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]

...and the Mod....

And the creator and owner of the forum.

otseng wears his house shoes out to dinner.

But I do take it off when I come home.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

We'll have to leave your argument in this matter for the observer to decide. I'm certainly not convinced there's a non-natural explanation.

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.

Agreed. It strikes me as more.

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

Just as the burden lies with those who propose the supernatural realm does exist. Thus far I've seen no reason to conclude it does.

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

I see nothing in the image that indicates it was formed in 3D.

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.

You seem to be arguing there shouldn't be that space. Can you fill out this idea for me?

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

To clarify, I said the ideas were goofy, not the folks. Unless you're a father, then it's kind of a thing to be goofy here and there.

I think it's your conclusions that are irrational. I couldn't honestly call you an irrational person.

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.

I'm not bound to what others consider, but to my own conclusions.

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 Mona Lisa can also be empirically analyzed.

I've yet to see any convincing evidence that a body was ever laid upon, within, or among this cloth.

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.

I'm referring to what we should expect given the state of knowledge of anatomy and portraiture of the time of its finding.

I do agree there are competing hopthesi, but contend the most rational one is human involvement.

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.

Except the part where the person involved is claimed to've been some supernatural entity borne of a married virgin, and various other sense assaulting claims or attributes.

If the Bible can't be trusted for that bit, why should we expect it to be trusted for this bit of cloth?

The evidence indicates there was never a supernatural entity as described in the Bible, so there could never be this Jesus character to've been bundled up within this cloth.

Further, we have no images to compare, and perhaps more importantly, no blood to compare.

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.

It don't, so there is.

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.

That might be the case for Christians. For me, I look at the text as a whole, and realize it's full of holes.

That said, I don't doubt folks might find themselves the target of a crucifying. I just challenge the claim they can hop back up after being killed there in among the process.

[otseng]

The cubit was the unit of length used in the Ancient Near East.

The cubit is an ancient unit of length based on the distance from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. It was primarily associated with the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Israelites. The term cubit is found in the Bible regarding Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the Tabernacle, and Solomon's Temple. The common cubit was divided into 6 palms × 4 fingers = 24 digits.[1] Royal cubits added a palm for 7 palms × 4 fingers = 28 digits.[2] These lengths typically ranged from 44.4 to 52.92 cm (1 ft 5+1⁄2 in to 1 ft 8+13⁄16 in), with an ancient Roman cubit being as long as 120 cm (3 ft 11 in).

Cubits of various lengths were employed in many parts of the world in antiquity, during the Middle Ages and as recently as early modern times. The term is still used in hedgelaying, the length of the forearm being frequently used to determine the interval between stakes placed within the hedge.

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

There is no absolute fixed length that was used universally for the cubit, but there were standards for a specific region.

The standard of the cubit (Hebrew: אמה) in different countries and in different ages has varied. This realization led the rabbis of the 2nd century CE to clarify the length of their cubit, saying that the measure of the cubit of which they have spoken "applies to the cubit of middle-size".[12] In this case, the requirement is to make use of a standard 6 handbreadths to each cubit,[13][14] and which handbreadth was not to be confused with an outstretched palm, but rather one that was clenched and which handbreadth has the standard width of 4 fingerbreadths (each fingerbreadth being equivalent to the width of a thumb, about 2.25 cm).[15][16] This puts the handbreadth at roughly 9 cm (3+1⁄2 in), and 6 handbreadths (1 cubit) at 54 cm (21+1⁄2 in). Epiphanius of Salamis, in his treatise On Weights and Measures, describes how it was customary, in his day, to take the measurement of the biblical cubit: "The cubit is a measure, but it is taken from the measure of the forearm. For the part from the elbow to the wrist and the palm of the hand is called the cubit, the middle finger of the cubit measure being also extended at the same time and there being added below (it) the span, that is, of the hand, taken all together."[

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

The dimensions of the TS is not fixed either since it's a cloth. But it's roughly 14'3" (171") by 3'7" (43"). The dimensions is extremely close to a 4:1 ratio.

Measuring 4.3 metres (14 feet 3 inches) long and 1.1 metres (3 feet 7 inches) wide

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Shroud-of-Turin

The measurements correlate with the Assyrian cubit.

Now during the 19th century the great archaeological pioneer Sir Flinders Petrie, along
with a co-researcher, Oppert, took numerous measurements of ancient buildings in Babylon
from which they found the metrological value of the Assyrian cubit to be almost 21.5 inches.
Other archaeologists have since calculated just over 21.6 inches. So the Assyrian cubit has
been recorded as 21.6 plus or minus 0.2 inches - and this is just what the Shroud conforms to.

Taking the lower limit of 21.4 inches, the results are:
21.4 inches x 8 = 171.2 inches
21.4 inches x 2 = 42.8 inches

Shroud recorded length = 171.0 inches
Shroud recorded width = 43.0 inches

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n24part6.pdf

So, the shroud has the dimensions of 8 x 2 cubits, which correlates with an ancient origin.

Another analysis of the shroud dimensions:

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2335

Actually, the theory that I'll be proposing I believe does a pretty good job at explaining the 3-D projection effect onto the cloth.

Until you adequately explain----in specific detail----the absence of wraparound distortion, you have no room whatsoever to challenge anyone for any other evidence that the image is a work of art.

[Diogenes]

...and the Mod....

And the creator and owner of the forum.

And despite being wrong in so many ways, in so many arguments, otseng is the key reason this forum is successful.
He takes a punch well and it should be noted his insistence on respect and fairness in administration and policy, gives heathens, pagans, and all manner of infidels the opportunity to shout their grievances and apostasies here "without fear or favor."

A line from Shakespeare comes to mind

"Why does he suffer these mad knaves now to knock him
about the sconce with dirty shovels...?"

_ Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1

[If I can be forgiven for pluralizing the bard's phrase. ]

[JoeyKnothead]

And despite being wrong in so many ways, in so many arguments, otseng is the key reason this forum is successful.
He takes a punch well and it should be noted his insistence on respect and fairness in administration and policy, gives heathens, pagans, and all manner of infidels the opportunity to shout their grievances and apostasies here "without fear or favor."

A line from Shakespeare comes to mind

"Why does he suffer these mad knaves now to knock him
about the sconce with dirty shovels...?"

_ Hamlet, Act 5, Scene 1[/size]

[If I can be forgiven for pluralizing the bard's phrase. ]

Very much. It shows a commitment to his beliefs that he'd put em all up to debate.

Once the pretty thing says, "This is not up for discussion", I know to just hush up and go along

[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.

We'll have to leave your argument in this matter for the observer to decide. I'm certainly not convinced there's a non-natural explanation.

If you have no natural explanation and you reject all non-natural explanations, then what is there that's left?

]
Just as the burden lies with those who propose the supernatural realm does exist. Thus far I've seen no reason to conclude it does.

For the TS, I've not gotten to the punchline yet. I'll get there when we start discussing how the image formed.

I see nothing in the image that indicates it was formed in 3D.

I discussed 3-D encoding at:
viewtopic.php?p=1106347#p1106347

You seem to be arguing there shouldn't be that space. Can you fill out this idea for me?

I'm not saying whether it should be there or not. I'm saying this is what we see. And based on what we see, we can rule out explanations and support explanations. What I'm doing is gathering and presenting all the evidence. And then at the end, I'll be presenting what I believe is the most reasonable explanation to account for all the observations.

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.

I'm not bound to what others consider, but to my own conclusions.

Would you accept this kind of statement coming from a Christian?

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 Mona Lisa can also be empirically analyzed.

And the STURP conclusion was:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

I do agree there are competing hopthesi, but contend the most rational one is human involvement.

Produce your evidence to support this.

the part where the person involved is claimed to've been some supernatural entity borne of a married virgin, and various other sense assaulting claims or attributes.

If the Bible can't be trusted for that bit, why should we expect it to be trusted for this bit of cloth?

Non-sequitur argument. It's not a necessary condition to show that whoever is on the shroud needed to be born of a virgin.

Now, if you're arguing the Bible needs to be consistent as a whole, then that's another matter.

Further, we have no images to compare, and perhaps more importantly, no blood to compare.

Not all murder cases have images to compare, blood to compare, or DNA to compare. Yet they can still reach a verdict without these.

For me, I look at the text as a whole, and realize it's full of holes.

And since I don't claim the Bible is inerrant, it doesn't matter if it's "full of holes".

That said, I don't doubt folks might find themselves the target of a crucifying. I just challenge the claim they can hop back up after being killed there in among the process.

I agree this is an extraordinary claim. And that's why I need to present an extraordinary amount of evidence to back up this claim. This topic is already over 75 pages. And I'm hoping I've crossed the halfway mark in discussing the TS. Then we will get to the textual evidence, which will no doubt be very long as well.

[otseng]

Until you adequately explain----in specific detail----the absence of wraparound distortion, you have no room whatsoever to challenge anyone for any other evidence that the image is a work of art.

The absence of wrap around distortion is what we see at the top of the head. It is the part of the shroud that actually wraps around the body from front to back. So, whatever mechanism created the image should be compatible with this evidence. As for presenting the possible imaging technique, like I said, I'll be presenting that in my closing arguments.

As for it being a work of art, there is no viable evidence to support this. So, I'm not really expecting anyone to be able to produce any evidence to support this and only expect continual baseless assertions that it's a work of art.

[otseng]

I had mentioned 7 blood/image patterns that uniquely identifies the man on the shroud as Jesus. Another factor that dramatically decreases the number of possible candidates of who it can be is the cloth itself. According to Bart Ehrman, the vast majority of crucified victims were not allowed to be buried and thus would not end up being wrapped in a cloth, but thrown in a mass grave. And if they were buried in a cloth, it would've been after the bodies had rotted and the scavengers ate their flesh.

Everyone wanted a decent burial in the ancient world. It was far more important for people than it is to today. A decent burial, for many, was required for a decent afterlife. It honored the body of the one departed. Not receiving a decent burial was disgusting, scandalous, gut-wrenching, debasing, and humiliating.

And so Romans did not allow crucified victims – especially enemies of the state – to be buried. They left them on the crosses as their bodies rot and the scavengers went on the attack. To allow a decent burial was to cave into the desires precisely of the people who were being mocked and taught a lesson. No decency allowed. The body has to rot, and then we toss it into a grave.

https://ehrmanblog.org/why-romans-crucified-people/

Why did Jesus have a decent burial? Joseph of Arimathaea, who was a member of the council, got permission from Pilate to take the body.

Mat 27:57-58 (KJV)
When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple: He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Mark 15:43 (NKJV)
Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent council member, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, coming and taking courage, went in to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus.

Luk 23:50-53 (NIV)
Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea, and he himself was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid.

Jhn 19:38 (ESV)
After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body.

Since Joseph was a member of the Sanhedrin (the Council), he would've had authority to ask Pilate for the body.

In the gospels, Mark and Luke identified him as a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish Council in Jerusalem.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Joseph_of_Arimathea/

He was a good and righteous man who managed to be both a member of the Council (the Sanhedrin) and a secret supporter of Jesus - which is why he did not join in the Council's actions against Jesus.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/thepassion/articl ... thea.shtml

[Diogenes]

For the TS, I've not gotten to the punchline yet.

If a joke gets carried out too long, the audience doesn't stick around for the punchline.

Re: Not having natural explanations, there are many (millions?) of natural phenomena for which we don't yet have thorough explanations.
For many phenomena previously attributed to gods, we now have natural explanations: Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tides, rain, wind, the 'origin (and descent) of the species,' Why Adam had a belly button, Why men have nipples....