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

[JoeyKnothead]

...
And to note your remark about autographic text; what Scripture is one to look to that has any autographic inerrancy? From what I've read there are no surviving autographic textss of any scripture, which leaves everyone relying on interpretations of versions of spurious accounts of oral reports of Who Shot John. Lacking any such original text by which to check the validity of a translator's choice of words it appears that nothing in the Bible can be taken as being true. Perhaps the gist of a story can be assumed to be correct, but that's about all. None of the particulars, even quite extensive particulars, merit acceptance.

"The Bible's the word of God, as recorded by humans God picked to tell it, and that dude there with him, his golden plates, well he's a nut."

Religious belief will always -always- come down to the individual's opinion of what they think a god would allow. Their sacred texts can only agree with how they think - no nefarity need apply.

This is why we see differing takes on a given sentence, or even a given word.

[boatsnguitars]

...
And to note your remark about autographic text; what Scripture is one to look to that has any autographic inerrancy? From what I've read there are no surviving autographic textss of any scripture, which leaves everyone relying on interpretations of versions of spurious accounts of oral reports of Who Shot John. Lacking any such original text by which to check the validity of a translator's choice of words it appears that nothing in the Bible can be taken as being true. Perhaps the gist of a story can be assumed to be correct, but that's about all. None of the particulars, even quite extensive particulars, merit acceptance.

"The Bible's the word of God, as recorded by humans God picked to tell it, and that dude there with him, his golden plates, well he's a nut."

Religious belief will always -always- come down to the individual's opinion of what they think a god would allow. Their sacred texts can only agree with how they think - no nefarity need apply.

This is why we see differing takes on a given sentence, or even a given word.

Ever notice how Christians will say, 'Christianity is clearly superior! What other religion has a Shroud of Turin, or proof that a guy named Jesus existed, or the claim that a guy died and rose again! If your religion doens't have that, it's not worthy of consideration." (There are other examples, in a more scholarly format, but I've made my point.

Meanwhile, Mormon's say, "Sure, but do you have Golden Tablets? It can't be a real religion unless you got Golden Tablets."

Each religion finds their uniqueness, then claims to be superior because of it. Ingroup, outgroup and fanciful thinking. Over and over, and they consider this serious....

[otseng]

It's not likely that an artist would produce a rendering of the crucified Jesus without those features, since said artist would be keeping to the Christian narrative.

I've already extensively argued it was not the work of an artist. Please provide evidence the TS was the work of an artist, in particular who he was, when he lived, and how he created the TS.

[otseng]

I'm simply pointing out that it's interesting that god's every word can be so many different things. And because there are so many contradictory translations to choose from it's foolish to take any single translation as being thee correct one——although I do have my favorites. Problem is . . . .

And to note your remark about autographic text; what Scripture is one to look to that has any autographic inerrancy? From what I've read there are no surviving autographic textss of any scripture, which leaves everyone relying on interpretations of versions of spurious accounts of oral reports of Who Shot John. Lacking any such original text by which to check the validity of a translator's choice of words it appears that nothing in the Bible can be taken as being true.

Further discussions on inerrancy can be debated in On the Bible being inerrant.

Where is the Christian god when you need him! He left a mess and doesn't seem to care.

Irrelevant accusation to the current discussion.

Perhaps the gist of a story can be assumed to be correct, but that's about all. None of the particulars, even quite extensive particulars, merit acceptance.

This is false, otherwise this thread would not be so massive. I've produced loads of evidence the Bible is trustworthy. As a matter of fact, it's so much, I'm even considering writing a book based on all the evidence I've produced in this thread.

[otseng]

Each religion finds their uniqueness, then claims to be superior because of it. Ingroup, outgroup and fanciful thinking. Over and over, and they consider this serious....

I've been producing evidence to back up my assertion the Bible is reliable that is enough to fill up a large book. Whereas the skeptics continually make baseless and fallacious assertions without evidence. Who then is the one that is serious?

[otseng]

Folded Piece of Linen with Hieratic Inscriptionca. 1961–1917 B.C., Middle Kingdom
https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/561865

The TS is made of a linen cloth.

The Shroud of Turin is a centuries old linen cloth that bears the image of a crucified man.

https://www.shroud.com/

Linen has been used for a long time going back to the time of ancient Egypt.

The use of linen goes back to the earliest of times. Its use had been so widespread, that it cannot be determined where it was invented for use as clothing and medicine.

The tombs of the Pharaohs in Egypt show that linen was used as burial cloth, and its seeds were considered crucial to the afterlife; as a result, linen seeds have been found in the tombs.

https://blog.fabrics-store.com/2022/12/ ... flax-seed/

Linen is the most ancient of fabrics, with a rich and romantic heritage. Its widely accepted birth as a textile was in Egypt some 10,000 years ago but there is evidence found in pre-historic caves in Georgia that suggests it might have been used as a textile some 36,000 years ago. But let’s start with what we know and as with most things in the fabrics/textiles industry that means starting in Egypt.

Carbon-dating has proved that linen was used as clothing in Egypt dating back to 8,000 BC. It was prised for its ability to remain cool and fresh in warm weather.

Linen is a fibre made from the flax plant, or more accurately, from the cellulose fibres that grow inside of the stalks of the flax plant. The flax plant grows on a yearly cycle and does not require a great deal of water or maintenance. This made it perfect for Egyptian farmers. The yearly flooding of the Nile provided enough water and nutrients to germinate the flax seeds, which then required intermittent watering for the next 100 days. Ancient Egyptian linen, although coarse compared with modern linen, was used for clothing, currency, furnishings, decorations and most famously as the burial garment for mummies.

https://www.tailoronten.com/blogs/news/ ... it-is-made

Hebrew words for linen:

baḏ
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h906

pēšeṯ
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6593

šēš
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h8336

Linen was used for many purposes.

In Biblical times linen was used for many purposes. It was popular material for clothing of many kinds and for sheets, curtains, sails of ships, for wrapping scrolls, etc. Shesh, or fine linen, always was used for the garments of the priests in the Temple.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/ ... ible/Linen

It was a law not to use linen and wool together for clothing.

Lev 19:19
Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Deu 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

"garment mingled of linen and woollen" and "garment of divers sorts" is shatnez in Hebrew.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h8162

Leviticus 19:19 states that it is forbidden to wear shatnez — a mixture of wool and linen. In the words of the Torah: “You shall observe My statutes: . . . and a garment which has a mixture of shatnez shall not come upon you.” (This mitzvah is also mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:11.)

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_ ... -Linen.htm

Several words are derived from linen: line, lining, and lingerie.

This word history has given rise to a number of other terms in English, most notably line, from the use of a linen (flax) thread to determine a straight line. It is also etymologically related to a number of other terms, including lining, because linen was often used to create an inner layer for clothing,[6] and lingerie, from French, which originally denoted underwear made of linen.

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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2323

I've already extensively argued it was not the work of an artist. Please provide evidence the TS was the work of an artist, in particular who he was, when he lived, and how he created the TS.

I don't have to know exactly how it was made since I don't work in that particular artistic medium, and I certainly don't have to know specifically who the artist was.

In calling attention to the absence of the wraparound distortion which should be present if the image is genuine, I have presented evidence which you have yet to refute.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2323

I've already extensively argued it was not the work of an artist. Please provide evidence the TS was the work of an artist, in particular who he was, when he lived, and how he created the TS.

I don't have to know exactly how it was made since I don't work in that particular artistic medium, and I certainly don't have to know specifically who the artist was.

If you have no evidence who the artist was, when or where he lived, or how he made the TS, then there's no justification for the assertion it was created by an artist.

In calling attention to the absence of the wraparound distortion which should be present if the image is genuine, I have presented evidence which you have yet to refute.

Yes, there's no wrap around distortion. This is not evidence either way if the image is genuine or not. It is only a feature that describes the TS and a requirement that any explanation needs to fulfill.

[Diogenes]

If you have no evidence who the artist was, when or where he lived, or how he made the TS, then there's no justification for the assertion it was created by an artist.

Strictly as a matter of logic, this statement is incorrect.
But first, a minor detail. We do know when the artist lived - the 14th Century.nn
Absence of knowledge about WHERE the artist lived, or WHO the artist is, is neither relevant nor disqualifying.

There are many drawings and paintings in many media where the location and identity of the artist is unknown, but where there is no doubt the artwork is in fact, artwork and not a photograph or other image produced by direct transmission with no human agent involved. One example is amusing because it involves a burial shroud.



There are many more examples at https://arthive.com/artists/67973~Maste ... wn_artists
Is there any doubt these are works of art as opposed to photographs or other representations due to natural phenomena, not a sentient artist?

As to how the image was painted, Luigi Garlaschelli has demonstrated one method.


https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna33179539

[JoeyKnothead]

If you have no evidence who the artist was, when or where he lived, or how he made the TS, then there's no justification for the assertion it was created by an artist.

In the absence of any other confirmable explanation (or magic), proposing an artist's involvement is in line with what we know about how images come to be on a canvas / cloth.

Yes, there's no wrap around distortion. This is not evidence either way if the image is genuine or not. It is only a feature that describes the TS and a requirement that any explanation needs to fulfill.

If there's no distortion, this feller had him one awful skinny head.

Imagine looking at a football directly. It'll fill up a given portion of visual space. Now wrap a cloth around the football, such that an imprint is made. Then unfold that cloth and notice the visual volume is increased in a rather predictable way. I use a football here to help point out how in one plane the image is more distorted than the other. In the case of the TS image, there's just not enough expected distortion in either plane (beyond artistic skill of the era).

With this image we're seeing a forward view of a face on a cloth that doesn't have the tell tale marks of having been wrapped around the head, or body.

If we wish to propose that somehow the cloth was hovered over the body, we're left only with magic to explain how that image came to be (given the technology of the day).

What we're witnessing with your line of reasoning is the common fill in the gaps sort of religious explanation. "Beats me how it got there, so it must have been God's doing".

Unless God doesn't understand the very three dimensional space he's purported to've created, the most parsimonious explanation is that a human's hand worked on this image.