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

[otseng]

No surprise, all references are from shroud.com, an obviously highly biased site that carries on the proud Roman Catholic tradition of selling copies of religious "relics."

No surprise you continue to charge of bias. As I stated already:

Accusing someone of bias is not rational thinking. What is rational is to provide evidence about the TS, not making accusations against people.

Everyone is biased, whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not. So, it is meaningless to charge someone is biased.

Even if someone is biased, it is entirely possible for them to speak truth. The criteria to determine if something they claim to be true would be evidence, not an analysis of their personality.

Also, no evidence has been produced on the religious beliefs of all the STURP team members. Please cite a reference which shows the religious beliefs of all the STURP members. I've been trying to find this and cannot find anything. If you cannot produce one, then how can you support your statement they all have a religious bias?

Even if someone is religious, it does not automatically mean they support the authenticity of the TS. You had even quoted from Chick publications, which is definitely a Christian source, and it believes the TS is a fake.

[otseng]

OTSENG said,

"The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy."

JoeMama asks,

Can you give an example of a part of the Bible you deem to be untrustworthy?

If you want to debate about inerrancy, please debate at On the Bible being inerrant.

[otseng]

https://shroudphotos.com

The blood stains have no evidence of any smearing, breakage, or cracking.

No smears are evident in the blood traces.

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

Bloodstains on the cloth exhibit a peculiar forensic characteristic in that they show no
sign of being smeared while wet, or cracked and pulled apart while dry. These forensic
characteristics of smearing or pulling apart are expected if a bloody human body were
separated from the Shroud.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/porter1.pdf

For those not familiar with all of the findings of forensic pathology regarding the
Shroud, it would do well at this point to recall that one of the most amazing discoveries
from this field is that the blood clots on the Shroud are neither smeared nor broken.
N.Cinquemani, M.D. is quick to point out that this means that if the body had been removed
or separated from the cloth,
breakage of the clots would emerge and the threads would
be torn in many areas which is not the case. It would be
impossible to explain the separation of the clots without
any signs of breakage.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/dreisbc3.pdf

If you pull a bandage off a blood wound, there would be signs of breakage on the blood clot. Yet, we do not see any evidence of this on the shroud.

[Diogenes]

No surprise, all references are from shroud.com, an obviously highly biased site that carries on the proud Roman Catholic tradition of selling copies of religious "relics."

No surprise you continue to charge of bias. As I stated already:

Accusing someone of bias is not rational thinking. What is rational is to provide evidence about the TS, not making accusations against people.

Everyone is biased, whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not. So, it is meaningless to charge someone is biased.

YOUR statement is absurd and self contradictory. Yes, everyone has bias, but you perform the logical fallacy of equivocation when you unjustifiably contend bias is therefore not important or worse that it is "irrational" to be concerned about it. Courts and other arbiters of fact ALWAYS look at bias. In jury selection lawyers do not ignore bias, they expect it. The question is whether one can suspend those biases sufficiently to be fair. A committee of Christians who believe, going in, that the shroud is that of Jesus is a group that cannot be trusted; whose biases are so strong their conclusions should be discounted.

STURP and shroud.com (sellers of copies of the fake relic) are hopelessly biased. When they learned the C14 tests came back as 14 Century, they set out to malign THEIR OWN PROCEDURES for selecting the samples!

Every time a critic, or their own research, runs into evidence that suggests the 'shroud' is not authentic, they ignore it or try to explain it away, or in your case, declare that LATER the problem will be solved and published so the insisted upon conclusion will be supported.

In addition to bias, shroud.com has a conflict of interest since they are promoting the sale of shroud souvenirs and asking for donations.

This is why I compare the enterprise to be similar to YEC blogs and Flat Earth blogs. Their very purpose for being is to come to a preordained conclusion.

[otseng]

The question is whether one can suspend those biases sufficiently to be fair.

Please provide evidence the papers produced by STURP were affected by religious bias. You'll need to cite the papers and how religion affected their results.

A committee of Christians who believe, going in, that the shroud is that of Jesus is a group that cannot be trusted; whose biases are so strong their conclusions should be discounted.

Yet you used Chick publications and CMI as a source? So if Christians are in alignment with your belief then they are not biased? This is special pleading.

STURP and shroud.com (sellers of copies of the fake relic) are hopelessly biased.

This would be slander if you cannot prove this. And just because a website sells something doesn't mean they are biased. On that basis, even journal sites are biased since one often has to pay to access their materials.

When they learned the C14 tests came back as 14 Century, they set out to malign THEIR OWN PROCEDURES for selecting the samples!

What are you talking about? Who is they? STURP? STURP was kicked out of any involvement with the C-14 dating, so they bear no responsibility on anything that happened with the C-14 dating.

Every time a critic, or their own research, runs into evidence that suggests the 'shroud' is not authentic, they ignore it or try to explain it away, or in your case, declare that LATER the problem will be solved and published so the insisted upon conclusion will be supported.

Since you seem so sure the skeptical position is so strong, please explain who created the TS and how he created it. If it was created by an artist, shouldn't this be easy to answer?

In addition to bias, shroud.com has a conflict of interest since they are promoting the sale of shroud souvenirs and asking for donations.

Another ridiculous charge. Asking for donations does not make anyone unqualified. Might as well also reject Wikipedia.

This is why I compare the enterprise to be similar to YEC blogs and Flat Earth blogs. Their very purpose for being is to come to a preordained conclusion.

And the skeptics don't have preordained conclusions?

[otseng]

In addition to the blood from the crown of thorns, there are also facial wounds:
- Swelling of right cheek
- Partial closure of right eye
- Abrasian and deviation of the nose
- Part of beard missing
- Possible displacement of jaw

On the face over the right cheek, there is a swelling and there is partial closure of the right
eye. There is a very slight deviation of the nose and at the tip of the nose is an area of
discoloration consistent with a bruise. Detailed photographs and microscopic studies of
the cloth in the nose image area show scratches and dirt. These are consistent with the
nose having made contact with the ground, most likely as the result of a fall. The
deviation of the nose may reflect injury to the nasal cartilage, although this is less clear.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi05part3.pdf

There is a distinct abrasion at the tip of the nose and the right cheek is distinctly swollen as compared with the left cheek.

https://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm

Excoriations are to be found almost everywhere on the face, but especially on the right side. This side is also deformed, as if there were hӕmatomes beneath the bleeding surfaces. The two superciliary arches show those contused wounds which we now know well, and which form from within outwards, being caused by a blow with a fist or a stick, the bony arch cleaving the skin on its deep surface below the brow.

The most noticeable lesion consists of a broad triangular excoriation below the right eye-socket. The base is ¾ of an inch long; the point is directed upwards and inwards, and joins another excoriated area on the nose, about two-thirds of the way up. At this level the nose is deformed by a fracture of the posterior of the cartilage, near to where it joins the nasal bone, which is intact. All these lesions seem to have been caused, as Judica says, by a stick about 1¾ inches in diameter, and vigorously handled by an assailant standing on the right of Jesus.  There are also excoriations on the left cheek, at the end of the nose and of the lower lip.

We can find the marks of this ill-treatment on the shroud, for there is a large bruised wound on the right cheek and the septum of the nose is broken. But these blows, most of which fell on the head, could have produced quite a serious concussion, what we should call cerebral shock or even cerebral contusion; it would consist of a fairly widespread breaking of the small vessels in the meninges and in the brain itself.

Barbet, Dr. Pierre. A Doctor at Calvary: The Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ As Described by a Surgeon.

The crushing of the nose and the swelling of the eye and right cheekbone reveal the type of injuries that could have caused a blow from the stick; cylindrical object about 4.5 cm in diameter. You can also see the lack of hair in the beard, as if pieces had been deliberately pulled out.

By its appearance, the face reveals traces of an intense beating. Presents injuries caused by both direct and indirect blows, perhaps due to falls: swelling in the forehead area, region of both superciliary arches and mid-frontal area; tumescence continues in the arch of the right eyebrow, more pronounced in the outer part of the eye, which should condition its partial closure; abundant clots of vital blood on the forehead, temples, neck and scalp; profusion of arterial or venous hemorrhages, compatible with wounds caused by sharp objects, arranged peripherally on the skull ( cap of spines of ziziphus jujuba); large contusion under the right zygomatic region (right cheek) in the shape of a triangle, the most elongated vertex of which is directed towards the crest of the nose; at the level of the left vertex of the nasal dorsum, there is a bruised and bruised area caused by a blow that must have fractured the nasal cartilage, causing the nose to deviate to the left; the nose has a flattened and flattened left wing; the lips, mustache, chin and beard are impregnated with blood; abundant streams of blood mixed with saliva and fluid from pulmonary edema, coming out of the right corner of the mouth; very bruised chin, and abundant streams of blood coming out of the nostrils, forming two jets that cross the right side of the mouth and the center of the lower lip.

https://renewaljournal.com/2021/12/22/m ... -of-turin/

Image processing of the TS face shows that the Man represented in it has undergone a maxillo-facial trauma, especially a left displacement of the mandible, probably due to temporo-mandibular joint lesions. This condition has not been described before, despite several studies on the subject.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26050809/

Injuries to the face align with the following passages:

Matthew 26:67 (NET)
Then they spat in his face and struck him with their fists. And some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy for us, you Christ! Who hit you?”

Matthew 27:30 (NET)
They spat on him and took the staff and struck him repeatedly on the head.

Isa 50:6 (NET)
I offered my back to those who attacked, my jaws to those who tore out my beard; I did not hide my face from insults and spitting.

[Diogenes]

The question is whether one can suspend those biases sufficiently to be fair.

Please provide evidence the papers produced by STURP were affected by religious bias. You'll need to cite the papers and how religion affected their results.

No, I need show nothing but their bias, to prove they're biased. As I've written earlier here, STURP was started by 3 religious guys who wanted to 'prove' the shroud authentic. But, there is more. This from a critique of a CNN presentation of "The Shroud."

Despite mention of the burial spices (John 19:39-40), none has been found on the shroud, and the under-and-over means of covering the supposed body with a single cloth is unknown in Jewish burial practice. Although there have been some 40 alleged shrouds of Jesus, the cloth now at Turin has no provenance before about 1355; a later French bishop reported to Pope Clement VII that the cloth was being used in a faith-healing scam and that it had been “cunningly painted” by an artist who confessed. A secret commission appointed in 1969 to study the shroud examined the “blood” stains, which are “picturelike” and suspiciously still red. Internationally known forensic serologists reported that the red substance failed all microscopical, chemical, biological, and instrumental tests. Instead, there were reddish granules that would not even dissolve in reagents that dissolve blood.

The TV program extensively mentioned the 1978 examination by the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP) but gave no indication that these were mostly religious believers; their leaders served on the executive council of the Holy Shroud Guild which supported the “cause” of the supposed relic. Devoutly religious pro-shroud pathologists have argued for the image’s anatomical correctness despite the figure’s unnatural elongation (as in French gothic art!) and other flaws (such as the hair falling as for a standing figure rather than a reclining one). While STURP lacked experts in art and forensic chemistry, their tape-lifted surface samples were examined by famed microanalyst Walter C. McCrone. He discovered red ocher pigment making up the image—but not the background (so it was not contamination). He also identified the “blood” as tempera paint containing red ocher along with vermilion and traces of rose madder—pigments used by medieval artists to depict blood.

https://centerforinquiry.org/blog/cnns_ ... in_shroud/

[otseng]

The question is whether one can suspend those biases sufficiently to be fair.

Please provide evidence the papers produced by STURP were affected by religious bias. You'll need to cite the papers and how religion affected their results.

No, I need show nothing but their bias, to prove they're biased.

As we both agree, everyone is biased. Since you have not produced any evidence their papers were affected by their biases, then they are acceptable evidence.

This from a critique of a CNN presentation of "The Shroud." ...

All of these I've already addressed or will address when I discuss the history of the shroud.

[otseng]

The man on the shroud has no broken bones. In particular, none of the bones in the legs are broken.

No broken bones are evident on the body image.

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

This is especially relevant since breaking the leg bones was frequently done for crucified victims to hasten their death.

Frequently, the legs of the person executed were broken or shattered with an iron club, an act called crurifragium, which was also frequently applied without crucifixion to slaves. This act hastened the death of the person but was also meant to deter those who observed the crucifixion from committing offenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion

This aligns with the passage:

John 19:31-33 (KJV)
31 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was a high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away.
32 Then came the soldiers, and broke the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
33 But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they broke not his legs:

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2299

The man on the shroud has no broken bones.

Of course not. The Christian Bible says that Jesus had no broken bones, so a Christian artist wouldn't depict him with broken bones.