How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2745
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2501

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2496
Like I've said multiple times, we'll deep dive into imaging after the provenance. I've only had to repeatedly state I'll get to it later since you've been repeatedly asking for it.
I've been repeatedly asking for it because you've repeatedly put it off, supposedly to illuminate the "provenance" of the image, but it looks to me like you're just filling the thread up with pictures of Jesus from hither and yon.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.
Indeed, but the burden is heavier when what's being made is an extraordinary claim.
I have not made any claim so far on how the imaging actually occurred.
You've made it fairly apparent that you're trying to eliminate every mundane explanation.
Whereas you have made the claim that there must be imaging on top of the head. So, if you cannot demonstrate that there must be imaging on the top of the head, then it's just another baseless unsupported assertion.
Two bas-relief images of a figure, one front and one back with a gap between them at the head, is readily plausible. It could easily be done. It is strongly suggested. How do I bear a heavier burden to prove what is more strongly suggested than that an extraordinary agency mysteriously imprinted the image of a single body onto a strip of material in such a way as to suggest more strongly that it's a pair of bas-relief images?

MatijaSever
Newbie
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2022 7:03 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2502

Post by MatijaSever »

Diagoras wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 5:58 pm
otseng wrote: Thu Sep 23, 2021 7:35 am 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?
For any arbitrary subset of humanity that chooses to consider it so, very easily - as already pointed out by nobspeople.

I'm actually curious why the debate question didn't include the other two qualities of the bible: God's word and trustworthy? In my opinion, they would be harder to reconcile with the doctrine of inerrancy, and so make for a more stimulating discussion. I'm not wanting to hijack the thread so early on though.
Welcome to the forum! It's great to have you here. I'm sure you'll find plenty of interesting discussions to participate in. In regards to your question, I believe inerrancy is a difficult concept to reconcile with, but I think that it is a valuable point of view to consider. The fact that it can be debated and discussed in such a way is a testament to the richness of the Bible and its teachings.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2503

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:54 pm I've been repeatedly asking for it because you've repeatedly put it off, supposedly to illuminate the "provenance" of the image, but it looks to me like you're just filling the thread up with pictures of Jesus from hither and yon.
Why can't skeptics stay on topic? I'm deep diving into the provenance because the skeptics had repeatedly been asking for it. Now I'm discussing it, skeptics want to talk about something else.
The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.
Indeed, but the burden is heavier when what's being made is an extraordinary claim.
I sort of agree, that's why I've been devoting so much time to this topic.

But, I also disagree because we have the cloth. We can analyze it and test it. If it's a fake, then there should be nothing extraordinary about it. Yet, it's quite extraordinary that after all the study that's been done on it, there's still no naturalistic explanation for its origin.
I have not made any claim so far on how the imaging actually occurred.
You've made it fairly apparent that you're trying to eliminate every mundane explanation.
Again, we'll explore all the major imaging explanations later.
Two bas-relief images of a figure, one front and one back with a gap between them at the head, is readily plausible. It could easily be done. It is strongly suggested. How do I bear a heavier burden to prove what is more strongly suggested than that an extraordinary agency mysteriously imprinted the image of a single body onto a strip of material in such a way as to suggest more strongly that it's a pair of bas-relief images?
A bas-relief technique that involves any paint, dye, or stain cannot be possible.
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.
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20680
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 206 times
Been thanked: 348 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2504

Post by otseng »

The Ecclesiastical History of Evagrius is dated to late 6th century and contains a reference to the Edessa image and to Abgar.
In AD 544, Edessa was attacked by the Persians. A generation later, an account of the siege was recorded by the historian Evagrius Scholasticus. His Ecclesiastical History contains the first mention of the Image of Edessa protecting the city from attack. The Persians had built a siege ramp against the walls. In an attempt to collapse the ramp, the Edessenes dug a mine beneath it and filled the cavity with wood and combustibles.
http://gloriaromanorum.blogspot.com/201 ... early.html

The passage from the Ecclesiastical History:
The mine was completed; but they failed in attempting to fire the wood, because the fire, having no exit whence it could obtain a supply of air, was unable to take hold of it. In this state of utter perplexity, they bring the divinely wrought image, which the hands of men did not form, but Christ our God sent to Abgarus on his desiring to see Him. Accordingly, having introduced this holy image into the mine, and washed it over with water, they sprinkled some upon the timber; and the divine power forthwith being present to the faith of those who had so done, the result was accomplished which had previously been impossible: for the timber immediately caught the flame, and being in an instant reduced to cinders, communicated with that above, and the fire spread in all directions.
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/evagrius_4_book4.htm

Full text of the Ecclesiastical History is at:
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/inde ... holasticus

More info on the 544 seige of Edessa:
The siege of Edessa (then known as Justinopolis) occurred in 544 AD during an invasion of the Byzantine Empire ruled by Justinian I by the Sasanian Empire under Khosrow I in the midst of the ongoing Lazic War in the north. The city withstood the fierce siege. Due to the religious nature of the city, some Christian traditions have attributed the result of the conflict to divine intervention.

After a minor skirmish which ended in a stalemate, the Sasanians offered the Byzantines to buy peace, but the negotiations failed as the Byzantines rejected the condition of giving up all the wealth inside the fortifications.

On the eighth day, the Sasanians began constructing a large mound (in Latin: agesta) made of trees, earth, and rubble, against the city wall. The Byzantines made attempts to stop its construction, first by a surprise raid, and then by shooting, but the construction continued. Thus they sent Stephanus to negotiate with Khosrow I; he was a physician who had previously cured Khosrow I's father, Kavad I. Khosrow I demanded the delivery of Peter and Peranius, or alternatively payment of 500 centenaria of gold, or all of the silver and gold that was in the city; this offer was refused. As the mound reached a great height, another envoy was sent to the Sasanian camp, but they were insulted and sent back. The Byzantines tried to over-top the wall opposite the mound by constructing a new structure, but this failed. Martinus then engaged in frequent peace talks with Sasanian commanders.

Meanwhile, the Byzantines were tunneling to reach the middle of the mound, and although a first tunnel was discovered, the Byzantines eventually managed to set fire to the mound from beneath using sulfur, bitumen, and wood. After unsuccessful attempts to extinguish the fire, the entire mound was eventually consumed by fire and the Sasanians abandoned it.

A surprise Sasanian assault using ladders at dawn, and another assault against the "Great Gate" later in the day were defeated. The Sasanians then announced that Rhecinarius, the envoy from Emperor Justinian I to arrange the peace treaty, had arrived. As the envoy entered the city, the Byzantines refused to begin negotiations immediately. Khosrow I then encircled the city with all the army and siege equipment. The ensuing assault initially favored the Sasanians, but it eventually failed and Khosrow I ordered a withdrawal. The Sasanian contingent under Azarethes was still fighting and making progress at one of the gates, but were driven back by the regrouped Byzantines and citizens under Peranius.

Another Sasanian assault against another one of the gates two days later was also unsuccessful, and then an armistice was agreed upon as the Edessanes paid 5 centenaria (500 pounds) of gold.

Some Christian traditions attribute the successful defense to the Image of Edessa, a holy relic that was kept in the city. Others such as the Syriac Chronicle of Edessa written in the same decade that the siege occurred, also claim divine interventions. Nevertheless, the city later fell in 610 during the Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Edessa_(544)

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2745
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 15 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2505

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2503
Why can't skeptics stay on topic? I'm deep diving into the provenance because the skeptics had repeatedly been asking for it. Now I'm discussing it, skeptics want to talk about something else.
I haven't been asking for it. I've been asking for an explanation of the absence of distortion image over the head. Instead of that it's been, "Here's a painting of Jesus from this era......here's a painting of Jesus from that era......"
A bas-relief technique that involves any paint, dye, or stain cannot be possible.

"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."
Here you're quoting John Heller, but here's something Heller says later on:

"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 cloth being in direct contact with a body as even you yourself have suggested would make it logically inconceivable that there would be such prominant imagery down the length of the figure but no image at all over the top of the head, where the material would contact the body the closest. The bas-relief explanation easily accounts for the absence of top-of-head image and the prominance of facial image.

Regardless of what was used in creating the images, bas-relief is most strongly suggested----good ol' shroud.com notwithstanding.
Again, we'll explore all the major imaging explanations later.
Whenever that is, it will have to be with something more substantial than the earth-map example from earlier which was so easy to refute.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2575 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2506

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:21 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:46 am This skeptic "dropped out of this thread" after realizing you were not going to, or continue to put off offering some means to confirm the following...

The image on the shroud is that of Jesus.
The blood on the shroud is that of Jesus.
I already presented my concluding argument it is Jesus of Nazareth:
viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

If you have any rational counterarguments to my arguments, please present it with counter evidence instead of just making assertions. Really the only other position is it is a medieval fake. And I have yet to see any evidence produced to say it is a fake that has not been refuted. Like you constantly demand from Christians, please produce your evidence, otherwise it's just more ranting.
No, you've made assertions that can't be confirmed.

Do you have a picture of Jesus in your pocket?
A blood sample?

Without such, the best we'll do is speculation.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2507

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to otseng in post #2503]
All this discussion of the Shroud seems to me to be a waste of time. Will those who think the Shroud might actually be the burial cloth of Jesus kindly help me understand why that particular piece of cloth is special? What makes it stand out among the uncountable other cloths that covered all or parts of persons who lived and died in the 700 years prior to the cloth's "discovery"?

Why do people think the image could be of Jesus, rather than that, say, of a village cobbler or candlemaker?

Help me understand this obsession.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2575 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2508

Post by JoeyKnothead »

JoeMama wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 6:43 pm [Replying to otseng in post #2503]
All this discussion of the Shroud seems to me to be a waste of time. Will those who think the Shroud might actually be the burial cloth of Jesus kindly help me understand why that particular piece of cloth is special? What makes it stand out among the uncountable other cloths that covered all or parts of persons who lived and died in the 700 years prior to the cloth's "discovery"?

Why do people think the image could be of Jesus, rather than that, say, of a village cobbler or candlemaker?

Help me understand this obsession.
That which is thought to support the religion is promoted, that which doesn't is dismissed.

It's just the nature of the beast.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

myth-one.com
Savant
Posts: 7390
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 4:16 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 97 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2509

Post by myth-one.com »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Tue May 30, 2023 3:53 pm
otseng wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 8:21 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 6:46 am This skeptic "dropped out of this thread" after realizing you were not going to, or continue to put off offering some means to confirm the following...

The image on the shroud is that of Jesus.
The blood on the shroud is that of Jesus.
I already presented my concluding argument it is Jesus of Nazareth:
viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

If you have any rational counterarguments to my arguments, please present it with counter evidence instead of just making assertions. Really the only other position is it is a medieval fake. And I have yet to see any evidence produced to say it is a fake that has not been refuted. Like you constantly demand from Christians, please produce your evidence, otherwise it's just more ranting.
No, you've made assertions that can't be confirmed.

Do you have a picture of Jesus in your pocket?
A blood sample?

Without such, the best we'll do is speculation.


Here's more speculation, Joey:

The image on the shroud of Turin appears to be of a man with long hair.

The shroud may be the burial cloth for someone during that period, but it is probably not Jesus. It is obviously someone with long hair and Jesus probably did not have long hair:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? (I Corinthians 11:14)

Paul wrote Corinthians and he knew Jesus Christ in person. In First Corinthians 15:5-8, Paul lists people who saw Jesus after His resurrection from the grave. Paul writes that he was one of these:

And last of all he was seen of me also... (I Corinthians 15:8)

Certainly, Paul would not have written "if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him," if Jesus had long hair.

On the other hand, shoulder length hair may have been considered short 2,000 years ago.

But, I spec not.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 38 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2510

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to myth-one.com in post #2509]

Otseng wrote:

"Really the only other position is it is a medieval fake. "

Oh, my. That is clearly false. There are at least three "positions":

1. The cloth is the burial cloth of Jesus.
2. The cloth is the burial cloth of some random person.
3. The cloth is a fake.

Really, this--as I said--is a waste of time.

Otseng, even assuming the stain is blood, and further assuming the image wasn't faked, and even further assuming the radio-carbon data cannot be believed, couldn't one equally well argue that the shroud is the burial cloth of anyone whose dead body was covered by a cloth sometime in the seven hundred years prior to its discovery? What exactly is it, Otseng, about that shroud that causes you to ignore the possibility that it was the burial cloth of someone else?

Post Reply