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]

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

I'm not "hostile". But I will admit I am dismissive of pretty much all your posts since they all lack any substance.

Again, I've addressed your posts multiple times and you continually refuse to back up any of your assertions with any evidence with a reference. You just make claims and then say they are evidence.

The lack of rational debate from skeptics is so apparent to me. But judging from the constant use of fallacious arguments from skeptics, it is obviously not so apparent to skeptics. So, the only way I can think of to resolve this is to let professionals who are experts in the field to judge the arguments.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

I agree it's a debating forum. But if you were to be arguing for a Flat Earth, or Big Foot, you could expect the same outcome:

1. Flat Earther presents data.
2. People tell him he's wrong based on relavant data
3. Flat Earther does Gish Gallop and presents a never ending stream of irrelevant data, cherry picked studies, etc. - all while saying that the other science is wrong
4. People lose interest because they aren't interested in disproving something so obviously wrong.
5. Flat Earther declares victory by saying no one has refuted him.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #2590]

I've never even tried to submit to a peer-reviewed journal before. But, with the Shroud of Turin, I'm so confident of my arguments I have been dramatically upping the ante.

It is a pretty easy process if you wanted to do it. I served as associate editor for 5 years for a scientific journal back in my 30s (JQSRT ... Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy and Radiative Transfer) and have a little over 100 published papers (as sole/first author or co-author) in peer-reviewed journals. So I'm very familar with the process. All you need to do is:

1) Prepare the manuscript in the format described by the journal (eg. double spaced, figures separate from the text and numbered, etc. ... whatever the journal requires). Each journal should have a website these days with the specifics, for example for JQSRT it is here:

https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journ ... or-authors

2) Submit the finished manuscript and figures to the specified address (physical or web) given. These days, most can accept online submissions.

That's it. The paper will be given to an associate editor (usually) who will choose typically 3-4 reviewers who have expertise in the specific subject and details. These reviewers will return their manuscript reviews and comments (eg. publish as is, make the following corrections, address the following concerns, suggest rejection, etc.). The journal will then send you the reviews and allow you to comment, challenge, etc. if they deem the reviews favorable for eventual publication (if they all are very negative, they'll probably simply reject it).

An iteration or two of this process may result in acceptance, then you (or your organization if that is appropriate) have to pay the publication fee and sign any legal paperwork associated with the process. If accepted, they'll give you an expected publication date and you're done. When it is published, a lot more people can see it to throw darts and challenge the claims. For the volume of text and figures in this thread, a simple "paper" may not be suitable as it would be too long. You'd probably need to distill just the key points of your arguments and provide references to everything else. Usually no limit to the number of references that are allowed, especially if it were a review paper rather than a regular submission.

[JoeyKnothead]

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

I'm not "hostile". But I will admit I am dismissive of pretty much all your posts since they all lack any substance.

I'm content in having the observer decide if my position has substance.

Again, I've addressed your posts multiple times and you continually refuse to back up any of your assertions with any evidence with a reference. You just make claims and then say they are evidence.

Here are my claims...

1. We do not have an image of Jesus with which we can compare to the shroud for confirmation.
Do you accept or reject this claim?
2. We do not have a blood sample from Jesus with which to compare to the shroud for confirmation.
Do you accept or reject this claim?
3. We have no means of confirming how a virgin female can produce a y chromosome.
Do you accept or reject this claim?

My evidence in this matter is based on logic, of which, this site allows for such form.
Do you accept or reject that statement (even as you may reject my potentially flawed logic)?

The lack of rational debate from skeptics is so apparent to me.

It can often be difficult for the irrational to understand the rational.

What part of my position do you find so irrational?

But judging from the constant use of fallacious arguments from skeptics, it is obviously not so apparent to skeptics.

Them pots and kettles you're selling are cheaper at Wally World.

So, the only way I can think of to resolve this is to let professionals who are experts in the field to judge the arguments.

They have, it's just that you reject their findings.

[Diogenes]

This is the wrong approach. The estimated population of the world in the 1st Century CE and the 14th Century is, very roughly, 200-400 million; therefore, without more qualifiers the chance the Shroud is that of Jesus of Nazareth is about 200-400 million to one AGAINST, even IF the image was actually created by an impression of a human body.

In case nobody is catching my argument so far, let me make it explicit. It is the description in the gospel accounts of what Jesus went through during the Passion that correlates with what is depicted on the TS that demonstrates the man on the shroud is Jesus.

Here's what I've argued so far the TSM (Turin Shroud Man) exhibits:....

Congratulations! You have perfectly set out the old, "Shoot the arrow at the barn and paint the bullseye around it" argument.
Your 'exhibits' are meaningless because the image on the Cloth of Turin was fabricated to the very specifications the fabricator gleaned from the gospels because his purpose was to do just that; create a 'relic' that appeared to fit the gospel accounts as he understood them.

The artist also did an excellent job of making 'Jesus' look just like the gothic representations of the artists of his day.





These gothic images do not look like either a real man, or the images of Jesus from anthropologists.

[Adonai Yahweh]

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?

And are you aware the if you are unable to also bring credible evidence to determine that is untrue then your question is pointless

It says in the scriptures that it is Gods word 2 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:1 , in greek that is Πρὸς Τιμόθεον Β" (Pros Timotheon B) and Κατὰ Ἰωάννην" (Kata Ioannēn).

[JoeyKnothead]

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?

And are you aware the if you are unable to also bring credible evidence to determine that is untrue then your question is pointless.

Those not new to debate understand the onus is on the claimant.

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?

It says in the scriptures that it is Gods word 2 Timothy 3:16 and John 1:1 , in greek that is Πρὸς Τιμόθεον Β" (Pros Timotheon B) and Κατὰ Ἰωάννην" (Kata Ioannēn).

What part of this referenced example can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

Please see site rules and such regarding the C&A section of this site.

[Adonai Yahweh]

What part of this referenced example can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

The scripture that I stated in English and Greek confirm that it is Gods word go and read those scriptures

[Athetotheist]

What part of this referenced example can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

The scripture that I stated in English and Greek confirm that it is Gods word go and read those scriptures

Circular argument.

[brunumb]

What part of this referenced example can be confirmed to be God's word/s?

The scripture that I stated in English and Greek confirm that it is Gods word go and read those scriptures

Please explain how a document can verify itself.