenario makes no sense as well.

You make a claim, "It doesn't make sense," but you have no explanation as to why.

I explained my reasoning, now it's your turn to explain your claim.

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?

These will all be answered when I discuss the Sudarium of Oviedo.

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.

These are are a result of image projection distortion. Rather than evidence against the authenticity of the shroud, it is actually evidence for the authenticity of the shroud. It's like looking at any map of the globe and saying these are all produced by young students who know nothing about geography. Actually, they know a lot in order to create "incorrect looking" maps.

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.

I addressed the d'Arcis memo at:
viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

Please address my arguments that I posted to challenge the d'Arcis memo.

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:
https://creation.com/turin-shroud

I have and will address all of these issues. I think one day I'll need to talk to Rob Carter and set him straight.

[otseng]

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part1.pdf

Another evidence the blood stains is real blood are the blood serum retraction rings.

Serum is the component of blood that does not result in clotting.

Blood is primarily composed of RBC (red blood cells), WBC (white blood cells), plasma, and serum. Plasma and serum are the main components of blood and are routinely used in blood group test experiments for determining the patient’s blood group.

Plasma and serum can be separated by centrifugation of blood on the basis of weight, size, and density. The serum is the liquid obtained after blood is allowed to clot, whereas plasma is obtained after treating blood with anticoagulation compounds.

The serum is the liquid or undiluted part of the blood, which lacks clotting factors. Hence, it is formed after blood coagulation.

https://byjus.com/biology/difference-be ... and-serum/

Surrounding the blood stains on the TS are serum marks (serum retraction rings, serum halos), which are visible under UV light.

One of the most interesting characteristics of the bloodstains on the Shroud is the presence of
serum “halos/rings” surrounding various wounds in the ventral and dorsal portions of the image.
These areas were noted in the 1978 STURP investigation during examination of the cloth under
ultraviolet light.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/anc-kearse-pap3.pdf

Everybody can see the fluorescent halo around the main bloodstains in the UV-Vis
photographs. In fact, small fluorescent haloes were also observed around all the blood marks,
even around the scourges.
This simple observation is and remains probably the most definite proof that the blood is real
blood.
There is no way to observe such a spontaneous behaviour for a painting. Therefore, to obtain
these fluorescent haloes, the artist would have to spend hundred hours to deliberately paint
them with collagen (which, incidentally, would be not fluorescent in body-image areas) ... so
that they would be invisible with the naked eyes.

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

Also the border of every blood mark
shows the typical yellowish fluorescence of the serum exudate ring around scabs as expected
for clot retraction transfer marks, thus confirming the medical forensic analysis and the
observations of Barbet (cf., Figure 2). Further, all the scourge marks now show a pattern of
scratches on the narrow ends, not visible in reflectance, that would be expected for wounds
produced by a typical Roman scourge. Therefore an artist painting the blood marks would not
only require a 20th century knowledge of the physiology of clot retraction, but would have to
produce images of serum rings and scratches that are only obviously evident under ultraviolet
excitation.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part1.pdf

Each individual blood wound
shows a distinct serum clot retraction
ring; such blood halos are only visible
under ultraviolet light (5), a detail that a
forger is unlikely to have been familiar
with.

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

One would need a constant supply of fresh clot exudates from a
traumatically wounded human to paint in all the forensically correct images in the proper non-
stereo register and then finally paint a serum contraction ring about every wound. Logic suggests
that this is not something a forger or artisan before the present century would not only know how
to do, but even know that it was required.

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

It would make no sense to have serum retraction rings if the TS was the work of an artist by either paint or blood. Nobody at that time understood the chemical makeup of blood and the properties of serum. Even if an artist did understand it, why and how would he be able to paint it? If he used blood, how was he able to apply it to the cloth to be microscopically and UV realistic? Why would he even go to so much trouble if nobody until hundreds of years later would discover such details?

The most logical explanation is the blood marks are the result of an actual scourged and crucified body.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2273

When the beloved disciple saw the linen clothes, he believed. Who would've removed the body then?

The beloved disciple saw the linen clothes and believed according to the fourth gospel's narrative. That version has Simon Peter running to the tomb after being told by Mary Magdalene that the body had been removed by someone. Luke's version has the women, including MM, having told the disciples about seeing angels at the tomb by this time.

How could they have removed the body with the guards at the tomb?

Why is the author of Matthew the only writer who says anything about there being a guard at the tomb? (Scholars tend to agree that Mark's account came first, and after that ending the disciples taking the body would be a logical conclusion.) If there actually was a guard at the tomb, how could a story of the disciples removing the body----also mentioned by Matthew----even get started? What Roman soldier would have trusted Jewish authorities to smooth things over with their commander after pleading guilty to the death-penalty offense of sleeping on duty? Who would have believed that ALL of them were asleep at the same time?

It's more plausible that the disciples did remove the body and that Matthew and/or other early Christians attempted damage control by making up a story about Roman guards put at the tomb.

[brunumb]

And although this cloth was wrapped around a body, it was a DEAD body and imo the stains and discolorations would have occurred over a much longer time than the 1.5 days (a Friday sunset to a Sunday dawn) that Jesus is claimed to have lain within it, before rising.

If the body was washed and anointed before wrapping there would be little or no blood stain at all. In my opinion, the blood stains on the shroud have been faked.

[JoeyKnothead]

And although this cloth was wrapped around a body, it was a DEAD body and imo the stains and discolorations would have occurred over a much longer time than the 1.5 days (a Friday sunset to a Sunday dawn) that Jesus is claimed to have lain within it, before rising.

If the body was washed and anointed before wrapping there would be little or no blood stain at all. In my opinion, the blood stains on the shroud have been faked.

A danging observation.

It would seem as though a person of such import would go through a thorough process. If such includes the washing, surely they could tell if they missed a spot.

[Diogenes]

Let's suppose the body was stolen. Why would anybody want to steal a body? There's no market then for body parts to sell. If anything, there'd be a market for the linen cloths, yet they remained. So, this scenario doesn't make any sense.

This is easy to answer. Some of his disciples (or other believers; there were many others besides the twelve) may indeed have removed the body to support the resurrection narrative. It certainly would look bad if the dead body were discovered many days later, rendering the resurrection claim absurd as eventually the smell of putrefaction would overcome the effect of spices.

But before going further, I am the last one to suggest ANY of the contradictory* versions of that alleged event are accurate. Only John mentions the cloths/strips/clothes/ and the word is always in the plural. Parenthetically (and significantly) why were the cloths disturbed at all? The resurrected Jesus could have just passed thru them, leaving the wrappings and spices intact. He was, supposedly, able to do this since he could pass thru walls to enter locked rooms as John claims in verses 19 and 26.

Based on how the 'Shroud' conflicts with the gospels' many Christians reject the Shroud of Turin as authentic

Jesus’ body had not been been wrapped with a single grave cloth, as the Shroud of Turin; rather, the Gospel of John relates four times about “linen wrappings,” which is always plural, so that even the body itself, disregarding the head, had been wrapped with multiple clothes (John 19.40; 20.5-7). The Greek text has othonion/othonia, which means “sheets.” Could they have been “strips” of cloth as the Egyptians did?

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzar ... l-clothes/

Even if a resurrected Jesus did not pass thru the cloths, he would have removed the face napkin and set it aside, folded or rolled, then attended to the larger task of removing the cloths and spices. How he does this from inside, without at magically passing his hands thru the cloths is a mystery, but then the whole scenario makes no sense. The main point is that Jesus was not wrapped in a single cloth like the 'Shroud of Turin.'

________________________
*The resurrection story is "historically implausible: crucifixion was intended as a shameful, horrible execution which included allowing the bodies to remain nailed up until they rotted off. It’s inconceivable that Pilate would have agreed to turn the body over to anyone for any reason. This may have something to do with why the gospel authors all have different stories about it."

There are multiple contradictions in the accounts:
How Long Was Jesus in the Tomb?
How the Tomb was Guarded
How He Is Anointed Before Burial
Who Visited Jesus’ Tomb?
When Did they visit?
It’s not clear what the women saw when they arrived at the tomb.
Who Greets the Women?
What did the Women Do?
https://www.learnreligions.com/contradi ... omb-250141

[JoeMama]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #6]

This, from St. Augustine, may be relevant to this discussion:

St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:


"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true.--St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.

[oldbadger]

A danging observation.

It would seem as though a person of such import would go through a thorough process. If such includes the washing, surely they could tell if they missed a spot.

Surely....
In any case, if the presentation of a stained linen cloth is the proof that Jesus was God then this must show how wobbly Christianity is becoming.