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

[otseng]

[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......"

The current discussion is provenance, not imaging, so imaging is not the current topic.

Regardless of what was used in creating the images, bas-relief is most strongly suggested----good ol' shroud.com notwithstanding.

You still have not established this yet. Even from all the literature I've read on this, there is no indication bas-relief is the "most strongly suggested".

[otseng]

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.

[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.

More ranting and baseless unsupported assertions.

What I'm expecting for a rational debate is logical argumentation supported by evidence. Why is this so hard to produce?

[otseng]

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.

I spent a considerable amount of time arguing about hair length. Here are the links to them:

viewtopic.php?p=1113875#p1113875
viewtopic.php?p=1113985#p1113985
viewtopic.php?p=1114067#p1114067
viewtopic.php?p=1114160#p1114160
viewtopic.php?p=1114281#p1114281
viewtopic.php?p=1114376#p1114376
viewtopic.php?p=1114727#p1114727
viewtopic.php?p=1114869#p1114869
viewtopic.php?p=1114983#p1114983

[otseng]

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.

Well, if you believe it was some random person, then produce your arguments and your evidence. Otherwise, it is your posts that are a waste a 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?

There are really only two ways to establish the historicity of past events - textual evidence and artifact evidence. Both the Bible (textual evidence) and the TS (artifact evidence) point to a man being scourged, crowned with thorns, crucified, pierced in side, no bones broken, and buried in a shroud. And only Jesus of Nazareth matches this.

[otseng]

The Keramion is a ceramic tile with an image of Jesus on it and is closely associated with the Mandylion. It has its own legend surrounding it and it is believed to have been displayed at the Edessa gate.

He also released an order and law in writing, that whoever entered that gate of the city, should first ascribe reverence and veneration towards the wonderworking and honorable icon of the Lord, and then enter the city. This order and law of Abgar was kept until the end of his life and that of his son. When his grandson became the recipient of his paternal inheritance, he turned away from piety and voluntarily turned to the religion of idols. Wherefore he wanted to place over the gate of Edessa the image of a demon, and take down the icon of Christ. When the Bishop of Edessa found out about this by divine revelation, he showed the proper care and attention. Because the place above the gate was deep, made like a rotunda with a cylindrical roof, he lit a lamp before the holy icon of Christ, and in front of it he placed a ceramic tile (keramion), which he covered over with bricks and asbestos, thus closing off that place, making that section of the wall look even. Therefore, since the icon of the Lord could not be seen, the plans of the impious one were halted, and the holy icon was not taken down.

Many years passed, to the extent that the place where the holy icon was located became forgotten. When the king of the Persians Khosrow, during the reign of Heracleus the emperor of the Romans (610-641), fought against the cities of Asia Minor in 615, he arrived in Edessa. Having come against it with every instrument in his arsenal, he brought fear and anxiety to its citizens, who took refuge in God, and begged Him with tears so they could quickly find salvation. One night a glorious woman appeared to Bishop Eulavios, who told him that he would do much good if he took the icon of Christ made without hands that was hidden above the gate of the city, showing the location with her hand. The Bishop went to the spot and began digging until - O the wonder! - he found the divine icon of the Lord, whole and complete, and the lamp he still found to be lit after more than five hundred years. And the ceramic tile, which the Bishop then had placed before the Holy Mandylion, on this same ceramic tile he found imprinted another icon of the Lord, precisely similar to the Holy Mandylion. When the citizens of Edessa saw these two divine imprints and icons of the Lord, they were filled with spiritual gladness and rejoicing.

https://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2016/0 ... -holy.html

Leo the Deacon (born ca. 950) writes that when
Nikephoros II Phokas (r. 963–69) took the city of Hierapolis in 966, he captured the Keramion,
an acheiropoieton and tile that was miraculously imprinted with an image of Christ.

https://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/ ... tation.pdf

Reports suggest the Holy Keramion was brought to Hierapolis, where it was obtained by Emperor Nikephoros Phokas in October 966 before he besieged Antioch, and then brought to Constantinople on 24 January 967. Other reports suggest these were two different Tiles, with the one in Hierapolis originating from the time of Christ when Ananias was returning to Edessa with the Mandylion and he placed it in between two baked tiles, thus creating the Keramion that way. One tradition also states that the Ancha icon of the Savior in Georgia, which was brought there to escape Iconoclasm, is in fact the Holy Keramion from Edessa. Phokas had the Holy Keramion from Hierapolis placed in the Blacharnae Church in a golden box ornamented with precious stones and later had it deposited in the Church of All Saints. In the eleventh century it joined the Holy Mandylion in the Pharos chapel where it was displayed in a golden capsula suspended from the ceiling on silver chains. When Constantinople was overrun by the Crusaders in 1204, the Holy Keramion became lost to history.
This ceramic tile, known as the Holy Keramion (or Keramidion), is honored by the Church on August 16th, together with the Holy Mandylion.

https://dormitioninconcord.wordpress.co ... nce-abgar/

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2511

The current discussion is provenance, not imaging, so imaging is not the current topic.

I beg to differ. Just a few posts back you stated:

And I have yet to see any evidence produced to say it is a fake that has not been refuted.

The absence of image over the head is:

1. evidence I have produced

2. evidence that it is a fake

3. evidence you have seen, and

4. evidence which has not been refuted.

Thus, imaging is a current topic.

[JoeMama]

[[url=./viewtopic.php?p=1123169#p1123169]Replying to otseng in post #2514

Even if it were true that the Shroud contains all of the unmistakable evidence of someone who was crucified, wearing a thorn crown, and all the other things you mentioned, you do agree, don't you, that a thoughtful forger would have known all about the biblical stories of the crucifixion, and would have made sure that his faked shroud could fool persons, such as yourself, into believing that the Shroud covered Jesus?

Why do you think that at no time in the previous 700 years prior to the discovery of the Shroud that nobody would have thought about creating a fake?

Do you agree that if I cannot prove that the cloth is a fake, then you win the argument?

[JoeyKnothead]

More ranting and baseless unsupported assertions.

What I'm expecting for a rational debate is logical argumentation supported by evidence. Why is this so hard to produce?

My evidence is thus:

You've not been able to present a contemporary picture of Jesus for comparison.

You've not been able to present a blood sample for comparison.

You've not been able to present a reliable record of ownership, so provenance can established.

You've not explained how a virgin pregnancy can be established, and how the y chromosome came about in that virgin pregnancy. Without such, Jesus, as claimed, can't be shown to've existed.

Call these problems a "rant", or "baseless unsupported assertions" all you want, the fact remains, there they sit.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2515]

Otseng,

Do you believe the Shroud could have been forged? If not, please explain why not.

Alternatively, do you believe that the Shroud could have been the burial cloth of some random person?

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2511

The current discussion is provenance, not imaging, so imaging is not the current topic.

I beg to differ. Just a few posts back you stated:

And I have yet to see any evidence produced to say it is a fake that has not been refuted.

Skeptics post things that are not in context and I respond to them and I'm the one blamed for not being on topic?

The absence of image over the head is:

1. evidence I have produced

2. evidence that it is a fake

3. evidence you have seen, and

4. evidence which has not been refuted.

What evidence have you produced? I've only seen claims. Please present evidence that is backed by a source/reference and not just making assertions.

Your assertion is "bas-relief is most strongly suggested". What evidence do you have that it is "the most strongly suggested" method to explain the imaging? If you claim this, then you must've also compared it with the merits of all the other imaging theories. How does this stack up with all the other theories?