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

[JoeyKnothead]

The Gospel of the Hebrews is a lost work that was quoted by early Church Fathers.
...

If the original is lost, we have no means of confirming whether early Church Fathers presented accurate statements about it.

This is a common problem we encounter when we seek to make claims regarding stuff that's lost to examination.

[otseng]

Then you can hardly criticize me for not yet addressing any other theories. To date, the bas-relief explanation stands alone.

Again, you imply there are multiple theories by stating "the most strongly suggested". But, we'll compare it with the others when we get to the discussion on imaging, which will be soon.

[otseng]

Let's try again: How do you know it's a shroud that wrapped Jesus? Because the Church said so - and has no history of lying about relics?

I already presented my final arguments here:
viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

If you have any rational counterarguments with evidence to my final argument, feel free to present it.

[otseng]

My evidence is found throughout a thread in which you've yet to produce the referenced material for analysis.

That you find my continued efforts to point out these problems "ranting", or "baseless", in a debate, is sound indication of the errancy of your conclusions in this matter.

I repeat these problems from time to time because I can't be certain if new folks ain't coming in part way through the thread.

Please cite which post you are referring to so you can educate all the new folks that you have produced evidence.

I intentionally point out, in debate, the flaws in your representation, or conclusions about it. That's kinda of exactly how debate works.

Sure, people can point out flaws. I welcome them. But, they have to be rational arguments with supporting evidence, not mere assertions.

If a request for evidence confirmatory to your claims is "impossible" to produce, then we have a bit of data there for drawing our conclusions regarding the reliability of your claims. Notice here, that doesn't require we dismiss, or accept, your claims, just that you can't produce the key bits of evidence that'd put this fuss to rest.

Can anyone produce a contemporary picture of <insert any ancient person here> for comparison?

Can anyone produce a blood sample of <insert any ancient person here>?

Why demand I should produce these in order to confirm the historicity of something when this can't even be applied to anyone in ancient history?

I also propose folks are not bound to hold to any "standard accepted method", but to what their own understanding leads them to conclude.

If you do not accept the standard method of determining the historicity of an ancient person/event, then on what basis can you accept anything in history?

With this in mind, I propose those claiming this thing is some miracle burial cloth of an ancient miracle birthed person are not able to show such is the case.

What do you mean miracle burial cloth? We have it in our possession today. It didn't miraculously appear out of nowhere. Further, how have I invoked anything miraculous in my arguments so far?

If the original is lost, we have no means of confirming whether early Church Fathers presented accurate statements about it.

This is a common problem we encounter when we seek to make claims regarding stuff that's lost to examination.

How many original textual documents do we have from any ancient sources on any topic, religious or non-religious?

[otseng]

https://www.mysteriesoftherosary.org/20 ... turin.html

To reiterate what I said at the start of the discussion on the provenance of the TS:

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.

It is impossible to determine the exact trail the shroud would've taken from first century Jerusalem to 14th century Lirey, France. But, it's possible to reconstruct a reasonable route based on textual evidence and art depictions.

Summary of a possible route (in chronological order):

1. The burial shroud was found in an empty tomb by Peter and the beloved disciple. There is no mention they took the shroud.

2. According to the gospel of Hebrews, Jesus gave the shroud to the "servant of the priest". I contend this is Lazarus.

viewtopic.php?p=1123374#p1123374

3. King Abgar V of Edessa was healed by Judas Thaddeus. The shroud entered Edessa sometime in the first century, most likely around 70 AD with the fall of Jerusalem.

viewtopic.php?p=1122267#p1122267

4. The shroud was hidden in a jar in the wall of Edessa when the city fell back to paganism.

viewtopic.php?p=1123238#p1123238

5. A flood destroyed the wall and the shroud was rediscovered around 525 AD.

viewtopic.php?p=1122915#p1122915

6. In 544 AD, Edessa was attacked by the Persians.

viewtopic.php?p=1123094#p1123094

7. In 943 AD, the Byzantines negotiates with Edessa for the shroud and it then enters Constantinople.

viewtopic.php?p=1121676#p1121676

8. Constantinople was sacked by the Crusaders in 1204. A French crusader, possibly a Templar, took the shroud back to France.

viewtopic.php?p=1121529#p1121529

9. The Templars kept the shroud until around 1310 when many French Templars were burned at the stake.

viewtopic.php?p=1122675#p1122675

10. Geoffroi de Charney, Normandy preceptor of the Templars, gives the shroud to another Geoffroi de Charney, before he is burned at the stake in 1314.

viewtopic.php?p=1122675#p1122675

11. Geoffroi de Charney builds the church in Lirey, France, but keeps the shroud hidden.

viewtopic.php?p=1109636#p1109636

12. His son, Geoffroi II de Charney, displays the shroud in the Lirey church and starts selling souvenirs of the shroud around late 1350s.

viewtopic.php?p=1122490#p1122490

[otseng]

Features of the TS at the fabric level, thread level, and fiber level...

At the fabric level:

The image does not go through the entire cloth, but only resides on the surface. It is not a result of any pigment, dye, paint or stain, but from dehydration/oxydation of the fabric.

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.

The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.

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

The color only resides on the external surface of the
TS.

The superficial color is not due to any pigment
since no pigment particles can be seen either mac-
roscopically or microscopically nor are there any
external substances or evidence of media scorching
in image areas. The color is only due to a chemical
reaction (dehydration and oxidation).

https://www.academia.edu/4294684/Micros ... rficiality

There is no evidence of any cementation on the cloth.

There is no cementation signs among the image fibers

https://shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf

There is no dry power on the cloth.

There is no observed microscopic, chemical, or spectroscopic evidence for the presence of
any dry powder responsible for the body image on the TS

https://shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf

There is little variation between the color density and distribution on the dorsal and ventral sides of the body.

The image of the dorsal side of the body shows the same color density and distribution as the
ventral, and it does not penetrate the cloth any more deeply than the image of the ventral side
of the body.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf

The image of the dorsal side of the body shows
nearly the same color density and distribution as
the ventral, but the Face image shows a higher color
density.

https://www.academia.edu/4294684/Micros ... rficiality

The second major aspect of the uniformity feature, relates to the fact that STURP scientists have proven that both the Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images have approximately the same maximum optical densities (or colour darkness); we shall call this the density uniformity aspect. To be more specific, both the frontal and dorsal body images are very faint; each having typical reflected optical densities of less than 0.1 in the visible range. As such, this aspect seems to pose an initial problem for some of “ordinary” naturalistic theories such as ones involving the presence of a dead corpse and/or human-size statue laying in a supine position while wrapped in the Shroud. The reason this aspect poses a problem to such mechanism theories is because, in the words of Shroud expert Serge Mouraviev, “the dorsal side of the body must have been gravitationally pressed to the cloth by its weight with an estimated average pressure of 26.8 g/cm2 as against only 0.35 g/cm2 for the pressure of the cloth on the contact areas of the frontal side of the body”. Common sense then, would indicate that one might expect the dorsal side image to be visibly darker than the frontal image if such image-forming hypotheses were true, yet this is not what we find with the Shroud of Turin’s body images.

https://realseekerministries.files.word ... apter.docx

At the thread level:

Only the top one to three fibers of a thread are discolored.

The color only resides in the most external (two or
maximum three) fibers of the threads.

https://www.academia.edu/4294684/Micros ... rficiality

Colored fibers are alongside non-colored fibers.

Some noncolored fibers in image areas can be
found adjacent to colored TS image fibers on a
given thread of the image areas.

https://www.academia.edu/4294684/Micros ... rficiality

At the fiber level:

A discolored fiber is uniformly colored.

If a fiber is colored, it is uniformly colored around its cylindrical surface (Adler 1996, 1999)

https://shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf

Only the exterior of a fiber is discolored. The interior of a fiber is not affected.

The image only resides in the external surface prob-
ably corresponding to the “primary cell wall”
composed of polysaccharides of lower activation
energy than the cellulose.

The cellulose of the linen fiber residing in the “sec-
ondary cell wall” is not colored and the medullas
of the 10– 20- ␮ m-diameter fibers in image areas
also appear colorless.

https://www.academia.edu/4294684/Micros ... rficiality

Any image-formation mechanism that would result in color formation inside the linen
fibers must be rejected. Some "theories" that have been mentioned that would cause coloration
inside fibers are penetrating radiation, high temperature scorching (hot statue, painting with a
torch, etc.), and catalyzed dehydration of the cellulose. Image fibers are colored only on their
surfaces.

Image color can be chemically reduced with diimide, leaving colorless cellulose fibers. All
image color resides on the outer surfaces of the fibers.

The medullas of colored image fibers are not colored: The cellulose was not involved in
color production.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers5faqs.pdf

[JoeyKnothead]

My evidence is found throughout a thread in which you've yet to produce the referenced material for analysis.

That you find my continued efforts to point out these problems "ranting", or "baseless", in a debate, is sound indication of the errancy of your conclusions in this matter.

I repeat these problems from time to time because I can't be certain if new folks ain't coming in part way through the thread.

Please cite which post you are referring to so you can educate all the new folks that you have produced evidence.

I refer folks to every post, and every claim you present that proposes Jesus is the source of the image / blood on the shroud, for which you've yet to present an image or blood sample from Jesus for comparison.

I intentionally point out, in debate, the flaws in your representation, or conclusions about it. That's kinda of exactly how debate works.

Sure, people can point out flaws. I welcome them. But, they have to be rational arguments with supporting evidence, not mere assertions.

I'm content having the observer decide if my position is rational, and not the guy proposing as truth what can't be shown to be.

If a request for evidence confirmatory to your claims is "impossible" to produce, then we have a bit of data there for drawing our conclusions regarding the reliability of your claims. Notice here, that doesn't require we dismiss, or accept, your claims, just that you can't produce the key bits of evidence that'd put this fuss to rest.

Can anyone produce a contemporary picture of <insert any ancient person here> for comparison?

Can anyone produce a blood sample of <insert any ancient person here>?

When that bunch makes such claims I'll fuss with them too.

Why demand I should produce these in order to confirm the historicity of something when this can't even be applied to anyone in ancient history?

Asking for confirmatory data is a time honored method for finding the truth.

When folks make claims regarding other historical characters I'll ask the same sorts of questions.

I also propose folks are not bound to hold to any "standard accepted method", but to what their own understanding leads them to conclude.

If you do not accept the standard method of determining the historicity of an ancient person/event, then on what basis can you accept anything in history?

When it's shown to be true.

With this in mind, I propose those claiming this thing is some miracle burial cloth of an ancient miracle birthed person are not able to show such is the case.

What do you mean miracle burial cloth? We have it in our possession today. It didn't miraculously appear out of nowhere. Further, how have I invoked anything miraculous in my arguments so far?

There sure seems to be an element of the miraculous when the image is purported to be that of someone who had a miraculous birth.

If the original is lost, we have no means of confirming whether early Church Fathers presented accurate statements about it.

This is a common problem we encounter when we seek to make claims regarding stuff that's lost to examination.

How many original textual documents do we have from any ancient sources on any topic, religious or non-religious?

Beats me, I try not to make claims that rely on what the ancients had to allow.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2537]


If we ignore for now that possibility that the Shroud face image was fraudulently placed onto the Shroud, we are then left with two possibilities:

1. The image on the cloth is of Jesus, but absent a picture or accurate description of Jesus from that time to compare to the image, there is no proof.

2. The image is of someone else's face, but lacking a matching picture of a possible candidate, there is no proof.

So, in summary: Believers probably cannot ever prove it's an image of Jesus' face, but neither can skeptics ever prove it's not.

That is probably the closest we are likely ever to come to the truth.

[otseng]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2544]

I'll just simply point out for readers again no evidence with a reference has been produced, but assertions are just repeated.

[otseng]

So, in summary: Believers probably cannot ever prove it's an image of Jesus' face, but neither can skeptics ever prove it's not.

That is probably the closest we are likely ever to come to the truth.

There is no need for anyone to prove anything. As I've said at the onset:

Like all arguments I've made in this thread, I'm not out to prove Jesus was resurrected, but I will attempt to show there are evidence to support it and that it is a reasonable position to hold.

Here's what skeptic philosopher Austin Dacey says about proof being not necessary.

To conclude, have we proven a negative? Well, the word “prove” is tricky. Sometimes proving means offering reasons that establish a claim with certainty beyond any possibility of doubt or error. It would be nice if all questions could be resolved with this degree of certainty. But, in fact, almost nothing we can know, including our scientific knowledge, can be proved in this sense except in logic and mathematics perhaps.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/d ... xist-dacey



So, proof is not the issue. The issue is what is the most reasonable explanation for the shroud. And as I've argued in my summary argument, the most rational explanation is it is the authentic burial shroud of Jesus.