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

[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.

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.

Wow! So your faith in 'the Risen Christ' depends on the Cloth of Turin being found authentic! I am surprised. To place one's faith in God on some questionable relic. You've already lost that bet. You just don't see it.

[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.

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.

Yes, it was easy, you just don't accept it. Your bias has been the most substantive factor in your arguments. DrNoGods, POI, et al. have delivered the refutation.

... and yes, I accept the C-14 dates from the independent experts and the scientific community.

[otseng]

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?

Yes, you're guessing. And guessing is not rational argumentation. To debate rationally, you'll need to read and address my counterarguments:
viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

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?

I already answered it:

2. And if so, do you use the same standard for these claims, as you would do for any presented claim(s) from antiquity (outside the Bible)?

All claims I've made I've backed up with empirical evidence, and primarily from secular sources. So the standard I've used is no different than anything else used outside the Bible.

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.

Backed into a corner? I'm still waiting for any rational argument from you about the TS without bringing up everything else besides the TS.

[otseng]

Wow! So your faith in 'the Risen Christ' depends on the Cloth of Turin being found authentic! I am surprised. To place one's faith in God on some questionable relic. You've already lost that bet. You just don't see it.

It's not me that don't see anything, in actuality you can't see what I've actually written. Again, I stated: "I never said my faith depends on the TS. As a matter of fact, nobody's faith depends on the TS."

[otseng]

Yes, it was easy, you just don't accept it. Your bias has been the most substantive factor in your arguments. DrNoGods, POI, et al. have delivered the refutation.

Please cite the posts from DrNoGods and POI that have refuted my counterarguments to the 1988 C-14 dating.

... and yes, I accept the C-14 dates from the independent experts and the scientific community.[/size]

If their results are valid, then why ignore my counterarguments to their findings? It should be easy to refute my arguments based on evidence, rather than simply reasserting their claims. But here's the situation. Skeptics are not really skeptics. They are only skeptical of things the Bible and Christianity claims. They are not skeptical of beliefs that they currently hold. Are they willing to actually go where the evidence leads? Or are they going to only stop at what they want to believe?

Now, I'm not saying skeptics are the only ones guilty of this. But, if one claims to be a skeptic, then by definition the skeptic should be skeptical of all claims and only depend on evidence and rational argumentation to justify a belief. And if challenges come up, it should be refuted based on evidence and rational arguments, not simply reasserting a claim.

[POI]

I'm still waiting for any rational argument from you about the TS without bringing up everything else besides the TS.

Yes, I've heard the same response from flat-earthers and YEC's. As I've stated already, I do not take such claims seriously anymore. Flat-earthers and YECs also huff and puff, as you are, and claim perpetual "victory". It would be just as futile to continue exchanging with a TS-er. Been there, done that. I'm good.

[Diogenes]

Wow! So your faith in 'the Risen Christ' depends on the Cloth of Turin being found authentic! I am surprised. To place one's faith in God on some questionable relic. You've already lost that bet. You just don't see it.

It's not me that don't see anything, in actuality you can't see what I've actually written. Again, I stated: "I never said my faith depends on the TS. As a matter of fact, nobody's faith depends on the TS."

otseng wrote: ↑Wed May 03, 2023 3:43 am
"I make the further claim that if anyone falsifies the TS, then they've falsified the resurrection."

So you are saying that if the resurrection is falsified, you will still believe in it. I get it. In other words you do not believe in evidence, you believe in belief. Not surprised, given you believe in Biblical myths, even myths Bible scholars recognize as myths, and given your your disbelief in evolution. But perhaps I am mistaken in my recollection that you make the typical ridiculous argument about trying to divide what you erroneously call micro from macro evolution. You lost all credibility with that one as well as your belief in a global flood and the Tower of Babel myths.

Why do you even bother presenting your 'evidence' when you dismiss or ignore anything that does not support your belief in the cloth of Turin? You've never answered the fact the face and body proportions of the image do not fit human proportions or that there is NO mention of the Turin 'shroud' until the 14th Century, right after its mysterious manufacture.

Do you also believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old?
I'm going to spend as much time on your alternate C-14 dating as I am on YEC alternate radiometric dating claims.
I've asked you repeatedly if there are ANY of the Myths of Genesis you do not believe in. I guess you're not going to answer.

Further participation in this thread seems pointless, just as it is pointless to discuss science with "EarthScienceGuy."

[otseng]

Summary of arguments on the Shroud of Turin

There's two main views on the shroud:
A) It's a medieval fake that was produced by some artist
B) It's the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth

Arguments against position A:

1. It is not artwork.

a. This is the conclusion of the 1978 STURP team.

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.

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.

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

b. Silence from art community on the TS

viewtopic.php?p=1106931#p1106931

c. Silence in art journals on the TS

viewtopic.php?p=1108361#p1108361

d. Testimony from Wesselow and Tite that it is not artwork

viewtopic.php?p=1107626#p1107626

viewtopic.php?p=1108258#p1108258

2. Top arguments for fake position are dubious.

a. C-14 dating

viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

b. d'Arcis memo

viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

c. McCrone and paint particles

viewtopic.php?p=1118417#p1118417

d. Borrini and Garlaschelli

viewtopic.php?p=1117907#p1117907

viewtopic.php?p=1117908#p1117908

3. There are no viable naturalistic explanations for the origin of the image dispite several attempts.

a. Luigi Garlaschelli

viewtopic.php?p=1107921#p1107921

b. Joe Nickell

viewtopic.php?p=1113694#p1113694

Arguments refuting position A and supporting position B:

1. It is the most scientifically studied artifact.

viewtopic.php?p=1106931#p1106931

2. Features of the shroud predate the invention of scientific technologies by hundreds of years.

a. Photography

viewtopic.php?p=1104936#p1104936

b. 3-D imaging

viewtopic.php?p=1106347#p1106347

c. X-ray

viewtopic.php?p=1105542#p1105542

d. UV imaging

viewtopic.php?p=1115523#p1115523

viewtopic.php?p=1118525#p1118525

3. Image and blood have features we cannot fully explain.

a. Image only on topmost fibers

viewtopic.php?p=1105228#p1105228

b. Blood is still red

viewtopic.php?p=1105590#p1105590

4. Features of the shroud predate the use of art techniques by hundreds of years.

a. Halftone

viewtopic.php?p=1106542#p1106542

b. Airbrush

viewtopic.php?p=1106604#p1106604

c. Hyperrealism

viewtopic.php?p=1106892

5. Image is medically accurate.

viewtopic.php?p=1106892

6. Features depicted are contrary to artwork and instead depict how it should have actually happened.

a. Scourging

viewtopic.php?p=1116515#p1116515

b. Nail through wrist

viewtopic.php?p=1105368#p1105368

c. Crown of thorns

viewtopic.php?p=1116603#p1116603

d. No body image under blood

viewtopic.php?p=1105790#p1105790

e. Rigor mortis

viewtopic.php?p=1107205#p1107205

7. Image formation is not based on what we visually would see, but on how the cloth would be affected by the imaging mechanism. On the first order, things are depicted correctly, but on the second order, we see things missing as well as distortions.

viewtopic.php?p=1107092#p1107092

8. Blood and image patterns precisely match the gospel accounts and uniqely points to Jesus of Nazareth.

viewtopic.php?p=1119259#p1119259

9. There are additional details on the TS that are not present in the gospel accounts.

a. Dislocated shoulder

viewtopic.php?p=1105467#p1105467

b. Whip marks

viewtopic.php?p=1119062#p1119062

c. Shoulder abrasions

viewtopic.php?p=1117201#p1117201

d. Herringbone weave

viewtopic.php?p=1119994#p1119994

10. Features of the shroud point to 1st century Jerusalem origin.

a. Vanillin test

viewtopic.php?p=1113484#p1113484

b. Dimensions of cloth match Assyrian cubit

viewtopic.php?p=1119548#p1119548

c. Side strip seam matches Masada seam

viewtopic.php?p=1119872#p1119872

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

viewtopic.php?p=1120100#p1120100

e. Calcium particles on the feet area matching Jerusalem

viewtopic.php?p=1120231#p1120231

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

viewtopic.php?p=1120354#p1120354

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

viewtopic.php?p=1120453#p1120453

[otseng]

Next, I'll be going into the provenance of the shroud. Knowing the history of the shroud is not a necessary condition for my arguments on the authenticity of the shroud. But, it would satisfy intellectual curiosity of how the shroud traveled from Jerusalem to Lirey, France.

The analysis of the possible route will be assuming the shroud is authentic. If anyone wants to argue it's not authentic, address my summary of arguments on the Shroud of Turin and not on things posted about the provenance of the TS.

I'll be going backwards in time discussing the history of the TS. I won't be starting from Turin, Italy, but the earliest point that all viewpoints agree on, which is 1350.

The general consensus of even the most doubting researchers is to accept a "1350" date as the beginning of the "undisputed" or documented history of the Shroud of Turin.

https://www.shroud.com/history.htm

Obviously, the shroud would not have been called the Shroud of Turin prior to that time. It wouldn't have even been called the Turin Shroud in 1350. So, the only way to make a match would be by physical descriptions or artwork of the shroud. Physical descriptions would also be limited since it's only through modern science that we've been able to more fully understand the characteristics of the shroud.

There are many barriers that prevent us from knowing the exact history of the shroud. One is nobody in the past would've been thinking, "People in the 21st century will be wondering about the exact historical trail of this shroud, so I need to make sure I document it for those in the future to know about it." Second, the shroud obviously had to go through the Byzantine empire to make it from Jerusalem to Lirey. And Westerners know relatively little about the Orthodox church and their history. Most don't even know what the Orthodox believe. Third is history in the past has often been retold through legends, and it's difficult to decipher what is true or false in legends. Fourth is early Christians held to the discipline of the secret, so they concealed many things. Fifth is the Jewish mindset would've had reasons to not publicize the shroud. I'll get into more of these reasons as we approach the era when these factors apply.

Nobody really knows the exact path of how the TS traveled, but there are clues that point to possible routes. And it's those clues that we'll be exploring.

[POI]

Summary of arguments on the Shroud of Turin

There's two main views on the shroud:
A) It's a medieval fake that was produced by some artist
B) It's the burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth

Arguments against position A:

1. It is not artwork.

a. This is the conclusion of the 1978 STURP team.

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.

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.

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

b. Silence from art community on the TS

viewtopic.php?p=1106931#p1106931

c. Silence in art journals on the TS

viewtopic.php?p=1108361#p1108361

d. Testimony from Wesselow and Tite that it is not artwork

viewtopic.php?p=1107626#p1107626

viewtopic.php?p=1108258#p1108258

2. Top arguments for fake position are dubious.

a. C-14 dating

viewtopic.php?p=1114068#p1114068

b. d'Arcis memo

viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

c. McCrone and paint particles

viewtopic.php?p=1118417#p1118417

d. Borrini and Garlaschelli

viewtopic.php?p=1117907#p1117907

viewtopic.php?p=1117908#p1117908

3. There are no viable naturalistic explanations for the origin of the image dispite several attempts.

a. Luigi Garlaschelli

viewtopic.php?p=1107921#p1107921

b. Joe Nickell

viewtopic.php?p=1113694#p1113694

Arguments refuting position A and supporting position B:

1. It is the most scientifically studied artifact.

viewtopic.php?p=1106931#p1106931

2. Features of the shroud predate the invention of scientific technologies by hundreds of years.

a. Photography

viewtopic.php?p=1104936#p1104936

b. 3-D imaging

viewtopic.php?p=1106347#p1106347

c. X-ray

viewtopic.php?p=1105542#p1105542

d. UV imaging

viewtopic.php?p=1115523#p1115523

viewtopic.php?p=1118525#p1118525

3. Image and blood have features we cannot fully explain.

a. Image only on topmost fibers

viewtopic.php?p=1105228#p1105228

b. Blood is still red

viewtopic.php?p=1105590#p1105590

4. Features of the shroud predate the use of art techniques by hundreds of years.

a. Halftone

viewtopic.php?p=1106542#p1106542

b. Airbrush

viewtopic.php?p=1106604#p1106604

c. Hyperrealism

viewtopic.php?p=1106892

5. Image is medically accurate.

viewtopic.php?p=1106892

6. Features depicted are contrary to artwork and instead depict how it should have actually happened.

a. Scourging

viewtopic.php?p=1116515#p1116515

b. Nail through wrist

viewtopic.php?p=1105368#p1105368

c. Crown of thorns

viewtopic.php?p=1116603#p1116603

d. No body image under blood

viewtopic.php?p=1105790#p1105790

e. Rigor mortis

viewtopic.php?p=1107205#p1107205

7. Image formation is not based on what we visually would see, but on how the cloth would be affected by the imaging mechanism. On the first order, things are depicted correctly, but on the second order, we see things missing as well as distortions.

viewtopic.php?p=1107092#p1107092

8. Blood and image patterns precisely match the gospel accounts and uniqely points to Jesus of Nazareth.

viewtopic.php?p=1119259#p1119259

9. There are additional details on the TS that are not present in the gospel accounts.

a. Dislocated shoulder

viewtopic.php?p=1105467#p1105467

b. Whip marks

viewtopic.php?p=1119062#p1119062

c. Shoulder abrasions

viewtopic.php?p=1117201#p1117201

d. Herringbone weave

viewtopic.php?p=1119994#p1119994

10. Features of the shroud point to 1st century Jerusalem origin.

a. Vanillin test

viewtopic.php?p=1113484#p1113484

b. Dimensions of cloth match Assyrian cubit

viewtopic.php?p=1119548#p1119548

c. Side strip seam matches Masada seam

viewtopic.php?p=1119872#p1119872

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

viewtopic.php?p=1120100#p1120100

e. Calcium particles on the feet area matching Jerusalem

viewtopic.php?p=1120231#p1120231

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

viewtopic.php?p=1120354#p1120354

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

viewtopic.php?p=1120453#p1120453

I'll jump right on all of this, immediately after I visit the 'Creation Museum' and "Ark Encounter" and attempt to dispute all of their claims. (https://answersingenesis.org/)

Case/point being, your posts about the TS are no longer worthy of investigation, or to even be taken seriously.