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: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 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
Adonai Yahweh
Student
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:08 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 7 times

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

Post #2651

Post by Adonai Yahweh »

NONE of which verifies that it is God's word.
The first point I provided just defeats your statement . And how will you verify that it is not Gods word ? And have you read the whole bible for yourself to conclude that it is not Gods word ?

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6005
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6667 times
Been thanked: 3224 times

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

Post #2652

Post by brunumb »

Adonai Yahweh wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:35 am
NONE of which verifies that it is God's word.
The first point I provided just defeats your statement . And how will you verify that it is not Gods word ? And have you read the whole bible for yourself to conclude that it is not Gods word ?
The first point:
1. The bible is written by more than 40 different men , written on 3 continents , in 3 different languages which all saying the same thing .
No mention of God writing anything in your first point. And, I don't have to prove it is not God's word. You fail to go beyond a mere claim that it is God's word and provide no compelling verification of that claim. Claims are a dime a dozen and not even worth that. What a joke.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1319
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 869 times
Been thanked: 1279 times

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

Post #2653

Post by Diogenes »

Adon** Y**w*h wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 7:35 am
NONE of which verifies that it is God's word.
The first point I provided just defeats your statement . And how will you verify that it is not Gods word ? And have you read the whole bible for yourself to conclude that it is not Gods word ?
Like many here I have read the entire Bible. The more I read and study it, the more convinced I am that it is the work of men, sometimes exceedingly ignorant men, tribal men who wanted to enslave other men, steal their property, their wives, their land. This is typical of tribal religions.
You have made NO arguments or 'points' that 'defeat' anything. You also have your analysis exactly backward by claiming the burden is on others to show the Bible is NOT God's word. The burden of proof is on the one who makes the extraordinary claim that this single book(s) of all the millions written, is the work of your imaginary 'god.' Why not claim it was written by a clever toad? The main difference between a toad and a god is that we KNOW toads exist.

Also, YOU apparently have not read the entire Bible yourself, else you would not use the blasphemous and redundant name you've given yourself.
Last edited by Diogenes on Wed Jun 14, 2023 8:10 am, edited 2 times in total.

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 #2654

Post by boatsnguitars »

Questions left unresolved with the bas-relief, er, I mean Shroud:

If the cloth was pressed against the body, there should be severe wrapping distortion. How was this avoided?
Since the image is only the result of fibers that have oxidized/dehydrated, how was this achieved?
How was a negative effect achieved and why even try to produce a negative image?
Why are the ears missing?
Why is there no imaging on the top of the head?
How was half-tone imaging achieved?
Why should there be x-ray imaging effects?
Why is there imaging on the back side of the cloth?

How were the blood stains formed?
Why are there some blood stains outside the body image?
Who did the painting? (The artist who admitted to it)
If it was a work of art, then why is the TS not recognized by the art community?(The artist admitted to it. What more could you ask for?)
“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
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #2655

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Tue Jun 13, 2023 2:30 pm
If the cloth was pressed against the body, there should be severe wrapping distortion. How was this avoided?
There should be even more severe wrapping distortions if the cloth had been wrapped around a body, especially around the head.
It's the other way around. Let's look again at the video of Nickell's reproduction attempt....



He presses the cloth to completely conform to the bas-relief. Every point on the bas-relief face is touching the cloth. Obviously when the cloth is then pressed flat, there would severe image distortion.

Interestingly, Nickell does not show in the video the final image of the cloth pressed flat, as what we would expect to see. Instead, he shows a picture taken of the cloth pressed against the face. If he had actually showed the cloth stretched flat, the image distortions would've refuted the claim a bas-relief was used.
and why even try to produce a negative image?
It could have been accidental.
He would then have been the first ever person to accidentally create a negative effect. Even intentionally creating a negative effect is not feasible unless there is a photographic negative to copy from.
Why are the ears missing?
The bas-relief didn't have ears.
Look at Nickell's model above. Though it's not Jesus (which is by itself strange since isn't he try to replicate the TS?), there are ears on his model. So even Nickell didn't omit ears with his model in his replication attempt.
Why should there be 3-D information encoding through a bas-relief?
Bas-reliefs have three dimensions.
A bas-relief does, but simply staining a cloth pressed against it does not. The reason there is depth encoding is there is a correlation between cloth to body distance and colored fiber density. Simply applying dabs on a bas-relief will not produce this.
Why should there be x-ray imaging effects?
The enlongated Gothic style makes it look like x-ray imaging.
For a bas-relief, he then must've made the sculpture with long fingers. There is no reason to do that. Gothic representations are not meant to be accurate depictions of Jesus. Yet the TS is anatomically accurate (on the first order). The bas-relief sculpture would've had to make the body anatomically accurate, except for the fingers. That doesn't make any sense.

Further, there is no Gothic image of Jesus showing his teeth. Yet, we see imaging of his teeth on the TS.
Why is there imaging on the back side of the cloth?
A second bas-relief was used.
I'm not talking about the dorsal and ventral images on the same side of the cloth. On the other side of the cloth, there is a faint image that correspond in the facial area with the front side. More info about that here:
viewtopic.php?p=1107332#p1107332
Jackson's cloth collapse hypothesis doesn't explain the head gap; bas-relief does. Without a better explanation than that, bas-relief holds up the best.
I touched on that here...
otseng wrote: Tue Jun 06, 2023 7:44 am 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.
To elaborate, the head gap is a result of angle encoding. Angle encoding means there is a relationship between the angle of the cloth relative to the horizontal plane of the body and the image discoloration density. The more angle, the less imaging. So, for areas where the cloth is perpendicular to the ground, there is no imaging. Angle encoding also involves image projection distortions. Suppose a circle of light was projected onto a cloth lying on a flat surface. If the light was projected straight down onto the cloth, the light on the cloth would be a circle. If the light was projected at an angle to the cloth, the light on the cloth would be an oval.

How would angle encoding be explained by the cloth collapse? The cloth would collapse into the dematerializing body, which generally would be in the direction of the plane of the body. The amount of discoloration would be a factor of the amount of time the fibers interact with the body dematerializing. The parts of the cloth with a high angle would not collapse into the body and have no imaging. This includes the top and sides of the head, which explains the head gap and missing ears. Angle distortion explains the long fingers and second order distortion of facial proportions.

I admit I do not know the exact mechanics of how the cloth would've travelled, but only theorize how it could've moved. One thing though is I do not believe the entire body instantaneously disappeared. The face is darker than the rest of the body, so the dematerialization process took longer at the head. Did it dematerialize from the outside in? Did it dematerialize in layers like a MRI scan? Perhaps both?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20609
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 340 times
Contact:

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

Post #2656

Post by otseng »

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2661]

Not sure what you mean by the bold and non-bolded. Also I've already addressed many of these.

The only question I see that I've never addressed is "Why are there some blood stains outside the body image?"

But, since I asked the question first, what is your response?

User avatar
Adonai Yahweh
Student
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:08 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 7 times

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

Post #2657

Post by Adonai Yahweh »

No mention of God writing anything in your first point. And, I don't have to prove it is not God's word. You fail to go beyond a mere claim that it is God's word and provide no compelling verification of that claim. Claims are a dime a dozen and not even worth that. What a joke.
Are you trying to deny that eyewitness written account is not credible evidence as someones word just because the actual person , themselves has not written anything because that would mean that historical figures like Socrates and Confucius did not actually say the teachings they said just because there were written by their students . The Gospel is an eyewitness account of what Jesus said . The scriptures are also consistent with each other . If more that 40 different men from 3 different continent and have never met each other all saying the same thing then it is true that is Gods word because of the compelling evidence of the consistency in the scriptures . And yes you do have to prove that is not God word , because if you're going to say its not then you should be able to provide compelling verification of that claim as well . And the real question is what credible method will be used to prove your claim ?

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 #2658

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Adonai Yahweh wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 3:27 pm Are you trying to deny that eyewitness written account is not credible evidence as someones word just because the actual person , themselves...
We have no means of confirming the veracity of their claims, even if we could question them about the matter.
...has not written anything because that would mean that historical figures like Socrates and Confucius did not actually say the teachings they said just because there were written by their students .
When folks go to making such claims we can fuss at them.
The Gospel is an eyewitness account of what Jesus said.
You can't even show how a pregnant virgin can produce a y chromosome, so Jesus, as biblically claimed, can't be confirmed to've ever existed.
The scriptures are also consistent with each other.
Not unlike the two kids who get their story straight before going home to face their parents.
If more that 40 different men from 3 different continent and have never met each other all saying the same thing then it is true that is Gods word because of the compelling evidence of the consistency in the scriptures.
The amount of folks making a claim says nothing about the veracity of that claim.

"Three different continents" is just an unsly way to say, "from the area where three different continents converge".
And yes you do have to prove that is not God word , because if you're going to say its not then you should be able to provide compelling verification of that claim as well.
Please see site rules regarding the claimant's burden. Shifting that burden is called "shifting that burden".
And the real question is what credible method will be used to prove your claim ?
"I ain't gotta prove my claims, but you gotta prove the ones I make for you" is the ploy of a theist who has nothing but empty claims.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Adonai Yahweh
Student
Posts: 92
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2023 7:08 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 7 times

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

Post #2659

Post by Adonai Yahweh »

We have no means of confirming the veracity of their claims, even if we could question them about the matter.
We also have no means of confirming the veracity of the claims of Socrates and Confucius who word was written by their students ... but yet we dont see atheists saying that is not their word . Apply the same consistency to other historical figures . Eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence is evidence . These are basic history principles ... primary source and secondary source ??
You can't even show how a pregnant virgin can produce a y chromosome, so Jesus, as biblically claimed, can't be confirmed to've ever existed.
The account of Jesus is not just the bible but also written by non-christian historians such as Tacitus and Josephus . Gods has always been called the Father which shows that in physical form he is male . Chromosomes are applicable to humans that are male and female . who have biological father and mother . Jesus did not have a biological father ..why ? Because he is God
The amount of folks making a claim says nothing about the veracity of that claim.
Thats an inaccurate statement because reliability is a measure of how consistent a result is and reproducible study is one that produces similar results when it is conducted by different researchers. This are basic scientific principles in which when evidence is consistent it is true .
"Three different continents" is just an unsly way to say, "from the area where three different continents converge".
Where is the evidence to back up this statement ? your sarcasm doesn't prove anything .
"I ain't gotta prove my claims, but you gotta prove the ones I make for you" is the ploy of a theist who has nothing but empty claims.
Its called logic something that comes with maturity especially intellectual maturity :) ... and I have been answering all your questions and the answers are things that you can extensively research about , if you are opposing my statements then it means you know for certain that you have credible evidence stating otherwise . So if your whole basis is just making statements without evidence stating otherwise , then your statements is a speculation or at best an emotional appeal . So since you are certain that the bible is not Gods word then provide the evidence that proves that

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 #2660

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Adonai Yahweh wrote: Wed Jun 14, 2023 5:47 pm
JK wrote:We have no means of confirming the veracity of their claims, even if we could question them about the matter.
We also have no means of confirming the veracity of the claims of Socrates and Confucius who word was written by their students..
What about Socrates, Confucius, or their students allows us to confirm the claims of biblical 'eyewitnesses'?
No .but yet we dont see atheists saying that is not their word.
It's sadly amusing how Christians seem to thing someone else's inability to confirm their claims means the Christian has confirmed his.
Apply the same consistency to other historical figures.
The claim that Jesus is a 'histirical figure's bumps up against the claimant's inability to confirm how a virgin pregnancy can produce a y chromosome.
Eyewitness testimony and documentary evidence is evidence.
Call it what you want, it's unconfirmed.
These are basic history principles ... primary source and secondary source ??
I'm not bound to the methodology of historians.
JK wrote: You can't even show how a pregnant virgin can produce a y chromosome, so Jesus, as biblically claimed, can't be confirmed to've ever existed.
The account of Jesus is not just the bible but also written by non-christian historians such as Tacitus and Josephus.
Did they offer a means to confirm how a virgin pregnancy can create a y chromosome?
Gods has always been called the Father which shows that in physical form he is male.
You can't even show he exists.
Chromosomes are applicable to humans that are male and female . who have biological father and mother . Jesus did not have a biological father ..why ? Because he is God
Now say it while showing you speak truth.
JK wrote: The amount of folks making a claim says nothing about the veracity of that claim.
Thats an inaccurate statement because reliability is a measure of how consistent a result is and reproducible study is one that produces similar results when it is conducted by different researchers. This are basic scientific principles in which when evidence is consistent it is true.
I eagerly await your presenting a scientific principle that explains how a virgin pregnancy can produce a y chromosome.
wrote: "Three different continents" is just an unsly way to say, "from the area where three different continents converge".
Where is the evidence to back up this statement ? your sarcasm doesn't prove anything.
On a map. My sarcasm has nothing to do with it.
JK wrote: "I ain't gotta prove my claims, but you gotta prove the ones I make for you" is the ploy of a theist who has nothing but empty claims.
Its called logic something that comes with maturity especially intellectual maturity :)
That's aging, of which logic doesn't give a hoot.
... and I have been answering all your questions and the answers are things that you can extensively research about , if you are opposing my statements then it means you know for certain that you have credible evidence stating otherwise.
I'm seeking to confirm if you speak truth in your various biblical claims. Thus far you've stymied my efforts at every turn.
So if your whole basis is just making statements without evidence stating otherwise , then your statements is a speculation or at best an emotional appeal . So since you are certain that the bible is not Gods word then provide the evidence that proves that
Notice, after having been explained what is the shifting of the burden, our claimant here still doesn't understand.

Christianity. Not even once.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Post Reply