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]

What you have done is insist there be no more tests. This is really choice. You don't like the C-14 results so you claim... whatever... and then insist there should be no more testing. If you had "refuted" the testing I would expect to see a peer reviewed article under your name and in a prestigious scientific journal.

I've been awaiting that report for a spell myself.

[boatsnguitars]

Scriptural references to the linen burial cloth:

Mat 27:59
And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth,

Mar 15:46
And he bought fine linen, and took him down, and wrapped him in the linen, and laid him in a sepulchre which was hewn out of a rock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.

Luk 23:53
And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid.

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, the word for linen cloth is sindon.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/
- linen cloth, esp. that which was fine and costly, in which the bodies of the dead were wrapped
- thing made of fine cloth

Jhn 19:40
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.

Jhn 20:5
And he stooping down, and looking in, saw the linen clothes lying; yet went he not in.

Jhn 20:7
And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

In John, the word used for linen clothes is othonion.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... /mgnt/0-1/
- a piece of linen, small linen cloth
- strips of linen cloth for swathing the dead

So you're saying there was plenty of scriptural reference for people in the 13th century to think about using a shroud to make yet another Christian relic, as was so common in those days.

Got it.

Good thing they didn't knit a ski mask... but, of course, conspiracy theorists would say "That's why it's authentic!"

[JoeyKnothead]

Good thing they didn't knit a ski mask... but, of course, conspiracy theorists would say "That's why it's authentic!"

I reckon that's fair for a certain bunch, but otseng believes as he does without the sorta tricks we might see from others.

If his conclusions are wrong, it ain't because he's tricked himself, or tries to trick others. The man's a straight shooter.

[boatsnguitars]

The man's a straight shooter.

...and the Mod....

[JoeyKnothead]

The man's a straight shooter.

...and the Mod....

Lol

He's taken the metaphorical rod to me a time or two, so if anything, I should wanna speak I'll of him.

Facts are facts, so I can't.

Oh heck, for just the once...

otseng wears his house shoes out to dinner.

[boatsnguitars]

The man's a straight shooter.

...and the Mod....

Lol

He's taken the metaphorical rod to me a time or two, so if anything, I should wanna speak I'll of him.

Facts are facts, so I can't.

Oh heck, for just the once...

otseng wears his house shoes out to dinner.

I am appalled to hear this. And here I thought he was an upstanding citizen. Otseng, say it isn't so! Brunch, sure, but dinner! The humanity!

[otseng]

If one wishes to propose natural, non-human processes, they've got a footing in rational thought.

Non-natural explanations are also rational, provided they are evidential and logical, which I have consistently provided.

This image is certainly not a case of pereiodolia, so we all agree it ain't that.

There are some evidence that others have presented that I consider to be potentially pareidolia, so those evidence I will not be presenting.

If one wishes to propose supernatural involvement, then all bets are off.

Non-natural involvement would be off if one can prove the supernatural realm does not exist. And that cannot be done.

I see a face forward, flat, artistically two dimensional image.

As acknowledged by even the shroud skeptics, it also encodes three dimensional information.

The gap at the top of the head, at best, indicates the cloth wasn't touching, but that doesn't change the two dimensional aspect.

That's like saying the cloth wrapping the football would not be touching the tip of the football. That's highly unlikely as when you wrap anything, it would make contact at the point where it's pulled over.

When people say magic, I'm assuming that means a non-natural explanation. As I've extensively argued, this is already done in cosmology and physics.

Then we fuss at the cosmologists and the physicists. We don't just say since they've got goofy ideas then anybody's goofy idea must be accurate.

Well, I'm certainly willing to be classified with cosmologists and physicists as being "goofy". But we are certainly not being irrational.

When I look at the Mona Lisa, ugly as it is, I can't prove that image got there by natural means. I look at it, and I consider what I know about the world, a world which is of the natural, and I reasonably and logically conclude there was some human, somewhere, telling her to hold still, he'll be done painting in a minute.

I'm not an art professional, so I wouldn't know either. But the art professionals would know. And what we find is there is practically zilch mentioned about the TS from art professionals. So the art professionals do not treat the TS as artwork. But what we do see instead is the TS is the most scientifically analyzed artifact. Scientists treat the TS as another object that can be empirically analyzed. This observation alone shows the TS is not artwork, but an actual body was crucified, dead, and buried in a shroud.

The TS displays all the visual cues of human involvement. Its technical skill is about right in line with the time of its 'finding'.

No idea what you are referring to. All the features on the shroud are really a mystery. We have many theories, but we have no complete explanation for any features of the shroud.

We see this pattern many times in this thread. And the most parsimonious answer is what the Bible has been claiming all along.

Only - only - if one accepts the Bible as a reliable text. None of the core claims of the Bible have been shown to be true and factual, but let's count how to get to this image...

In this entire thread, I have only assumed the Bible needs to be accepted like any other historical text, no less and no more. And what we see is the evidence from archaeology, geology, cosmology, and now the TS confirm the claims of the Bible.

6. This image is produced as a product of supernatural, extra natural, or some genie blinking her eyes phenomenon heretofore undocumented in the entire history of human records

If that's where the evidence leads to, then there's nothing wrong to come to that conclusion.

That ain't even counting the many other biblical claims that puts that entire document to question.

This is the number one claim of Christians. Everything else stands or falls on the claim of Jesus being crucified and resurrected.

[otseng]

I've refuted the 1988 C-14 dating:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address these arguments instead of just restating the claim the C-14 dating is valid.

I'll alert the media about your miraculous claim that YOU have refuted the C-14 dating of 1988. You should write up "your refutation" as a Wikipedia entry.

I've been considering writing a book on what I've presented on the TS.

In the meantime, I believe the scientists rather than your 'God of the Gaps' theories

Simply repeating the original claims doesn't do much to your case. It's like a defendant claiming innocence, then the prosecutor provides a dozen lines of arguments and evidence he's guilty. Then the defendant simply claiming innocence again without addressing the evidence the prosecutor presented.

As reported in Nature, Anthos Bray of the Instituto di Metrologia 'G. Colonetti', Turin, "confirmed that the results of the three laboratories were mutually compatible, and that, on the evidence submitted, none of the mean results was questionable."

The results were only "compatible" only after they had manipulated their data. Why did they hide their data and would not release it after they published their result? Why would they not do simultaneous testing? Why did they not process all their raw data consistently?

I'm well aware there have been many desperate theories offered as to why we shouldn't trust those dates. They are mentioned in the Wikipedia entry. We have gone round and round about this.

We have gone round and round because there are no logical rebuttals to my challenges of the C-14 dating, but rather simply reasserting the C-14 dating is valid without directly addressing my arguments.

The 'Shroud' is hardly the only artifact that has had (or has) a mystery surrounding its creation.

What makes the TS different from anything other artifact is it is the most scientifically studied artifact. Surely we'd have an answer by now. But it still remains a mystery.

I've mentioned Erich von Däniken's many examples of mysterious gods or aliens and their "creations."

Yeah, you've mentioned it before. And again it's irrelevant. What we're talking about is the TS.

Of course, they were every bit as smart as we are, thus it should be no surprise they were capable of works we cannot always understand.

I agree people in the past were as smart as we are. But in this case, if it was an artist, he would've been centuries ahead of his time in multiple areas. As a matter of fact, he might even be centuries ahead of us with things we have not even discovered yet.

In all these speculations about stuff we do not fully understand, the last resort should be "Aliens or God did it."

Of course. But if the last resort makes the most sense, then it's logical to accept it.

BTW, unless I've missed it, you have never answered the glaring issue re: the inhuman anatomy of the image, particularly the eyes that are set in the top third of the face instead of the middle. This is consistent with Gothic painting, but inconsistent with human anatomy. To the common man, the image just "looks like a painting," and not like a human or demigod.

I propose it's due to image distortion based on how the image was created.

I had not seen this before, but in 2004 there was a report about finding a Second image, on the back of the cloth, that matches the one on top.

I already discussed this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1107332#p1107332

Somehow the Shroud lovers think this makes it less likely to be a forgery. I think the opposite. Like the one on the back was a first draft.

It doesn't even look like a draft.

In this last article one of the Shroud supporters claims to have found the words "Jesus Nazarene. Found (guilty of inciting the people to revolt). Put to death in the year 16 of Tiberius. Taken down at the ninth hour."
I am not making this up. It shows one can find whatever one wants in the 'Shroud.'

This would be an example of a claim that is pareidolia. Yes, there are many claims of what people claim to see on the shroud. These are all interesting, but I will not be submitting these evidence to the court.

[otseng]

Is your case SO weak you have to tell others what they can and cannot argue? You certainly have NOT refuted the valid C-14 dating of the Cloth of Turin.

People can argue whatever they want. But if people want to have a logical debate, then they have to address my counter to the C-14 dating with evidence, not by repeating claims.

You've just repeated the 'special pleading' arguments of the highly biased committee after the tests were carried out EXACTLY THE WAY THE WAY STURP AND THE VATICAN WANTED, including reducing the labs and samples from 7 to 3.

I have no idea what you're referring to. STURP was not involved in the C-14 dating. As a matter of fact, STURP was kicked out by the C-14 labs. I discussed this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1111830#p1111830

As for reducing the samples from 7 to 3, I discussed that at:
viewtopic.php?p=1111938#p1111938

Harry Gove (who was one of the defacto leaders of the C-14 labs and also from one of the labs that got booted) stated, "I hope the three laboratories stand firm and say to hell with you, let's get a result we all believe in, or leave it undated."

As Gove testified, it's a result we all don't believe in.

What you have done is insist there be no more tests.

False attribution fallacy. No, this is what I stated:

For my position, if the sample was actually a pin point and all the basic procedures are followed, then I would not be opposed to another C-14 test after all the other STURP II tests have been done.

[otseng]

So you're saying there was plenty of scriptural reference for people in the 13th century to think about using a shroud to make yet another Christian relic, as was so common in those days.

What I am saying is the artifact evidence and the textual evidence corroborate with each other. So, this supports their historicity.

Now, if you claim it's medieval artwork, then please provide evidence of that.