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]

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position. Does the sun standing still affect any doctrine? No, so it's futile to debate the historicity of it. Is God the creator of the universe? Yes, so time should be spent debating this. Does it matter how many women were at the Jesus' tomb? No. Does it matter if Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Absolutely yes.

So, cherry pick what you're willing to defend, and claim that's the important thing for everyone?

No, I'm answering POI's question:

I think we first need to establish what you mean exactly, when you state "no book is perfect and without error"? Meaning, where does the threshold lie --- between shrugging your shoulders and/or overlooking some minor stuff, (vs) wow, virtually none of this stuff actually happened? Or, somewhere in between?

How would you answer his question?

[otseng]

http://www.sindonology.org/shroudScope/ ... &lat=735.0

The cloth has a herringbone twill pattern.

The cloth is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils.

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

Herringbone, also called broken twill weave, describes a distinctive V-shaped weaving pattern usually found in twill fabric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herringbone_%28cloth%29

The herringbone weave pattern has been found in ancient cultures:

Various herringbone weaves have been found in antiquity:

- A pair of woolen leggings found in the permafrost of the Italian-Austrian Alps have a 2:2 herringbone weave, dating to 800 to 500 BC.[6]
- A dark blue cloth with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Murabba'at Cave in Israel, from the Roman period.[6][7]
- A textile with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Pompeii, from 79 AD.[6]
- An illustration of a cloth having a herringbone weave from Antinoöpolis in Greece from 130 AD.[8]
- The Falkirk Tartan, a wool 2:2 herringbone tartan found at Vindolanda in England from around 240 AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herringbone_%28cloth%29

Strictly speaking, the entire cloth does not have a herringbone weave. Sections of the cloth does not have a herringbone weave pattern, but simply a reverse twill pattern. This is most likely due to weaving errors.

From a close study of photographs, it would appear that where the opposing lines of the
3/1 twill meet, the reversal is a true mirror image, whereas in other places the twill drops
out of true correspondence to give a herringbone effect. (In a reversing twill the opposing
lines of twill are mirror images; in a herringbone weave the two opposing lines of twill
drop out of strict correspondence by two or three weft threads.) These changes may be
faults in the weave because of incorrect drawing-in through the healds.

No more than four healds would have been needed to weave the Shroud linen. The
reversal of the twill lines would be accomplished by drawing-in the warp threads
appropriately through the healds: 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 ... The apparently wrong lifting warp
threads at some of the twill reversals would seem to be typical of the drawing-in mistakes
that could be expected with a comparatively primitive loom.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf

The herringbone weave pattern gives the cloth a distinctive appearance, but also has some practical value.

The most effective way of dealing with the curling problem is to have a weave with a
periodically reversing twill line—a herringbone. The end result can be a cloth that has an
attractive striped appearance with a smooth surface that sheds soiling, that does not curl
and that drapes well over the human body. Hence the use of these types of cloths for
apparel; hence the particular handle and appearance of the Shroud and even perhaps its
absorbency properties.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi06part6.pdf

Cloth with the herringbone weave is rarer and more expensive to produce than cloth with a normal weave.

The herringbone weave was much more expensive than anything to be found in Jerusalem.

https://www.shroud.com/heraseng.pdf

For the 1988 C-14 testing, the British Museum attempted to find a medieval linen with a herringbone weave as a control sample, but was not able to find one.

All was proceeding well until, one by one, the protocols established by Tite to
ensure an accurate dating were, for various reasons, set aside. This included the
"Blind Test" provision. Tite had failed to find suitable medieval linens with the same weave as the Shroud as control samples.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n89part2.pdf

The herringbone weave is not mentioned at all in the gospels. So, the herringbone weave is further evidence against the likelihood of a medieval forgery.

Why would a forger even bother to use a cloth with a herringbone weave when it's more expensive and not mentioned in the Bible?
How did he get this cloth with a herringbone weave?
Who even made linen cloths of this size with a herringbone pattern during the Middle ages?

[boatsnguitars]

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position. Does the sun standing still affect any doctrine? No, so it's futile to debate the historicity of it. Is God the creator of the universe? Yes, so time should be spent debating this. Does it matter how many women were at the Jesus' tomb? No. Does it matter if Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Absolutely yes.

So, cherry pick what you're willing to defend, and claim that's the important thing for everyone?

No, I'm answering POI's question:

I think we first need to establish what you mean exactly, when you state "no book is perfect and without error"? Meaning, where does the threshold lie --- between shrugging your shoulders and/or overlooking some minor stuff, (vs) wow, virtually none of this stuff actually happened? Or, somewhere in between?

How would you answer his question?

I would argue that the threshold for determining the accuracy and truthfulness of a claim should be based on whether there is sufficient evidence to support it, not on whether it satisfies one's religious needs. Religious beliefs and needs may be a motivating factor for accepting a claim as true, but that alone does not make the claim objectively true.

If a claim is intended to be true, it is essential to evaluate its validity based on the available evidence, rather than on whether it fulfills religious needs. Evidence-based analysis and critical thinking are necessary for determining the factual accuracy of any claim. By relying solely on one's religious needs, one may fall prey to confirmation bias and cherry-pick only the parts of the religious text that support their beliefs, while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Furthermore, blindly accepting religious texts as true without critically analyzing the evidence may lead to conflicts with other fields, such as science and history, which may contradict certain aspects of religious texts. Thus, it is essential to evaluate claims based on evidence and reason, rather than personal religious needs.

Of course, this would automatically reject the Bible as reliable, since we've found enough that isn't true in it. A stopped clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean we trust it if agrees with the time we'd like it to be.

[POI]

I think we first need to establish what you mean exactly, when you state "no book is perfect and without error"? Meaning, where does the threshold lie --- between shrugging your shoulders and/or overlooking some minor stuff, (vs) wow, virtually none of this stuff actually happened? Or, somewhere in between?

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position. Does the sun standing still affect any doctrine? No, so it's futile to debate the historicity of it. Is God the creator of the universe? Yes, so time should be spent debating this. Does it matter how many women were at the Jesus' tomb? No. Does it matter if Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Absolutely yes.

I find your response interesting. If it should turn out that much of the Genesis account alone is incorrect, then logically, shouldn't the conclusion lead a person to severe doubt in such a claimed specific doctrine (i.e.) "a YWHW created and ran universe"? Do claimed events, like the Exodus, outweigh claims of how many women were at a tomb? Does the Genesis account matter? yes or no? I'd say it does.

Sure, at the end of the day, such a person may still ascribe to some sort of deism, theism, other.... However, maybe the most logical thing to then do would be the throw out the Bible as any possible option. Not to instead continue adhering to such an untrustworthy book anyways.

What say you here?

Again, I'm not going to play 'Where's Waldo." Nor, would I expect you to. All our time is precious.

My time is dedicated now to debating the TS. And I barely have time to do that, esp since I am the only one defending this. To ask me to debate another massive topic is not reasonable.

Well, to tell me you have provided a lot of evidence, in support of an Exodus, but then tell me to read through countless posts to find it myself, is unreasonable.

So you want me to sift through all of that to see where the points were laid out somewhere? And let me guess, the ones who are not convinced by this so-called evidence are either irrational or liars?

I have to ask why are you even asking me to debate the Exodus again when the current topic is the Shroud of Turin? Instead, I should be asking you to address the TS, not for you to ask me to address the Exodus again.

Then I find your process interesting.... Why not instead create a separate topic about the Shroud? Sooner or later, this topic will come up again, on it's own. And when it surely does, are you going to give a similar response? (i.e.) "Well, it's in the deep and dark trenches of a very large and convoluted thread, which spans many many many subtopics. Have fun hunting and picking out the stuff which may or may not be relevant to the case...."

You claim you have a lot of evidence, in support of an Exodus. My thread simply asks... Outside the Bible claiming this happened, what evidence suggests it did happen? As I stated before, if you care not to engage there, then maybe you do not feel you have anything worthy to add? Instead of responding in this thread, and telling us you do not have time, you could have merely supplied the evidence there to shut doubters up. And no, it likely would not take you any more time than it did for you to respond here.

Again, thank you for saving me from reading pages and pages of imbedded stuff, which ultimately leads to what you stated in a few sentences

This is evidence to me you are not actually interested in anything I've posted since obviously Diogenes has not even remotely summarized my Exodus posts, but only asserted statements to mock.

Cut/paste: As I stated before, if you care not to engage there, then maybe you do not feel you have anything worthy to add?

************************

On a side note, seeing how large you can make a thread, by introducing into it many subtopics, appears quite counterproductive to the intent of a debate. Introducing subtopic after subtopic, into the same thread, convolutes its intent. Further, people lose interest and move elsewhere.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2379

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position.

How's this for affecting a doctrinal position? (from another discussion in which I've participated):

Here's what the law of Moses says about divorce:

When a man takes a wife, and marries her, then it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly thing in her, that he writes her a bill of divorcement, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house, and goes and becomes another man's wife, and the latter husband hates her, and writes her a bill of divorcement, and gives it in her hand, and sends her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, who took her to be his wife, her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord; and you will not cause the land to sin, which the Lord your God gives you for an inheritance. (Deuteronomy 24:1-4)

And here's what the law of Moses says about itself:

And it came to pass in the fortieth year, in the eleventh month, on the first day of the month, that Moses spoke unto the children of Israel, according unto all that the Lord had given him in commandment unto them. (Deuteronomy 1:3)

You shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
(Deuteronomy 2:4)

....when you hearken to the voice of the Lord your God, to keep all His commandments which I command you this day, to do that which is right in the eyes of the Lord your God.
(Deuteronomy 13:19 [v.18 in Christian translations])

Here's what Jesus said about divorce:

"Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard."
(Matthew 19:7-8)

Notice the difference between why Jesus says Moses allowed divorce and why Moses says he allowed divorce. If Jesus believed the passages from Deuteronomy above, then when he told them that Moses permitted them to divorce their wives because their hearts were hard, he was actually saying that Jehovah permitted them to divorce their wives because their hearts were hard. But if that's the case, why does Deuteronomy repeatedly say that everything allowed in the law is right in Jehovah's eyes? The logical conclusion is that Jesus's take on the law of Moses is incompatible with what the law of Moses actually says.

And that would constitute disproof of Christianity, since the Jewish Messiah would not contradict Moses.

[Diogenes]

The logical conclusion is that Jesus's take on the law of Moses is incompatible with what the law of Moses actually says.

And that would constitute disproof of Christianity, since the Jewish Messiah would not contradict Moses.[/i]

Looks like Jesus is going to Hell.

... or... The Mosaic Law was crafted by selfish men, secure in their patriarchy, who made laws to serve themselves with little thought for the 2d class members of their society - women. Couple thousand years later Jesus comes along, a man with compassion for all, a man who consorted with the lower classes and [gasp!] women... not to mention having a drink now and then.

As societies change, as women slowly [too slowly] take their place as equal members of a culture, religion too must change. It is hard... no, impossible, to see Biblical history as some divine fiat from a perfect and unchanging god. But easy and natural to see these changes reflecting the natural progress of human culture, from patriarchy to equality.

. . . from 'an eye for an eye' and the vengeful retributive culture to one where love is the center, forgiveness the creed.

And if you want to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, look at the nonsense going on over at "Is Jesus mediator only for the “anointed class” of JW’s?", viewtopic.php?p=1119251#p1119251 where an effort is being made to explain how only 144,000 will be saved, or anointed, or have special status or whatever... maybe only if they are JW's or... maybe not.

In any case Jesus of Nazareth is doing about 1500 RPM as he turns over in his grave at how so many "Christians" have missed the point he gave his life trying to make.

[JoeyKnothead]

Looks like Jesus is going to Hell.

... or... The Mosaic Law was crafted by selfish men, secure in their patriarchy, who made laws to serve themselves with little thought for the 2d class members of their society - women. Couple thousand years later Jesus comes along, a man with compassion for all, a man who consorted with the lower classes and [gasp!] women... not to mention having a drink now and then.

As societies change, as women slowly [too slowly] take their place as equal members of a culture, religion too must change. It is hard... no, impossible, to see Biblical history as some divine fiat from a perfect and unchanging god. But easy and natural to see these changes reflecting the natural progress of human culture, from patriarchy to equality.

. . . from 'an eye for an eye' and the vengeful retributive culture to one where love is the center, forgiveness the creed.

And if you want to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, look at the nonsense going on over at "Is Jesus mediator only for the “anointed class” of JW’s?", viewtopic.php?p=1119251#p1119251 where an effort is being made to explain how only 144,000 will be saved, or anointed, or have special status or whatever... maybe only if they are JW's or... maybe not.

In any case Jesus of Nazareth is doing about 1500 RPM as he turns over in his grave at how so many "Christians" have missed the point he gave his life trying to make.

You word good.

From my amateur study of such things, we can see an evolution in religious thought nigh on from the first one of em.

As you pointed out, and I'll expound... From the harsh religions borne of a harsh time, where toil and raids and hunger and humans dwelt, came a vengeful, hateful god.

As society became more knowledgeable, and equitable, so came that God.

I look at more primitive societies of today and notice the comparisons. In parts of Africa, and much of the US, the Christian god is vengeful and hateful. He deserves a booger flinging.

This is reason enough for us all to point out the errors of so much theist thought. If society is to reflect its god, surely that would be a society of reasoning, and love for even the goofiest ones among it.

[boatsnguitars]

The cloth is woven in a three-to-one herringbone twill composed of flax fibrils.

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

- A dark blue cloth with a 2:2 herringbone weave was found at Murabba'at Cave in Israel, from the Roman period.[6][7]

The Turin ShroudJesus’s body was wrapped in clean linen cloth [50]. The author of the Gospel according to John agreesthat spices were used and these were wrapped in the linen cloths, “according to the burial custom of theJews” [51]. Additional information on the use of shrouds can be found in John: “The dead man cameout, his hands and feet bound with bandages, and his face wrapped with a cloth” [52].The Akeldama discovery immediately suggested to the media some comparisons with the Shroud ofTurin. The detailed characterization of the weave has allowed them to be compared to the Turin shroud,providing additional proof for them that the latter is not authentic [53].The Turin shroud is made of linen Z-spun in a 3/1 herringbone twill pattern. All the linen textilesfrom the Land of Israel until the medieval period are S-spun, plain weave tabby. A few wool textilesfrom the Roman period are Z-spun in both warp and weft (37 out of 826 wool textiles) [54].The Turin shroud has 38.6 threads per cm at the warp and 25.7 threads per cm at the weft whichis very high compared to linen textiles manufactured at the Land of Israel which usually have 10–15threads per cm at the warp and 15–20 threads per cm at the weft [55].The textiles from the Roman period in the Land of Israel were made on a warp-weighted loom ortwo-beam upright loom. The warp-weighted loom went out of use in the region at the end of the 1stcentury CE, when the vertical, two-beam upright loom became popular [56]. Despite the fact that loomscapable of weaving twill existed in this period and even before, twill has not been found in Israel priorto the Roman period. The weave was found in small quantities among wool textiles (32 out of 1635textiles from Roman period sites) including the Cave of Letters (one item), the Judean Desert cavessurvey (one item), Masada (13 items, Fig. 6), Mo’a (9 items), Murabba’at (6 items) and Sha’ar Ramon(2 items) [57].The twill variations are: twill 2/2, twill 1/2 and diamond twill; one herringbone twill textile wasfound at Murabba’at [58], but it seems to be a modern-day textile. Most of the twills are Z-spun. Twilltextiles can be manufactured with three heddles loom which were not in use in Israel. It means that thetwills were imported. Herringbone twill textiles are known from Europe and Egypt [59].00010-p.7
SHS Web of ConferencesFigure 6. Masada, Z-spun, wool, complex diamond twill (IAA. No. 1993–9011). Sheffer, A. and Granger-Taylor,H. 1994. Textiles from Masada – A Preliminary Selection, Aviram Y, Foerster G. and Netzer E. (eds.) Masada IV.Jerusalem, Pl. 7b. Courtesy of the the Israel Exploration Society.Run and fell seams which were used to stitch textiles together were used, according toFlury-Lumberg [60], only during the Roman period, even though they were found also in textiles fromthe Medieval period as at Kasr al-Yahud from the ninth century CE [61]

From your own reference.

Note the bold, and thier conclusion:

The Turin Shroud was probably not manufactured in the Land of Israel neither in the Roman nor in the Medevial period. It may not have been imported in none of these periods because not one textile with the above weaving technique was found in the Land of Israel.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... rin_Shroud


PLus, use your eyes. Look at the TS and then look at fabric from ancient Israel. There is no comparison. Just open your eyes.

[otseng]

The objective line I've offered in this thread is a claim in the Bible that affects a doctrinal position. Does the sun standing still affect any doctrine? No, so it's futile to debate the historicity of it. Is God the creator of the universe? Yes, so time should be spent debating this. Does it matter how many women were at the Jesus' tomb? No. Does it matter if Jesus was resurrected from the dead? Absolutely yes.

So, cherry pick what you're willing to defend, and claim that's the important thing for everyone?

No, I'm answering POI's question:

I think we first need to establish what you mean exactly, when you state "no book is perfect and without error"? Meaning, where does the threshold lie --- between shrugging your shoulders and/or overlooking some minor stuff, (vs) wow, virtually none of this stuff actually happened? Or, somewhere in between?

How would you answer his question?

I would argue that the threshold for determining the accuracy and truthfulness of a claim should be based on whether there is sufficient evidence to support it, not on whether it satisfies one's religious needs. Religious beliefs and needs may be a motivating factor for accepting a claim as true, but that alone does not make the claim objectively true.

If a claim is intended to be true, it is essential to evaluate its validity based on the available evidence, rather than on whether it fulfills religious needs. Evidence-based analysis and critical thinking are necessary for determining the factual accuracy of any claim. By relying solely on one's religious needs, one may fall prey to confirmation bias and cherry-pick only the parts of the religious text that support their beliefs, while ignoring contradictory evidence.

Furthermore, blindly accepting religious texts as true without critically analyzing the evidence may lead to conflicts with other fields, such as science and history, which may contradict certain aspects of religious texts. Thus, it is essential to evaluate claims based on evidence and reason, rather than personal religious needs.

I agree with most of this. But, you have not offered any objective criteria for where does the threshold lie. What constitutes sufficient evidence?

Of course, this would automatically reject the Bible as reliable, since we've found enough that isn't true in it. A stopped clock is right twice a day, that doesn't mean we trust it if agrees with the time we'd like it to be.

Religious belief is not also at play here, there is also irreligious belief. Even though there is a lot of evidence to support claims in the Bible, it doesn't matter to the skeptic. It is automatically rejected as reliable, regardless of how much evidence there is.

[otseng]

Does the Genesis account matter? yes or no? I'd say it does.

I'd say yes, Genesis matters, that is why I spent so much time discussing cosmology, global flood, tower of Babel, and Egyptology in this thread.

Well, to tell me you have provided a lot of evidence, in support of an Exodus, but then tell me to read through countless posts to find it myself, is unreasonable.

Again, the actual question which you have not addressed is:
"I have to ask why are you even asking me to debate the Exodus again when the current topic is the Shroud of Turin? Instead, I should be asking you to address the TS, not for you to ask me to address the Exodus again."

As I stated before, if you care not to engage there, then maybe you do not feel you have anything worthy to add?

I'll tell you what, one thing I wish I could've spent more time debating is the conquest of Canaan. I'd be more than happy to debate you on that after this thread is completed.

Instead of responding in this thread, and telling us you do not have time, you could have merely supplied the evidence there to shut doubters up. And no, it likely would not take you any more time than it did for you to respond here.

If I did provide a single source that gave a synopsis of all my arguments for the Exodus, would that then shut doubters up?

Why not instead create a separate topic about the Shroud? Sooner or later, this topic will come up again, on it's own. And when it surely does, are you going to give a similar response? (i.e.) "Well, it's in the deep and dark trenches of a very large and convoluted thread, which spans many many many subtopics. Have fun hunting and picking out the stuff which may or may not be relevant to the case...."

Unfortunately, the format of a forum is not conducive for presenting information in an organized manner.

As for creating a separate topic for the shroud, actually I've been considering creating an entire subforum for shroud related topics.

On a side note, seeing how large you can make a thread, by introducing into it many subtopics, appears quite counterproductive to the intent of a debate. Introducing subtopic after subtopic, into the same thread, convolutes its intent. Further, people lose interest and move elsewhere.

I don't know about people losing interest in this thread. So many people have been posting that it's quite time consuming just trying to address everyone.

Creating separate threads instead of having a single thread would make things worse. I have a hard enough time keeping track of things in a single thread. Expanding out in multiple threads would be impossible for me to manage.