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]

DNA analysis has been done on dust particles collected from the TS. It is able to identify plant and human particles and their estimated geographic origin.

Several plant taxa native to the Mediterranean area were identified as well as species with a primary center of origin in Asia, the Middle East or the Americas but introduced in a historical interval later than the Medieval period. Regarding human mitogenome lineages, our analyses detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, which clustered into a number of Western Eurasian haplogroups, including some known to be typical of Western Europe, the Near East, the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian sub-continent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484

They studied the dust particles collected in 1978 and 1988.

In this study, we performed DNA analyses to define the biological sources of the dust particles (pollen grains, cell debris and other minuscule organic specimens, such as plant-derived fibers and blood-like clots) vacuum-collected in 1978 and 1988 in distinct TS filters, corresponding to the face, hands, glutei and feet of the body image6,13 and the lateral edge, which was used for radiocarbon dating8. To identify plant taxonomic entities and human genetic lineages, universal plant DNA sequences, including nuclear rDNA intergenic transcribed spacers (ITS) and chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) barcodes and human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) target regions were amplified and sequenced.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484

Plant particles were traced to various parts of the world.

The land plant species include herbaceous weeds and crops, woody trees and shrubs; some are native to Mediterranean countries and are widespread in Central Europe, North Africa and the Middle East, whereas others have a center of origin in Eastern Asia and the Americas and hence they were not yet present into Europe during the Medieval period

Human DNA found correspond with several haplogroups. Based on the frequency of DNA found, most center in the Middle East region, which implies it was touched the most by those from the Middle East.



The DNA analysis does not rule a Medieval origin, but is compatible with the TS being a shroud from the first century.

Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe but it would be also compatible with the historic path followed by the Turin Shroud during its presumed journey from the Near East.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484

Though DNA analysis has been done on the shroud of the particles vacuumed from the shroud, it is not conclusive evidence to discount either a Medieval French origin or a 1st century Jerusalem origin; however, it does favor the preponderance of people touching the shroud were from the Middle East.

[POI]

And since the resurrection claim is to be taken upon faith, as it is completely unfalsifiable and not really testable.

This is false. If anyone can falsify the resurrection, then they've falsified Christianity. I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

This is false. The resurrection claim cannot be falsified. Just like I told you about the claim that "Muhammad flew to Heaven on a white horse" cannot be falsified. This is why you can confidently stand by 'Paul's" assertion.

You do not have to try and defend falsifiable claims, like a flood claim or an Exodus claim anymore. You are safe. Just like the Muslim, in that Muhammad really did ascend to Heaven.

Further, as I informed you prior, I'm not going to entertain fringe views, which have little/no merit, like with the flat-earthers and/or the young-earth-creationists.

Just like the flat-earthers, I could debate them as well, until 'kingdom-come'; but it's a futile endeavor.

Yeah, this is the number one claim made by skeptics.

Yes, and there is a reason it continues to be

I've countered this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address my counterarguments about the 1988 C-14 dating.

And like I have stated, a couple of times now, I can "debate" arenas like "AIG" or the "Discovery Institute" about all sorts of young earth claims too. The debate will still never end. Why? Because virtually any claim can be 'debated', even if one side appears unreasonable and unfounded.

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

The conclusion.... We look to have Biblical falsifiable claims, which are indeed reasonably falsified. So why then still place much/any faith in the claims, which are also unfalsifiable -- (like a resurrection claim)? The book has already proven to be untrustworthy, unless you can PROVE the authors already knew the falsifiable events, (i.e. a flood and the Exodus), were not meant to be literal, and only teaching tools. Which I doubt.

[Diogenes]

I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

You may want to rethink that statement. Are you really saying that proving the Cloth of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, then the resurrection and Christianity have been proved false?! Even the Vatican does not claim it is a genuine relic.

I don't believe the "Shroud of Turin" is authentic and I don't believe in the "resurrection," but I certainly would not claim "if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection."

Even if Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven, I would not expect the burial wrappings to be either extant or discovered 1300 years later in Europe. But this does explain the fervor with which you attempt to verify the S of T.
I am indeed surprised you'd say your faith would depend on this piece of cloth.

In fact, I shall assume that is not what you really meant.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On a personal note, for me the sayings attributed to Jesus, particularly The Beatitudes, his moral instruction about the spirit of the law vs the letter, and the admonition to treat your neighbor as yourself are among the most beautiful moral admonitions and present a goal we might all aspire to... irrespective of religious affiliation.
As such they don't need supernatural authority to be worthy of emulation.

[Diogenes]

DNA analysis has been done on dust particles collected from the TS. It is able to identify plant and human particles and their estimated geographic origin.

Several plant taxa native to the Mediterranean area were identified as well as species with a primary center of origin in Asia, the Middle East or the Americas but introduced in a historical interval later than the Medieval period. Regarding human mitogenome lineages, our analyses detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, which clustered into a number of Western Eurasian haplogroups, including some known to be typical of Western Europe, the Near East, the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian sub-continent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484

Yes, it makes sense some of these would be more recent than medieval and be from Western Europe where the cloth was made and stored. This is consistent with contamination after the cloth was made circa 1350. It would be more interesting if they came from 1st Century.

Such diversity does not exclude a Medieval origin in Europe....

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484
Yes, this is consistent with a Medieval forgery. It is also consistent with the related Nature article at nature.com about the medieval date of manufacture:

Very small samples from the Shroud of Turin have been dated by accelerator mass spectrometry in laboratories at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich. As controls, three samples whose ages had been determined independently were also dated. The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
https://www.nature.com/articles/337611a0

[Athetotheist]

Jesus answered him, “If I have spoken wrongly, testify to the wrong; (John 18:23)

And how did Jesus speak wrongly?

I explained that in my post contrasting what Jesus said with what the law of Moses says.

[otseng]

And since the resurrection claim is to be taken upon faith, as it is completely unfalsifiable and not really testable.

This is false. If anyone can falsify the resurrection, then they've falsified Christianity. I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

This is false. The resurrection claim cannot be falsified. Just like I told you about the claim that "Muhammad flew to Heaven on a white horse" cannot be falsified. This is why you can confidently stand by 'Paul's" assertion.

I'm not claiming anything about Muhammad. What's different about Jesus' resurrection is it is claimed to be a historical event where the time and location is asserted. In addition, I'm also claiming we have an artifact testifying to it.

You do not have to try and defend falsifiable claims, like a flood claim or an Exodus claim anymore. You are safe.

Safe? Actually the opposite. I'm stepping out on a limb that nobody I've ever encountered has claimed - prove the TS is a fake then it's all falsified.

Further, as I informed you prior, I'm not going to entertain fringe views, which have little/no merit, like with the flat-earthers and/or the young-earth-creationists.

The TS is unlike any other "fringe" claim - it is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history. Please produce any artifact from history that has generated so much scientific literature, books, conferences, and videos.

I've countered this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

Please address my counterarguments about the 1988 C-14 dating.

And like I have stated, a couple of times now, I can "debate" arenas like "AIG" or the "Discovery Institute" about all sorts of young earth claims too. The debate will still never end. Why? Because virtually any claim can be 'debated', even if one side appears unreasonable and unfounded.

I see no rational refutation of my counterarguments.

The book has already proven to be untrustworthy, unless you can PROVE the authors already knew the falsifiable events, (i.e. a flood and the Exodus), were not meant to be literal, and only teaching tools. Which I doubt.

I've already produced pages of evidence to support a literal interpretation of the accounts in Genesis. And in each topic, it was not meant to be an exhaustive discussion, but only an introduction to the topic.

Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence.

[otseng]

I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection.

You may want to rethink that statement. Are you really saying that proving the Cloth of Turin is not the burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth, then the resurrection and Christianity have been proved false?! Even the Vatican does not claim it is a genuine relic.

Yes, I meant what I wrote.

Even if Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven, I would not expect the burial wrappings to be either extant or discovered 1300 years later in Europe.

I don't think anyone would expect this.

But this does explain the fervor with which you attempt to verify the S of T.
I am indeed surprised you'd say your faith would depend on this piece of cloth.

I never said my faith depends on the TS. As a matter of fact, nobody's faith depends on the TS. Ask any Protestant Christian and I doubt they know anything about it. The Catholics would more likely know about it, but like you said, the RCC makes no claim that it's authentic.

In fact, I shall assume that is not what you really meant.

Again, I meant what I wrote. I realize I'm going all in with this claim. I really can't think of any other claim that I'd be willing to bet it all on, but after all the responses I've seen from skeptics about the TS, I'm even more convinced I'll be winning the bet.

[otseng]

DNA analysis has been done on dust particles collected from the TS. It is able to identify plant and human particles and their estimated geographic origin.

Several plant taxa native to the Mediterranean area were identified as well as species with a primary center of origin in Asia, the Middle East or the Americas but introduced in a historical interval later than the Medieval period. Regarding human mitogenome lineages, our analyses detected sequences from multiple subjects of different ethnic origins, which clustered into a number of Western Eurasian haplogroups, including some known to be typical of Western Europe, the Near East, the Arabian Peninsula and the Indian sub-continent.

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14484

Yes, it makes sense some of these would be more recent than medieval and be from Western Europe where the cloth was made and stored. This is consistent with contamination after the cloth was made circa 1350. It would be more interesting if they came from 1st Century.

Whether the shroud is from the 1st century or the 14th century, they both would have DNA from after the Medieval period, so it's not evidence one way or the other.

The results provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval.
https://www.nature.com/articles/337611a0

If it's so conclusive, then it should be easy to refute my counterarguments to the C-14 dating. Instead, what we see is just a reassertion the C-14 dating is conclusive evidence.

[otseng]

Arguments the TS is not from Medieval Europe, but from 1st century Jerusalem:

1. Dimensions of cloth match Assyrian cubit.

viewtopic.php?p=1119548#p1119548

2. Side strip seam matches Masada seam.

viewtopic.php?p=1119872#p1119872

3. Banding not seen in medieval weaving, but in ancient weaving.

viewtopic.php?p=1120100#p1120100

4. Calcium particles on the feet area matching Jerusalem.

viewtopic.php?p=1120231#p1120231

5. Wide Angle X-ray Scattering (WAXS) points to first century.

viewtopic.php?p=1120354#p1120354

6. DNA analysis has more people touching the shroud from Middle East than Europe.

viewtopic.php?p=1120453#p1120453

[POI]

U I'm not claiming anything about Muhammad. What's different about Jesus' resurrection is it is claimed to be a historical event where the time and location is asserted. In addition, I'm also claiming we have an artifact also testifying to it.

POI You've missed my point. Just like the assertion about a resurrection, asserted in a book of claims, there also exists an assertion of a man flying to Heaven on a white horse, asserted from a book of claims. They are both one-time claimed events in ancient antiquity. When pressed, they both ultimately rely upon faith to be true.

U Safe? Actually the opposite. I'm stepping out on a limb that nobody I've ever encountered has claimed - prove the TS is a fake then it's all falsified.

POI You've missed my point again. "The flood" and an "Exodus" are somewhat falsifiable, in that there exists a severe lack in evidence to support these extraordinary claims. You appear to ascribe to the 'minimal facts' approach. Meaning, all that needs to be 'true' is a resurrection claim. "The resurrection" is not falsifiable. Just like an assertion of a man flying to heaven, ~1300 years ago, is not falsifiable. Both events ultimately rely upon faith as 'evidence' for truth. Thus, why even begin to place my 'faith' in an untrustworthy document to begin with?

U The TS is unlike any other "fringe" claim - it is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history. Please produce any artifact from history that has generated so much scientific literature, books, conferences, and videos.

POI Looks like the last bastion of hope for a fringe crowd. I debate many educated Christians, and hardly encounter believers who use this as their 'checkmate' piece of evidence. Or, at all. There's reason(s) why. Further, of course this artifact will continue to be investigated. Christianity is still the predominate religion on the globe. The inquires will never end until they can 'prove' it. And yet, here we are still 'investigating.' Hence, inquiries will prevail until there are no more Christians, which may be never. Just like there will always be Muslims investigating things to 'demonstrate' their faith. Heck, we still get claim after claim that the 'Ark" has been found. And I'm willing to bet the search continues. Fingers crossed

I guess the 3 independent institutes, which evaluated the provided (TS) material, and determined it's from 12-13 centuries later, were all equally mistaken, and/or all liars?

U I see no rational refutation of my counterarguments.

POI Which leads me back to another question I do not believe you answered, a few posts back. (Rephrased) When you evaluate any supernatural claim from ancient antiquity, do you evaluate them all the same?

U I've already produced pages of evidence to support a literal interpretation of the accounts in Genesis. And in each topic, it was not meant to be an exhaustive discussion, but only an introduction to the topic.

POI I now understand that you are from the 'minimal facts' camp. I realized this the second you quoted "Paul". I also realize it is a great <safe haven> for theists to go, when they understand and realize falsifiable claims, like "the flood" and "Exodus", lack evidence to support these extraordinary claims - which should have left behind mounds of evidence. Hence, on to the unfalsifiable for safety.

U Here's the conclusion. Skeptics really have no rational arguments to counter the evidence in support of the Bible. Rather, they continually make irrelevant accusations, repeated baseless claims, and have a severe lack of valid counterarguments with supporting evidence.

POI Here's my conclusion. If you were to ever feel you were backed into a corner, and had to discredit the 'shroud', you would likely move the goalpost again. At the end of the day, your doctrine hinges upon 'eyewitness' testimony of a man seen floating around speaking to people. And even if we had genuine eyewitnesses, we have the same kind of evidence for all sorts of supernatural stuff in which you and I both doubt.