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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Adonai Yahweh in post #2560

Its God word because it been translated from the original languages

The holy texts of many religions have been translated from their original languages.

[JoeyKnothead]

What part in either of the referenced examples can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

Its God word because it been translated from the original languages

Are you aware that just asserting something is not showing that something to be true and factual?

With that in mind, I ask you again...

What part in either of the referenced examples can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

[brunumb]

What part in either of the referenced examples can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

Its God word because it been translated from the original languages

By that criterion may we also attribute Mein Kampf to God?

[Miles]

What part in either of the referenced examples can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

Its God word because it been translated from the original languages

Yes. Translated, copied, revised, copied some more and some more, mistranslated, translated, copied, translated, and mistranslated. Which is why currently there are at least 13 different English renderings of god's word רַע (ra) in Isaiah 45:7

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create רַע: I the LORD do all these things."

evil
disaster
doom
woe
sorrow
trouble
calamity
trouble(s)
bad
discord
hard times
bad times
adversity

.

[otseng]

The counter argument to your position is that it relies on speculation. Without some means to compare the image and blood on the shroud to Jesus, we'll never know it is, or ain't, the man himself.

I've provided evidence with references to all my arguments. There is no speculation on my part. Yet, I have yet to see a single evidence with a reference in any of your posts. So who is the one that is speculating?

As to Jesus's image and blood, I already responded here:

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?

In which you replied:

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

This is not answering my questions. Since you will not answer them, I'll answer them for you. Nobody can produce a contemporary picture or a blood sample of anyone in ancient history. So according to your standard, nobody in ancient history can be verified.

I also asked:

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?

And you replied:

When it's shown to be true.

This is also not answering the question. What is your accepted methodology of determining anything in ancient history is true? What is the accepted method by historians?

I asked:

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

with your reply:

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

This is also not answering the question.

Regarding the virgin birth:

Can you, otseng, provide some means to confirm that a human female can produce a y chromosme, in a virgin pregnancy

This is a red herring argument. I've never made a claim Jesus was born of a virgin. If you accept the shroud is Jesus of Nazareth, then we can debate this in another topic.

Again, I'm so confident of my position that I'm willing to challenge anyone to submit our views to any peer reviewed journal on our positions. You (or a number of you) write up a paper. I'll write up my paper. And we both submit it to a peer reviewed journal and we'll see what happens. Any takers?

I propose that if you were as confident in your position as you assert, there'd be no need to present the caveat that you'll only do so if someone else does as well.

You have the power, within yourself, to present your claims to the scientific community. Don't let anybody's inability invoke in you an inability of your own.

It is obvious to me my arguments are sound and all the skeptics' arguments are fallacious. But, I'm pretty sure the skeptics think their arguments are sound and mine are ridiculous. I'm confident in my arguments because I've spent the time to research this topic in-depth. Who knows how many articles and books I've read and videos I've watched on this topic alone? From practically all the skeptics, at most they've only googled for a few sites and repeat what they say. But the way to see who has the stronger case is for experts in the field to assess our arguments. The lack of any skeptic to accept this challenge indicates they have no strong case.

Come one skeptics, produce counterarguments that are on the level of being in a peer-reviewed article. Every time you guys post such weak arguments it makes my belief in the shroud even stronger since it's an indication there are no strong arguments against my case. Don't bring up red herrings, demand for impossible evidence that no ancient claim can even provide, repeated unsubstantiated assertions, and least of all mocking and personal attacks.

[otseng]

Did you have some purpose in re-posting that lengthy discourse and not explaining the absence of imaging over the head?

Yes, because I'm providing the background information on the bas-relief technique and a summary of what we've discussed so far.

With the intro already given, let's discuss the lack of imaging on the top of the head...

First of all, the lack of imaging is simply a feature of the shroud that needs explaining by whatever technique is theorized. And it is only one feature that needs to be explained out of the dozens of features.

A bas-relief could explain the lack of imaging between the ventral and dorsal images of the head depending on how it was depicted. If it was a single cloth that wrapped a body and it was painted in one shot, it would not make any sense. In that case we should see a continuous imaging over the head. If it was painted twice, first painted with the ventral side, then the cloth relaid with a gap between the tops of the head, then painted with the dorsal side, then this would make sense. But, this does not automatically mean therefore the bas-relief technique is the only method that is viable. Again, we need to compare all the theories and see how many of the features they do account for, including the head gap.

There are two broad categories of imaging theories - artistic (involving an artist) and non-artistic (does not involve an artist and is from the body itself). Pretty much all artistic theories can account for the head gap. Most non-artistic theories would not account for the head gap. In particular, any theory that involves gas emanation from the body would most likely not have a head gap. Also, any theory that involves radiation from the body would also not have a head gap. There is one radiation scenario that could account for it if the radiation is not emitted in all directions, but only radiated like a laser in a single direction. I don't like that theory because it has an ad hoc nature to it of proposing radiation being emitted perfectly vertically in a single direction instead of omni-directionally. Another theory that explains the head gap is the theory from the head of STURP, John Jackson, has proposed, the cloth collapse theory. Instead of radiation going out of the body, the cloth collapses into the body and the image is formed during body contact. This would explain the head gap and many other features as well.

[Bust Nak]

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

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.

Moderator Warning


Comments about any person that are negative, condescending, frivolous or indicate in any way a lack of respect are not allowed.

Please review our Rules.

______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2566

Another theory that explains the head gap is the theory from the head of STURP, John Jackson, has proposed, the cloth collapse theory. Instead of radiation going out of the body, the cloth collapses into the body and the image is formed during body contact. This would explain the head gap and many other features as well.

How would the end of the cloth bearing the image of the back of the body "collapse into the body" from underneath the body?

[JoeyKnothead]

I've provided evidence with references to all my arguments.

I'm not keen to say a claimant hasn't provided evidence, but do contend the evidence you've provided doesn't rise to the level of confirmatory.

There is no speculation on my part. Yet, I have yet to see a single evidence with a reference in any of your posts. So who is the one that is speculating?

My evidence is the lack of an image or blood sample from Jesus. We simply don't have these for comparison. There's also the issue of how a virgin can become pregnant, and give birth to a male child without her having the ability to provide the y chromosome.

As to Jesus's image and blood, I already responded here:

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?

In which you replied:

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

This is not answering my questions. Since you will not answer them, I'll answer them for you. Nobody can produce a contemporary picture or a blood sample of anyone in ancient history. So according to your standard, nobody in ancient history can be verified.

The lack of confirmatory data for a claim is the problem of the claimant, not the challenger to that claim.

...
...What is your accepted methodology of determining anything in ancient history is true? What is the accepted method by historians?

My acceptable methodology for proving a claim is true is proving a claim is true. I place no preconditions on how a claimant might go about doing so. I have no means to know what evidence a claimant may possess until they actually provide their evidence, and their methodology for their conclusions / claims.

I asked:

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

with your reply:

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

This is also not answering the question.

That an answer doesn't provide you succor is no problem of mine. I have no way of knowing how many documents a claimant might have in support of their claims, until they present those documents for analysis.

Regarding the virgin birth:

Can you, otseng, provide some means to confirm that a human female can produce a y chromosme, in a virgin pregnancy

This is a red herring argument. I've never made a claim Jesus was born of a virgin. If you accept the shroud is Jesus of Nazareth, then we can debate this in another topic.

The bible claims that the Jesus you refer to was born of a virgin birth.

Is this another example where you consider the bible to have erred?

It is obvious to me my arguments are sound and all the skeptics' arguments are fallacious. But, I'm pretty sure the skeptics think their arguments are sound and mine are ridiculous. I'm confident in my arguments because I've spent the time to research this topic in-depth. Who knows how many articles and books I've read and videos I've watched on this topic alone? From practically all the skeptics, at most they've only googled for a few sites and repeat what they say. But the way to see who has the stronger case is for experts in the field to assess our arguments. The lack of any skeptic to accept this challenge indicates they have no strong case.

Did any of all them videos and articles provide any 8x10 glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on each one explaining how it's a picture of Jesus?

Did any of all them videos and articles present Jesus' blood for analysis?

Did any of all them videos and articles present how a virin can give birth to a male child, by somehow producing her own y chromosome?

Come one skeptics, produce counterarguments that are on the level of being in a peer-reviewed article. Every time you guys post such weak arguments it makes my belief in the shroud even stronger since it's an indication there are no strong arguments against my case. Don't bring up red herrings, demand for impossible evidence that no ancient claim can even provide, repeated unsubstantiated assertions, and least of all mocking and personal attacks.

That it doesn't take a peer reviewed article to see the errors of your argument oughta tell you something about the quality of your argument.

I mock in fun, as I did with the glossy photographs above, when I see a claimant unwilling to accept the faults in their argument.

Have you provided an argument that removes reasonable doubt? Maybe. Such is a decision for the observer.

Have you provided an argument that offers confrimation? I don't think so.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2566

Another theory that explains the head gap is the theory from the head of STURP, John Jackson, has proposed, the cloth collapse theory. Instead of radiation going out of the body, the cloth collapses into the body and the image is formed during body contact. This would explain the head gap and many other features as well.

How would the end of the cloth bearing the image of the back of the body "collapse into the body" from underneath the body?

I'll present the cloth collapse theory in a separate post.