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

[otseng]

The closest anyone so far has done to produce a discoloring of linen fiber is through ultraviolet radiation. This supports Jackson's theory that some sort of radiation was involved.

In the early 2000s the Excimer Laboratory at the Research Centre ENEA Frascati had laser sources
emitting radiation pulses in both near ultraviolet and far ultraviolet, so there was the possibility to test if the
hypothesis of Jackson was viable, or if his opponents were right when stating that it was impossible
colouring linen fabrics by ultraviolet radiation. Our results showed that Jackson was right. The radiation in
the far ultraviolet is able to create a Shroud-like coloration on linen fabrics. Jackson was right as well
considering this ‘radiative hypothesis’ outside current paradigm and known scientific phenomena, because
we measured the amount of radiation energy and the ultra-short duration of laser pulses required to achieve a
Shroud-like linen coloration, and these parameters cannot be generated by any natural phenomenon known to
date.

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

How would radiation cause dehyration/oxidation on the surface of the linen fibers?

A laser system is a device that emits collimated bursts of radiation, a form of energy that propagates at
distance from the source. Just now, our Laboratory has thirty-five years experience of irradiation of various
materials by ultraviolet radiation. The effect of these irradiations is always limited to the surface of the
material, whether it be a metal, a plastic, a semiconductor or a fabric. In fact, the energy of the ultraviolet
radiation impinging on an object is absorbed in the most superficial molecular layers, and then this energy
changes the molecular structure only at the surface of the object. Ultraviolet pulses break the molecular
bonds without heating the irradiated sample. Then, ultraviolet radiation and far ultraviolet radiation are a
good candidate to obtain three characteristics of the coloration of the shroud image, namely the
superficiality, the low-temperature of the process and the capability to colour areas by a contactless process.

Since 2005, our laboratory has carried out a large number of irradiations of ultraviolet radiation on linen
fabrics woven in the years between 1930 and 1950 that were never used, never washed with detergent, in
order to avoid the presence of chemicals which may alter the optical properties of the tissue. “Irradiation”
means sending laser pulses on the linen, which alter the chemical bonds of the linen cellulose itself, which in
turn changes its surface properties and appearance. After many irradiations and with great difficulty we
found the combination of laser parameters (pulse duration, intensity, energy density and number of shots)
that allows a Shroud-like linen coloration.

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

Their experiment even had colored fibers next to discolored fibers as well as other shroud features.

We got a hue of colour, a coloration limited to the crown of
threads, coloured next to not coloured fibres, the reduced fluorescence, the negativity of the image, and other
properties that are similar to those measured on the Shroud of Turin images by STuRP.

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


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

They only did the experiment on a small piece of linen. In order to create an image the size of the TS, it would require a laser powered at 34 trillion watts.

"it should be noted that the total
power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a
human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand
billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser
excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most
powerful available on the market come to several billion watts).”

https://www.academia.edu/49594370/What_ ... xperiments

[boatsnguitars]

It's never been my position that evolution has anything to do with this shroud.

And it's never been my position that the virgin birth has anything to do with the shroud. My argumentation has purely been on scientific evidence of the shroud itself. So, if you want to debate me, you'll need to debate on what I've claimed, not continually post red herrings and fallacious arguments.

Send the results of your study of the Shroud to each one of the faculty members in the religious studies departments at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton University and ask them if they think your work should be shared with a wider audience. If the email you send them is longer than about three-quarters of a page, font size 12, they probably will ignore it. Keep it short, and there is a remote chance they might bother to read it and even comment back.

That might take a few years to work up to. But I'll see if I can eventually get to that point.

Because you aren't doing science. You are cherry picking, and anomaly hunting.

Well, if I'm not doing science, then it should be easy to refute me with rational counterarguments instead of making assertions about me. So, please present arguments with evidence/reference. Why is this so hard for skeptics to do? I keep on asking for this, but we keep on getting responses like yours.

Then submit your peer-reviewed analysis to a reputable science journal and let real scientists weigh in on it. Why are you wasting your time asking random internet people?

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2149]

Where is your evidence that he had a beard?

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2588]

brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:14 pm

What I find confounding about this evaluation of different radiation theories is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any radiation was involved at all. It's all just making up stuff about other made up stuff.

OTseng said, "I'll address this in a separate post."

JoeMama asks,

Does anyone in this forum believe that Oliver has shown that the shroud is more likely than not the burial cloth of Jesus?

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2590]

JoeMama suggested,
Send the results of your study of the Shroud to each one of the faculty members in the religious studies departments at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton University and ask them if they think your work should be shared with a wider audience. If the email you send them is longer than about three-quarters of a page, font size 12, they probably will ignore it. Keep it short, and there is a remote chance they might bother to read it and even comment back.

Oliver says, "That might take a few years to work up to."

JoeMama comments: Or, the rest of your life?

[otseng]

Then submit your peer-reviewed analysis to a reputable science journal and let real scientists weigh in on it.

Again, this is evidence nobody is willing to take up my challenge. I bring up this challenge to point out the strength of the arguments. I believe my argument is able to even hold up under professional scrutiny. As for skeptical arguments, it is entirely lacking.

Why are you wasting your time asking random internet people?

The entire purpose of this forum is for debating. So the wasting of time is not on posting here, but with the people who are not able to engage in a logical and rational debate.

Where is your evidence that he had a beard?

Having a beard was a Jewish custom.

“Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.” (Leviticus 19:27)

Jewish men who were faithful to follow the Law wore distinctive beards. Having a beard with uncut corners set Jesus and other Jewish men apart from other people who lived in Judea and Samaria. The beard was an outward sign of each man’s obedience to the Law and consecration to God.

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus ... beard.html

Does anyone in this forum believe that Oliver has shown that the shroud is more likely than not the burial cloth of Jesus?

The more relevant question is - has anyone actually brought up a valid counterargument to my summary argument?

Oliver says, "That might take a few years to work up to."

JoeMama comments: Or, the rest of your life?

The only arguments by skeptics have been ridiculous requests like having a photograph and DNA of Jesus to compare to, submitting a paper to Ivy league schools, getting a Nobel prize, etc. These are all totally irrelevant. What is relevant is arguments about the shroud itself. How long do I have to wait for counterarguments against my argument it is authentic? The rest of my life sure sounds like it.

[otseng]

Even though body teleportation is currently science fiction, the idea is not so far-fetched.

Today, quantum teleportation is a reality.

Quantum teleportation is a technique for transferring quantum information from a sender at one location to a receiver some distance away. While teleportation is commonly portrayed in science fiction as a means to transfer physical objects from one location to the next, quantum teleportation only transfers quantum information.

Experimental determinations of quantum teleportation have been made in information content - including photons, atoms, electrons, and superconducting circuits - as well as distance with 1,400 km (870 mi) being the longest distance of successful teleportation by the group of Jian-Wei Pan using the Micius satellite for space-based quantum teleportation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation

Today teleportation is a standard phenomenon in quantum optics laboratories and has become a foundational technology behind the slowly emerging quantum internet.

In the 2000s, a Japanese physicist called Masahiro Hotta at Tohoku University took the idea further by suggesting that if teleportation can transmit information, then it should also be able to transmit energy too. He went on to develop the theoretical foundation for quantum energy teleportation.
Now Kazuki Ikeda at Stony Brook University in New York state, says he has succeeded in teleporting energy for the first time using an ordinary quantum computer. “We report the first realization and observation of quantum energy teleportation on real quantum hardware,” he says, adding that the ability to teleport energy could have profound implications for the future quantum internet.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... eportation

"Beam me up" is one of the most famous catchphrases from the "Star Trek" series. It’s the command issued when a character wishes to teleport from a remote location back to the Starship Enterprise.
While human teleportation currently exists only in science fiction, teleportation is possible now in the subatomic world of quantum mechanics -- albeit not in the way typically depicted on TV. In the quantum world, teleportation involves the transportation of information, rather than the transportation of matter.

https://new.nsf.gov/news/teleportation- ... ntum-world

So is teleportation possible at all? Yes. Scientists have been able to achieve teleportation of a single particle.
In recent years, scientists and researchers have been able to teleport particles on the subatomic level through quantum entanglement, which occurs when the properties of one quantum particle affect another particle that’s located somewhere else. This is enabled by a third particle that “instantly ‘teleports’ its state to the two entangled particles,” according to the National Science Foundation. If you are a fan of Mass Effect, the long-distance Quantum Entanglement Communicator from the second and third games in the trilogy work in precisely this way.

https://now.northropgrumman.com/telepor ... n-or-fact/

While seemingly unattainable, it is not actually impossible according to the laws of physics … it just depends on scale.

In 1993, a group of six international scientists discussed the idea that teleportation is possible on the subatomic level, and demonstrated the transportation of systems such as single photons, coherent light fields, nuclear spins, and trapped ions. While perhaps disappointing for the avid traveler, quantum teleportation cannot be applied to matter, but could be revolutionary in transporting information and in the creation of quantum computers; perhaps — according to some experts — even leading to a quantum internet in which the limitations of current networks are overcome with improved privacy, security, and computational capabilities.

https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/tel ... -on-scale/

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to otseng in post #2588]

brunumb wrote: ↑Wed Jun 07, 2023 2:14 pm

What I find confounding about this evaluation of different radiation theories is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any radiation was involved at all. It's all just making up stuff about other made up stuff.

OTseng said, "I'll address this in a separate post."

JoeMama asks,

Does anyone in this forum believe that Oliver has shown that the shroud is more likely than not the burial cloth of Jesus?

I don't believe he has shown anything other than an amazing capacity to hunt for anamolies and cherry pick information from sources that are motivated to show the Shroud is real.

He seems to have offered no attempt to critically evaluate his own data, but has placed the burden on everyone else to prove him wrong. But, just like we don't spend time trying to prove Big Foot believers that Big Foot is real, it's simply not a passion for someone to prove - yet another - relic believer wrong.


His claim - This is the true and real relic of Jesus Christ The Redeemer and proves supernatural forces - on the face is absurd, but if it was compelling enough to anyone other than Christians - it would have been the kind of discovery that would make a person rich and famous beyond belief. And there are enough Materialist Scientists out there that would grab that chance in an instant.

The fact that there are no credible arguments from credible scientists is enough for me. It seems the only place it's being debated is in the backwaters of Religious forums.

[otseng]

He seems to have offered no attempt to critically evaluate his own data, but has placed the burden on everyone else to prove him wrong.

This is a debating forum. I present my case and defend it. It's not my job to also do the skeptics' role and attack my own position. If you have any valid counterarguments, please present it. But bringing up Bigfoot, being rich and famous, etc are all irrelevant. Come on, we're not talking about some mythical object or creature. We're talking about an actual artifact that is the most scientifically studied artifact. But what we get from skeptics are all these ridiculous arguments and I have yet to see any rational counterargument.

[JoeyKnothead]

Then submit your peer-reviewed analysis to a reputable science journal and let real scientists weigh in on it.

Again, this is evidence nobody is willing to take up my challenge. I bring up this challenge to point out the strength of the arguments. I believe my argument is able to even hold up under professional scrutiny. As for skeptical arguments, it is entirely lacking.

Having yet to submit your argument for peer review, are you not up to your own challenge?

Why is it so important for you that someone else must also submit a paper? Heck, I'll submit one setting forth my argument as to why you've failed to confirm the image on the shroud is that of Jesus. Where do we go?

...
The only arguments by skeptics have been ridiculous requests like having a photograph and DNA of Jesus to compare to, submitting a paper to Ivy league schools, getting a Nobel prize, etc. These are all totally irrelevant. What is relevant is arguments about the shroud itself. How long do I have to wait for counterarguments against my argument it is authentic? The rest of my life sure sounds like it.

That you find confirmatory data such as a comparison image, or a comparative DNA sample "irrelevant" indicates you only accept data that supports your religious beliefs.

Ever figure out how a virgin female can create a y chromosome?

My argument about no confirmatory image to compare to that on the shroud, is, well, about the shroud.

My argument about no confirmatory blood sample to compare to the shroud is about the shroud.

My argument that the claimed birth of a male Jesus from a female virgin is about the shroud - when it's declared the biblical Jesus is represented on the shroud.

I think this is a very interesting study on what religious folks are willing to accept by way of argumentation.

In this thread I've got otseng continually referring to these three points as either irrelevant, or as red herrings. Any one of these three points being confirmed would go quite a long way in offering confirmation that the image on the shroud belongs to Jesus. How is that irrelevant?

In another thread, RealworldJack asked me specifically which claims he presented I sought to challenge. When I did, the sound of crickets was so loud you'da thought God done plagued us all again.

What is it that has the theist deciding confirmatory data is so contemptible? What is it that has the theist so dismissive of the stuff that could support their own claims?

What makes the theist so hostile to questions about their claims?