How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2621

Post by otseng »

Any theory that involves a work of an artist is not really tenable. As I've argued in my summary argument, there are many points against it being any type of artwork. If any imaging technique that is proposed that involves the work of an artist, my summary argument must be refuted.

I've also addressed the following artistic replication attempts:

* Luigi Garlaschelli
* Joe Nickell
* Borrini and Garlaschelli

The 1978 STURP team has been the only group of scientists that have done the most hands-on study of the shroud. Their goal was to find out how the image formed. After all their study, the final conclusion was:
We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist.
https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

Barrie Schwortz, who was on the 1978 STURP team, rarely claims their findings has proven anything. But one thing he has stated that they have proved is it is not a work of art.
But science itself has PROVEN (and I don’t use that word lightly), that the Shroud is not an art work of any kind. Our team went to Turin to answer a single question: How is the image on the Shroud formed? The conventional wisdom in 1978 was that it was either some form of painting, scorch or photograph, so our tests included experiments to explore all of those possibilities. Using very sensitive spectral and chemical analyses, along with microscopic and photographic examination, we searched for any traces of paints or pigments on the cloth. In fact, we had with us a complete catalog of the spectral characteristics of every paint and pigment used by man from medieval to modern times. In the end we determined that no paints or pigments were responsible for the image. Thus, we proved scientifically that the Shroud image is not a painting.
https://hc.edu/news-and-events/2016/08/ ... us-christ/

All artistic methods are thus ruled out, including:

- painting
- scorch
- bas-relief
- dye
- rubbing
- photograph

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 863 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2622

Post by Diogenes »

Adonai Yahweh wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:20 pm
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).
The only thing remotely comprehensible in the mess of words above is, apparently, an appeal to scripture being "God's word."
This not true and is specifically excluded as competent argument by the C&A guidelines:

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.
viewtopic.php?t=9741

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1307
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 863 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2623

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 9:11 am Any theory that involves a work of an artist is not really tenable. As I've argued in my....
Quoting yourself shows the weakness of your argument, as does using Barrie Schwortz as a reference. As has been pointed out repeatedly Barrie Schwortz is self dealing. His business is making money peddling fake relics to the gullible.

You have NEVER competently addressed the simple fact, amply supported, and verified by your own two eyes, that the image is the work of an artist. There are several reasons for this conclusion, including the anatomically impossible arrangement of the facial features. You also fail to answer the argument of how the image looks like a typical gothic representation of 'the Christ,' and bears no resemblance to the actual humans in the Levant 2000 years ago.

In essence, to an objective eye, the image looks like art, not a death mask.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2624

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:22 am
boatsnguitars wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 10:46 am 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.
I'm not arguing for a Flat Earth either. It would be easy to argue against an Earth that is flat and not spherical. The evidence can readily be produced to refute this. And if the TS is a fake, then it should be easy to produce this evidence as well. And why can't skeptics argue on the basis of evidence instead of bringing up Big Foot and Flat Earth?
So, you're at stage 5.

Otseng, you're clearly smart. Just look at the shroud. Just look at it.
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2625

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2624]

I'm reminded of the lonely, 15-year-old, home-schooled boy from Scotland who for years jousted with a dozen atheist adults in Farrell Till's Errancy Forum about twenty years ago. He professed inerrancy beliefs that were easily refuted, but he never conceded. He seemingly loved the ego-feeding attention the grown-ups were lavishing on him, while the skeptics just could not resist the temptation to show the boy how wrong were his beliefs.

User avatar
boatsnguitars
Banned
Banned
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2023 10:09 am
Has thanked: 477 times
Been thanked: 580 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2626

Post by boatsnguitars »

JoeMama wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:31 pm [Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2624]

I'm reminded of the lonely, 15-year-old, home-schooled boy from Scotland who for years jousted with a dozen atheist adults in Farrell Till's Errancy Forum about twenty years ago. He professed inerrancy beliefs that were easily refuted, but he never conceded. He seemingly loved the ego-feeding attention the grown-ups were lavishing on him, while the skeptics just could not resist the temptation to show the boy how wrong were his beliefs.
We're all potentially that kid. I accept that, but there do seem to be others who are definitely that kid. I think of all the extreme MAGA Trump supporters who simply can't let go of the idea that he's the only good man left in the world; or, at least, that he might be a horrible human being but he's the horrible human being God Himself picked for the battle against the forces of evil.

If you just look at him. Just look at Trump, the things he's done and said, you'll see he's nothing but a man-boy con-artist with a ego the size of Jupiter and a vicious streak a mile wide. He's just a scum bag. All you have to do is look.

But, people have convinced themselves that there is numerology, or signs from God, or deep, occult and arcane secrets revealed in everything he does.

(Classic example, but applied to someone else. A writer said about Desantis' response to the Indictment, "If it were you or I, we'd be indicted in a New York minute." The writer said implied that this was a clever dig at Trump because Trump is from New York. But I think that's giving Desantis too much credit. It's the old story of Beatles lyrics seeming deep, but the Beatles themselves saying that they were just stoned and didn't mean anything by the words. They just rhymed.)

That is, Trump does something and people find meaning in it. Likewise, a conspiracy theorist sees something and reads into it. Likewise, a SoT fanatic sees everything as a clue that it's real.

For example: It looks like a Medieval painting. The SoT fanatic will say, "That's why we know it's real - who in their right mind would make a fake look so fake!"

It's sad, and I don't know how to snap people out of the lure of thinking they know something that no one else in the world knows. It must be a heady feeling.


edit:
When the cloth first appeared in Lirey, France, in the middle of the fourteenth century, its owner could not, or would not, explain how he had acquired the most holy relic in Christendom. In 1389 a bishop reported to Pope Clement VII that it had been used in a faith-healing scam in which persons were hired to feign illness, then, when the cloth was revealed to them, to pretend to have been healed, “so that money might cunningly be wrung” from unsuspecting pilgrims. “Eventually,” he said, after “diligent inquiry and examination,” the “fraud” was uncovered. The cloth had been “cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who painted it” (D’Arcis 1389).
https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive ... ic-author/

https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/link ... andum.html
“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2627

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 8:49 am ...
Again, we're playing on different courts. I'm playing on the advanced level where serious debates occur. If you want to join, please do. But don't expect me to play on the kiddie courts.
...
I'm playing serious tennis here, whereas you are on the kiddie court and saying, "Hey, you can't play tennis with this bowling ball, so you aren't a good tennis player." Sure, I can't hit the bowling bowl back with my racquet, but neither can any other tennis player.
How nice of a moderator to insult another member as being not serious, and playing on "kiddie courts".

When the mods display this kind of behaviour, who do we report it to?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2628

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2626]

boats wrote:

For example: It looks like a Medieval painting. The SoT fanatic will say, "That's why we know it's real - who in their right mind would make a fake look so fake!"

It's sad, and I don't know how to snap people out of the lure of thinking they know something that no one else in the world knows. It must be a heady feeling.

JoeMama:

Very insightful and mature, Boats. Thank you.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 159
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2629

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to otseng in post #2620]

Oliver,
Suppose skeptics were to concede (for the sake of argument) that the image is of a bloodied man, scourged and flogged about two thousand years ago in Jerusalem. This still wouldn’t be enough evidence for you to claim it’s the burial cloth of Jesus, right? It could be the burial cloth of any one of the multiple-thousands of men the Romans crucified during that time.

The odds that it’s Jesus is about one in many thousands. Isn’t that the best you can reasonably expect as the result of your long investigation?

Joe Mama

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20516
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2630

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 11:02 am Quoting yourself shows the weakness of your argument, as does using Barrie Schwortz as a reference.
I'm giving a link to my final argument. Please address the contents of the final argument, not saying that providing a link to my argument is some sort of weakness.

As for Barrie Schwortz, he is one of the most respected Shroud professionals by both skeptics and supporters. Simply hand-waving him off is not a valid argument.
You have NEVER competently addressed the simple fact, amply supported, and verified by your own two eyes, that the image is the work of an artist. There are several reasons for this conclusion, including the anatomically impossible arrangement of the facial features. You also fail to answer the argument of how the image looks like a typical gothic representation of 'the Christ,' and bears no resemblance to the actual humans in the Levant 2000 years ago.
I've argued extensively it is not the work of an artist. The similarities of the TS and artwork is the other way around. Art has been inspired by the TS, not that the TS is inspired by art.
In essence, to an objective eye, the image looks like art, not a death mask.
No, it doesn't even look like art, even to "objective eyes". If it looks like art, why is there practically zilch from the art community on the TS? Do they not have "objective eyes"? What we see instead is an actual artifact from the tomb of Jesus that can be scientifically studied. It's been studied so much it is the most scientifically studied artifact. Do these scientists not have "objective eyes" as well?

Post Reply