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: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 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: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #2631

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 12:24 pm So, you're at stage 5.

Otseng, you're clearly smart. Just look at the shroud. Just look at it.
What kind of argumentation is that? Yes, I've looked at the shroud... many times. And?...
JoeMama wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 4:31 pm 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.
I guess you're referring to me. There's a difference between saying I'm wrong and logically arguing I'm wrong. I have yet to see any skeptic provide rational argumentation on why the TS is a fake.
boatsnguitars wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 5:30 pm 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.
As you all have guessed by now, I feel exactly this way. But that is why I believe the way to approach truth should be through logical argumentation and not through fallacious arguments.
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:28 pm 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?
It's OK for you to joke with me "here and there" and I cannot apply humor as well?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:19 ameven if I poke fun here and there.
But seriously, do you consider your arguments on par to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal? Myself, I believe my arguments are sound enough to be considered by shroud professionals. We are all biased towards our own beliefs, so I'm willing to let the professionals weigh in.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #2632

Post by otseng »

JoeMama wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 1:49 am 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.
I already argued this at:
otseng wrote: Sat Apr 22, 2023 7:51 am
otseng wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:29 am But these are not all, I'll be pointing out more blood evidence to provide additional confirmation.
I had already pointed out 3 blood patterns on the TS that points to Jesus of Nazareth. Here are additional ones:

4. Side wound. Doubtful many that were crucified was pierced in the side.

viewtopic.php?p=1116855#p1116855

5. Carried the cross. Most likely all carried their own cross.

viewtopic.php?p=1117201#p1117201

6. Facial wounds. Not likely many would be beaten up in the face also.

viewtopic.php?p=1118831#p1118831

7. No broken bones. Legs were frequently broken for crucifixion victims, so this would be rare to have unbroken legs.

viewtopic.php?p=1118973#p1118973

These 7 factors pretty much conclusively points to Jesus of Nazareth on the shroud. In terms of textual evidence, there is nobody else that is even a remote match.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20463
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 335 times
Contact:

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

Post #2633

Post by otseng »

Ray Rogers theorized the image is the result of a Maillard reaction.
Raymond N. Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, in a joint paper of 2003 proposed that amines from a recently deceased human body may have undergone Maillard reactions with this carbohydrate layer within a reasonable period of time, before liquid decomposition products stained or damaged the cloth. The gases produced by a dead body are extremely reactive chemically, and within a few hours (in an environment such as a tomb) a body starts to produce heavier amines, such as putrescine and cadaverine, in its tissues.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers

His proposal would be a naturalistic explanation that is not artistic and involve a dead body.
We can now formally propose a completely natural hypothesis for image formation. Impurities in ancient linen could have been suspended by the surfactant property of a Saponaria officinalis washing solution and they would be concentrated at the cloth surface by evaporation. Reducing saccharides would react rapidly with the amine decomposition products of a dead body.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers7.pdf

We see the result of the Maillard reaction in the browning of food.
The Maillard reaction is responsible for many colors and flavors in foods, such as the browning of various meats when seared or grilled, the browning and umami taste in fried onions and coffee roasting. It contributes to the darkened crust of baked goods, the golden-brown color of French fries and other crisps, browning of malted barley as found in malt whiskey and beer, and the color and taste of dried and condensed milk, dulce de leche, toffee, black garlic, chocolate, toasted marshmallows, and roasted peanuts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

Tanning of bodies in peat bogs is also from a Maillard reaction.
In archaeology the Maillard process occurs when bodies are preserved in peat bogs. The acidic peat environment causes a tanning or browning of skin tones and can turn hair to a red or ginger tone. The chemical mechanism is the same as in the browning of food, but it develops slowly over time due to the acidic action on the bog body. It is typically seen on Iron Age bodies and was described by Painter in 1991 as the interaction of anaerobic, acidic, and cold (typically 4 °C (39 °F)) sphagnum acid on the polysaccharides.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

Maillard reaction is a chemical reaction involving amino acids and sugars.
The Maillard reaction (/maɪˈjɑːr/ my-YAR; French: [majaʁ]) is a chemical reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars that gives browned food its distinctive flavor. Seared steaks, fried dumplings, cookies and other kinds of biscuits, breads, toasted marshmallows, and many other foods undergo this reaction.

Caramelization is an entirely different process from Maillard browning, though the results of the two processes are sometimes similar to the naked eye (and taste buds). Caramelization may sometimes cause browning in the same foods in which the Maillard reaction occurs, but the two processes are distinct. They are both promoted by heating, but the Maillard reaction involves amino acids, whereas caramelization is the pyrolysis of certain sugars.[12]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction

One feature the Maillard reaction explains is it can color the outside of the fibers without coloring the inside of fibers.
The coating of brown products is too thin to be resolved with a light microscope, and it is all on the outside of the fibres. There is no coloration in the medullas: the colour does not scorch the cellulose. There is essentially no colour on fibres from the middle of the back surface.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/rogers7.pdf

Though it can explain the coloring on fibers, it fails to explain many other features.

The TS image has high resolution. How can vapor from a body produce detailed imaging?

It also does not explain the head gap, imaging of the hair, depth encoding, angle encoding, x-ray effect, uniform density of ventral and dorsal sides, faint image on back of cloth, second degree distortions, unbroken blood stains, and uncolored fibers adjacent to colored fibers.

The fatal blow to the Maillard reaction theory is there is no sign of any decomposition of the body on the shroud. This evidence is contradictory to the Maillard reaction theory since ammonia gas is required for the Maillard reaction.

earl
Scholar
Posts: 370
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: Texas
Been thanked: 4 times

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

Post #2634

Post by earl »

"The fatal blow to the Mallard reaction theory is there is no sign of any decomposition to the body on the shroud"
Urantia Book P.189.2.1
...;the hosts of heaven would be spared the memory of the enduring sight of the slow decay of the human form of the creator and upholder of a universe.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 34 times

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

Post #2635

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to otseng in post #2632]

I tried to save you from yourself with my previous post, Oliver, but it looks like to me that you're doomed to continue your fight for a very long time to come, never to reach the goal you seemingly seek. I think there will be no end of rabbit holes for you to fall into.

I no longer engage you regarding the shroud; my patience has been exhausted, but no hard feelings. I suspect that others in this forum might likewise be fated to debate this with you forever; you're such an easy target that they cannot resist attacking you, and I really cannot blame them.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1296
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 860 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

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

Post #2636

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:30 am
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.
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.
....
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.
....
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?


Barrie Schwortz may be respected by you and others who believe in the magical 'supernatural' as explanation for phenomena, but he hardly has standing in the world of science. He's a photograher. He's a huckster who may also be a 'true believer.' But sincerity is not an indication of authenticity or scientific expertise.

The 'shroud' has long been looked at by artists. A brief history from an author who does not have his mind made up about the nature of the art of the shroud:
The pre-1300 A.D. art work shows a very similar appearing Christ , a
man with long hair , moustache, forked beard , with unusual markings on
his forehead , large eyes and long skinny nose. These portraits were very
popular in the 9th, 10th, and II th centuries, but to udnerstand these we
must go as far back as the 6th century. This takes us to a town in southern
Turkey called Edessa where history records that a cloth existed which had
on it the face of a man, and it was called the "face not made by hands." It
was known as the "mandylion" , an interesting Byzantine word to describe
the face on this cloth . The face of Edessa was extremely important , so
much so that the Emperor Justinian II in about 685 A. D . had coins minted
with this face of Edessa on the coins. Also, various art work , paintings and
icons, had taken on this same appearance. The icon in St. Catherine's
Monastery, which is located in the Siani Peninsula, shows a beautiful bust
of Christ from about 550 A.D . The Spas Neredites is a copy of the
mandylion from about 1199 A. D . and is presently in a museum in
Moscow. Also, the face of Leon in France dates to about 1249 A.D. These
are only a few of the many art works depicting Christ with all the
appearances of having been copied from the original mandylion , or face of
Edessa

https://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi ... ontext=lnq

There's a new book about the religious history artists' take on the 'Art of the Shroud.'

Casper, however, shows that this modern opposition of artifice and authenticity does not align with the cloth’s historical conception as an object of religious devotion. Examining the period of the Shroud’s most enthusiastic following, from the late 1500s through the 1600s, he reveals how it came to be considered an artful relic—a divine painting attributed to God’s artistry that contains traces of Christ’s body. Through probing analyses of materials created to perpetuate the Shroud’s cult following—including devotional, historical, and theological treatises as well as printed and painted reproductions—Casper uncovers historicized connections to late Renaissance and Baroque artistic cultures that frame an understanding of the Shroud’s bloodied corporeal impressions as an alloy of material authenticity and divine artifice.

https://arth.sas.upenn.edu/content/artf ... oque-italy



Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2657
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 482 times

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

Post #2637

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2631
I have yet to see any skeptic provide rational argumentation on why the TS is a fake.
Has any reputable scientist conducted the computer simulation you suggested to test the "collapse" hypothesis and disprove my arguments that it isn't feasible?

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 #2638

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:44 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat Jun 10, 2023 6:28 pm 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?
It's OK for you to joke with me "here and there" and I cannot apply humor as well?
JoeyKnothead wrote: Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:19 ameven if I poke fun here and there.
Fair 'nuff, for the guy with an imaginary magic friend who lives in the sky.
otseng wrote: But seriously, do you consider your arguments on par to be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal? Myself, I believe my arguments are sound enough to be considered by shroud professionals. We are all biased towards our own beliefs, so I'm willing to let the professionals weigh in.
Who needs a professional to know that without a comparison image, the one the shroud can't be confirmed as Jesus?

Who needs a professional to know that without a comparison blood sample, the blood on the shroud can't be confirmed as belonging to Jesus?

But of course, we do need professionals to tell us all how a virgin pregnancy can result in a male offspring, because you sure haven't explained how it could be.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #2639

Post by boatsnguitars »

JoeMama wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 1:49 am [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
It's interesting that in order to concede this, we'd have to be convinced at every turn that Otseng's explanations are valid.

Looks like a Medieval painting: He has a protracted argument for why a real subject would end up looking like a Medieval painting.
Looks like more modern weaving: He has a protracted argument for why this could be one of the rare exceptions.
Looks like it was red ochre: He has a protracted argument for why it's blood.
Looks like it was a fake relic; the original artist confessed: He has a protracted argument for why it's all a conspiracy.
Looks like it was made after reading the Bible and how they did burial cloths: He has a protracted argument for why it's not, but at the same time, matches the earlier paintings of burial cloths - how could the artist have known!
Looks like the carbon dating agrees with the original artists confession: He has a protracted argument for why the carbon dating is wrong.
etc...

It goes on and on. He has to overturn everything that appears apparent to the rest of the world with excruciatingly twists and turns of logic and conspiracy theories. It's classic.

But how to convince him? I don't know.
“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 #2640

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Sun Jun 11, 2023 7:44 am ...
But that is why I believe the way to approach truth should be through logical argumentation and not through fallacious arguments.
...

I'll present my non-fallacious arguments...

otseng has not offered a picture of Jesus for confirmation against the shroud image.

otseng has not offered a blood sample from Jesus for confirmation against the blood on the shroud.

otseng has not offered confirmation (or argumentation) regarding how a human virgin female can produce a child with a y chromosome. (Such would be required if the biblical claims are to be respected.)

I challenge anyone to show why my position here is a "fallacious argument".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply