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

[otseng]

Another thing interesting about the TS is there is no evidence of any erasure or rework on the cloth. If an artist makes a mistake painting something, he'll paint over it again. If he accidentally draws something, he'll erase it. If the TS is a work of an artist, he was so accomplished he was able to create the shroud in one shot. If he did make a mistake, then he got a new shroud and redid it. But this is unlikely to happen as a linen cloth this size with a herringbone weave would be very expensive. Why would anyone go to such lengths anyways to make a perfect rendition as nobody at that time would even care that an image would not contain any mistake?

On the first order, the entire image is anatomically correct.

If this is the work of a forger, than the forger would have to have been a trained anatomist, for there is not one single blunder. Indeed, anatomy bears witness to authenticity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Barbet_(physician)

The evidence of a scourged man, who was crucified and died of suffocation is clear cut. The markings on this body are so clear and so medically accurate that they are, in my opinion, beyond dispute.

Dr. Robert Bucklin, Chief of the Forensic Medical Division in the Los Angeles County Coroner-Medical Examiner Office
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/n54part12.pdf

The only deviations we see are second order distortions (long forehead, long fingers) and items missing (ears) due to the body to cloth mapping technique.

[otseng]

There are some claims made by shroud proponents that I have not used in my arguments as evidence as these are disputable evidence. But for completeness I'll just mention them:

- Pollen found on shroud
- Flowers on shroud
- Coin over eyes
- Sponge, nails on the shroud
- Pendant hanging on neck
- Writings on the shroud

[otseng]

We will now deep dive into theories of how the body image originated on the cloth. First off, there is no widely accepted theory on how the body image got there. There are many theories and each one has strengths and weaknesses. We'll look at the top theories and see how each stands up.

The best theory would:
- explain the most features on the shroud
- not involve methods that have been scientifically ruled out
- have the least ad hoc proposals

I will also add a theory can involve a method that current science does not fully understand. Given that 200 years ago, people did not have the scientific knowledge to understand the shroud like we do now, it's not so far-fetched that 200 years from now, science will be advanced enough to understand something about the shroud that we currently do not know.

Features of the shroud to be explained:
- photographic negative effect
- depth encoding
- imaging where there is no cloth contact with body
- angle encoding (no image on top of head, no ears)
- second degree distortions (long fingers, long forehead, displacement of hair away from side of face)
- x-ray effect
- hyperrealism
- half-tone effect
- anatomically and medically accurate
- no image under blood, blood stains on cloth first
- no brush strokes
- no evidence of dye, pigment, paint
- no evidence of any cementation
- image unaffected by 1532 fire
- no scorching
- image formed while in rigor mortis and before decomposition
- no sign of breakage or smearing of blood
- faint image on back of cloth
- superficiality of coloring at cloth, thread, and fiber level
- image only on topmost fibers and uniform along the circumference of a fiber
- no coloring in the interior of any fibers, including those that are colored on the outside
- uncolored fibers adjacent to colored fibers
- uniform density on ventral and dorsal sides
- no evidence of erasure or rework on the shroud

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

Here are my claims, and I contend this thread (and logic) is my evidence:

You'll not be able to confirm the image on the shroud is that of Jesus, because we have no image of him for comparison.
Can you, otseng, present an actual image of Jesus for comparison?

You'll not be able to confirm the blood on the shroud is that of Jesus, because we have no blood samples for comparison.
Can you, otseng, present a blood sample from Jesus, for comparison?

You'll not be able to confirm his miraculous, virgin birth occurred because you'll not be able to confirm how a woman created a y chromosome, which is required for a male.
Can you, otseng, provide some means to confirm that a human female can produce a y chromosme, in a virgin pregnancy?

These are my claims, and I contend you've been unable to fix these problems, other'n to keep hollering "No evidence! No evidence!". I'll continue to assert these claims / problems as fact until such time they are no longer facts.

Repeatedly accusing me of offering no evidence is, frankly, insulting, when it's your inability to put evidence to these problems. Projecting your inabilities onto me does NOT confirm the image is Jesus, the blood is from Jesus, or that women can give virgin birth to male offspring.

This then is NOT a problem of my lacking evidence, but a problem of the Jesus on the Shroud bunch lacking evidence that could confirm their position.

Sans confirming the above referenced problems, speculation is the best the Jesus on the Shroud bunch can do.

[earl]

At this point what is the status of Jesus' body? Did he reside in his pre resurrection body post resurrection as was the resurrection of Lazarus or was the resurrection like that of Elijah where he ascended and no physical body trace and his mantle was left like Jesus' cloths were left?
Was Jesus flesh and blood post resurrection or spirit post resurrection?
Can the current knowledge of the shroud imaging determine an unusual event occurred to it?

[boatsnguitars]

So many pages about the SoT and I can just look at it and recognize it as a Medieval painting. What did they do, press the shroud against his face to get all the contours of his cheeks, eyes, nose, etc?? Press it into his nostrils? That's not how a shroud drapes over a face. It wouldn't have caught his lips or eyelids. It's just silly.
I suppose they claim "supernatural radiation!" Sure, nothing like God of the Gaps....
And, seriously, how did they miss the top of his head, why does it look exactly like a Medieval painting?

I am so sorry otseng has spent so much of his finite time on Earth going down a rabbit hole no one cares about. It must be lonely in that rabbit hole.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2543

I will also add a theory can involve a method that current science does not fully understand. Given that 200 years ago, people did not have the scientific knowledge to understand the shroud like we do now, it's not so far-fetched that 200 years from now, science will be advanced enough to understand something about the shroud that we currently do not know.

.....like maybe a technique used by a medieval artist and forgotten over the centuries?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2541

If the TS is a work of an artist, he was so accomplished he was able to create the shroud in one shot.

.....unless he just started again after messing up.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to otseng in post #2541

If the TS is a work of an artist, he was so accomplished he was able to create the shroud in one shot.

.....unless he just started again after messing up.

And, remember, he did mess it up, since the head is wrong and the arms are the wrong lengths, and the fact that a shroud wouldn't stick to every contour of the face.... it's just so obvious that it's a fake it hurts.

In reality, the saddest thing is that Creationists/Religionists are using this to prove their point, but really they are just proving that Religious people lie and are really gullible.

That's the real take-away: Religionists are liars and gullible.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to otseng in post #2541

If the TS is a work of an artist, he was so accomplished he was able to create the shroud in one shot.

.....unless he just started again after messing up.

And, remember, he did mess it up, since the head is wrong and the arms are the wrong lengths, and the fact that a shroud wouldn't stick to every contour of the face.... it's just so obvious that it's a fake it hurts.

In reality, the saddest thing is that Creationists/Religionists are using this to prove their point, but really they are just proving that Religious people lie and are really gullible.

That's the real take-away: Religionists are liars and gullible.

I'm with you up to where you get it wrong...

The implication that all religionists are liars is unwarranted.

Errant conclusions are not the product of a desire to deceive, but of some other fault.