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
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 #2671

Post by boatsnguitars »

otseng wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:45 pm
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:38 am Looks like a painting. Not sure why it's important to ask why there are blood stains outside the image?
The imaging is a depiction of the body. If there is blood outside the body image, how can someone bleed outside of their body?
Do you mean some drops of paint landed out side the body?

Btw, if people were wrapping the body with all the aloes and creams, as they lathered up the naked Jesus, where are the hand and finger prints?

Let me guess, the supernatural event was that they didn't need to touch the shroud to wrap him?
“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: 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 #2672

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 8:18 pm [Replying to otseng in post #2667

And again, without a vaccuum this doesn't account for the back image.
I have no idea what you think I'm claiming. I'm claiming there was a vacuum.
Since I've always stated there would be a vacuum, it would account for it.
And I've pointed out that a vaccuum would also cause the cloth covering the top of the head to be pushed inward, an observation you haven't been able to refute.
Neither of us know exactly the mechanics of dematerialization. As mentioned before, it could've dematerialized in layers, like an MRI. If it was by layers parallel to the front and back cloth and from the outside of the body inward, then there would've been little vacuum at the top of the head.

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 #2673

Post by otseng »

boatsnguitars wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 3:08 am
otseng wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 12:45 pm
boatsnguitars wrote: Thu Jun 15, 2023 4:38 am Looks like a painting. Not sure why it's important to ask why there are blood stains outside the image?
The imaging is a depiction of the body. If there is blood outside the body image, how can someone bleed outside of their body?
Do you mean some drops of paint landed out side the body?
No, not paint, blood. Yes, there are blood stains outside the body image on the cloth.
Btw, if people were wrapping the body with all the aloes and creams, as they lathered up the naked Jesus, where are the hand and finger prints?
I'm never claimed the aloe and myrrh caused any of the imaging. There's also no claim that any imaging can resolve fingerprints. I'm not even claiming it can resolve coins placed over the eyes.

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 #2674

Post by otseng »

Robert Rucker theorizes the image is due to neutron emission/absorption. Though his theory attempts to explain the imaging, primarily it is to explain the medieval dating of the 1988 C-14 test.
In 1988, the C14 dating methodology was used (Ref. 1, i.e. Damon, et al.) to date samples from
the Shroud of Turin to 1260 to 1390 AD. But research during the last 30 years has convinced
leading Shroud researchers that the Shroud is much older than 1260 to 1390 AD, thus
contradicting the results of the C14 dating. To solve this carbon dating problem for the Shroud, a
three-part series has been written that covers: 1) background in Ref. 2, 2) statistical analysis in
Ref. 3, and 3) the neutron absorption hypothesis, which is this paper.

There is much evidence to indicate that the image on the
Shroud was caused by a burst of radiation from the body that was wrapped in it (Ref. 8 and 9). It
is hypothesized in this paper that if neutrons were included in this burst of radiation, a small
fraction of them would be absorbed in the trace amounts of N14 in the linen thus forming new C14
atoms by the (N14 + neutron → C
14 + proton) reaction. This newly created C14 would be
indistinguishable from the original C14 that was taken into the plant while it was alive, thus
shifting the apparent C14 date in the positive direction by up to thousands of years.

Since, as correctly stated in the objection, radiation is normally emitted in any
direction with equal probability and thus could not form a high-resolution image, the
radiation that caused the image (probably charged particles and/or ultra violet) must have
been emitted only vertically, both vertically up and down to form good resolution front and
dorsal images but without side images. This radiation could not have been perpendicular to
the surface of the body for then there would be images of the side of the body on the cloth,
and distortion of the front and back images. This vertically collimated radiation could have
been similar to the coherent radiation emitted from a laser. A laser emits electromagnetic
radiation, i.e. photons, usually in the visible or ultraviolet energy range that is “coherent” in
the sense that the wavelengths of all the photons are in-phase with each other so that there
is no tendency for the beam to spread out. As commented by others, the burst of radiation
from the body that formed the image on the Shroud was like millions of lasers within the
body all pointed vertically up and down, and all emitting simultaneously in an extremely
short burst of radiation. It is recognized that this radiation being emitted only vertically is
outside of our current understanding of science, but then a high resolution negative image
formed by a dead human body on a cloth that contains 3D information content is also
outside of our current understanding of science.
https://0201.nccdn.net/1_2/000/000/09c/ ... the-ne.pdf

Some features the neutron emission theory does not explain: depth encoding, angle encoding, x-ray effect, and image on back of cloth.

A big issue I have with the theory is the requirement of a vertically collimated radiation. This means radiation would only be emitted up and down in a single vertical line from its point of origin. As Rucker acknowledges, this is an ad hoc addition for this theory.

If neutron emission did occur, the theory could be coupled with the cloth collapse theory, but without the need of a vertically collimated radiation. Neutron radiation could've affected the C-14 dating of the cloth.

Hugh Farey presents his objections to the neutron absorption theory:
Recently, Robert Rucker has postulated that the medieval radiocarbon date is wrong, because the radiocarbon of the shroud has been enriched by nuclear emission from the body of the Resurrecting Christ. Extrapolating from the chronological gradient of the dates as inferred by Riani et al., he finds that if a tiny fraction of the neutrons that made up the body of Christ were emitted, not only would the requisite adjustment of the radiocarbon dates (from first century to fourteenth century) be achieved, but also that the part of the cloth in contact with the body would be sufficiently radiocarbon enriched to date thousands of years into the future. Within the definition of ‘Christian Reason’, whereby a rupture in the fabric of science is not necessarily impossible, neither this hypothesis nor the calculation that supports it is prima facie absurd. However, this single rupture has to be accompanied by several others if the miracle of the Resurrection is to be understood in scientific terms. If it is acknowledged that the Shroud is a witness to a nuclear radiation event, we nevertheless find that neutron emission cannot account for the image. For this, protons (or intense ultra-violet rays) also have to be emitted, but in a vertical direction only - in a process, says Rucker, “outside of our current understanding of science.” And that’s not all. A nuclear event - even in one ten billionth of a body - emits radiation of other kinds, especially heat, all of which must be accounted for, and accompanied by some explanation of what might have happened to all the other atoms of the body which did not disintegrate. Every explanation of what is supposed did happen ought to be accompanied by equally good explanations of why other factors that normally accompany the first explanation should be ignored. It is this piling of successive special circumstances one upon another which leads to accusations of absurdity. If you believe that a miracle occurred, then it is pointless, not to mention unreasonable, to attempt to explain it in non-miraculous terms.
https://www.academia.edu/41170730/THE_M ... d_of_Turin

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 #2675

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 6:58 am Neither of us know exactly the mechanics of dematerialization.

No kidding! NO one knows the "mechanics of dematerialization." There is a very good reason for this lack of knowledge:
There is no such thing as "dematerialization" in physics. The idea comes from Caspar the Ghost and other cartoons, as well as from science fiction and Christian apologists trying to explain things THAT NEVER HAPPENED.

Dematerialization

Dematerialization (art), an idea in conceptual art where the art object is no longer material
Dematerialization (economics), the reduction in the quantity of materials required to serve economic functions (doing more with less)
Dematerialization (products), using less or no material to deliver the same level of functionality
Dematerialization (securities), moving from handling paper securities certificates to book form, usually electronic
Demat account, a type of banking account in India where paper-based physical shares are stored electronically
Teleportation, theoretical movement of objects without traveling through space

_ Wikipedia
I'm curious. Since faith in orthodox Christianity requires a belief in magic, AKA, 'the supernatural,' why bother trying to find some physical cause for the 'Shroud,' or for any other fantastic claim of the Bible. Why not be forthright and candidly settle for "God did it?" :)

After all, belief in any of these fantasies requires "faith." Why bother with science at all when science refutes all of the silly supernatural claims of the Bible? Why pretend science matters when it only shows how ridiculous these claims are when myths are mistaken for history? Why try to find "evidence" of a global flood, the Earth standing still, talking snakes and donkeys, water into wine, return from the dead, and ascending into the clouds/heaven?

https://clip.cafe/full-metal-jacket-198 ... vate-pyle/

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 #2676

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2672
Neither of us know exactly the mechanics of dematerialization. As mentioned before, it could've dematerialized in layers, like an MRI. If it was by layers parallel to the front and back cloth and from the outside of the body inward, then there would've been little vacuum at the top of the head.
The top of the head is part of the outside of the body, so there should have been just as much vacuum there as elsewhere. You're conveniently invoking the same kind of ad hoc directionality which made you reject the radiation hypothesis.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2715
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 591 times
Been thanked: 1639 times

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

Post #2677

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to otseng in post #2679]
I'm claiming there was a vacuum.
The behavior of the cloth during the proposed "dematerialization" would depend on how fast this event was (ignoring the fact that such a thing would require supernatural input). If it were "instant", then the volume occupied by the body would be replaced by (presumably) "nothing" (ie. a perfect vacuum at the instant the event occurred. Air would then rush in from all sides, likely crumpling the cloth as it simultaneously responded to gravity and the lack of support (for the upper sections) pulling it down, and the violent air flow as it rushed in to equalize a roughly 1 Bar pressure differential.

Any image formation, if it is proposed to have occurred during the event, would need to have been essentially instantaneous and coincident with the "dematerialization" itself, otherwise the image distortion from the cloth reacting to the sudden vacuum and resulting air flow would be severe. Does your preferred mechanism for formation of the image allow it to have occurred in milliseconds or less? If the "dematerialization" process was slow (eg. tens of seconds or more) then equilibration of pressure would have occurred at a rate that may have prevented crumpling of the cloth and it would slowly fall due to lack of support and gravity. But that would then eliminate any theories that require a significant vacuum.

The neutron "laser" idea seems completely ridiculous for all kinds of reasons. I'd agree that one can be tossed out entirely.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

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 #2678

Post by earl »

"Any image formation if it is proposed to have occurred during the event ,would need to have been essentially instantaneous and coincident with the dematerialization itself other wise the image distortion from the cloth reacting to the sudden vacuum and resulting air flow would be severe ."


Urantia Book P.189.2.7,189.2.8
A return of the dust to dust without the intervention of the delays of time and without the operation of the ordinary and visible processes of mortal decay and material corruption.
"The mortal remains of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as characterizes all human bodies on earth except that ,in point of time,this natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated ,hastened to the point where it became well nigh instantaneous."

Also NIV Acts 13.37 But the one who God raised from the dead did not see corruption.

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 #2679

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to earl in post #2678
"The mortal remains of Jesus underwent the same natural process of elemental disintegration as characterizes all human bodies on earth except that ,in point of time,this natural mode of dissolution was greatly accelerated ,hastened to the point where it became well nigh instantaneous."
Then how would he have ended up with flesh and bones (still/again) in Luke 24:39?

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 #2680

Post by earl »

Athetotheist,
This reply is going off topic to this main theme so Ill be brief and let otseng continue.
Urantia Book P.189.2.6
"the empty tomb led to the formulation of a belief the body of Jesus was resurrected from the tomb".

Both Luke and John are similar however Mark and Paul are counter statements to these two and do not give credence to a resurrected body from the tomb.
Note that Mary recognized Jesus by his voice.

Post Reply