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]

Nor is he showing it penetrated any part of the body.

As we all know, speculation doesn't always represent fact.

If you have another theory for the image creation, photonegative effect, x-ray effect, long fingers, depth encoding, angle encoding, et al., then please provide it. I'm not claiming the cloth collapse theory is a fact, I'm claiming it is the best theory out of all the theories. It is entirely possible there is a better explanation that I have not come across yet, so please present it.

[otseng]

Sorry if you think so, but so very many lies and illogical claims have been made in the support of some religious belief, including hundreds of miraculous claims about Jesus or Mary appearing on various objects that the scamming needs to be ridiculed.

This is further evidence your arguments are fallacious. It is not my arguments that should be rejected, but yours.

Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ad absurdo, or the horse laugh)[1] is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

Appeal to Ridicule is an informal fallacy which claims an argument to be ridiculous or absurd. The fallacy uses this claim in an attempt to invalidate the argument since it is not worth entertaining.

Appeal to ridicule can be used in conjunction with other fallacies such as appeal to emotion. Sarcasm can also be used as a means of appeal to ridicule.

https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal ... icule.html

[otseng]

To summarize the top imaging theories:

The imaging theories can be broadly grouped into naturalistic explanations (NE) and non-naturalistic/supernatural explanations (SE).

Naturalistic explanations can be subdivided into a work of an artist (NE-art) or something that would happen naturally without any involvement of an artist (NE-nature).

NE-art would involve things like painting, scorch, dye, rubbing, photograph, and bas-relief. This is the least likely since this was the conclusion of the 1978 STURP investigation:
viewtopic.php?p=1124026#p1124026

I've also argued there is virtual silence from the art community on the TS. Yet, the TS is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history. So, it makes no sense the TS is a work of art.

I've spent time on the bas-relief in several posts arguing it is not viable:
viewtopic.php?p=1113694#p1113694
viewtopic.php?p=1124310#p1124310
viewtopic.php?p=1124427#p1124427

I've also addressed the proto-photograph method:
viewtopic.php?p=1124231#p1124231

The top NE-nature explanation is the Maillard reaction, proposed by Ray Rogers. I've addressed that at:
viewtopic.php?p=1124081#p1124081

Three top SE explanations are corona/electrostatic discharge, neutron emission, and cloth collapse.

I've addressed the corona/electrostatic discharge:
viewtopic.php?p=1124174#p1124174

and the neutron emission:
viewtopic.php?p=1124551#p1124551

I presented the cloth collapse here:
viewtopic.php?p=1123740#p1123740

There are actually more theories than what I've presented, but most all the others are variations on the ones above.

There is no theory that fully explains all the features of the body image, but the one that explains the most is Jackson's cloth collapse theory.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2730

Since the facial area is darker, I believe the dematerialization process took longer at the facial area. Like one toast is darker than another since it's been in the toaster longer. Since it took longer, it would mean the cloth could travel longer and thus deeper.

If darker means deeper, then the cloth should have gone the deepest on the bottom of the left foot----the darkest part of the whole image. Yet no foot bones are seen.

And you're not explaining why dematerializing would take longer in some places than in others. You've come up with this "piece-by-piece" dematerializing, but that's really just trying to make the facts fit the hypothesis rather than making the hypothesis fit the facts.

[Diogenes]

Sorry if you think so, but so very many lies and illogical claims have been made in the support of some religious belief, including hundreds of miraculous claims about Jesus or Mary appearing on various objects that the scamming needs to be ridiculed.

This is further evidence your arguments are fallacious. It is not my arguments that should be rejected, but yours.

Now you resort to a mere claim, without evidence or argument. Citing to informal fallacies neither bolsters nor supports your claim.
I say it is self evident that when someone claims a "miracle" because they think they see Jesus on a dog's butt or a piece of burnt toast, they are being ridiculous and no amount of reasoning will counter such nonsensical beliefs. But, perhaps that is the very nature of religion, that it is beyond reason.

[JoeyKnothead]

I want people, including you, to attack my arguments. But I want it to be on par with argumentation that would pass professionals in the field. I want the debate to be at the highest level possible for a public forum. This means relevant and rational argumentation with supporting evidence and references. A good place to start is to find shroud skeptics and what they've written and quote their arguments and evidence. I'm not talking about simply quoting articles from news outlets, which tend to sensationalize. I'll even let you know who I consider to be the most educated shroud skeptic there is - Hugh Farey. He has many articles and is very active in the shroud community.

I have attacked your arguments, but your response is to declare my own arguments "irrelevant", or "red herrings". Such leaves me to conclude presenting arguments made by someone else would likely be met with charges of plagiarism.

As to "educated shroud skeptic", I have an eighth grade education, and even I can see that claiming the image on the shroud to be that of the biblical Jesus has not been, nor likely ever will be, confirmed, or confirmable.

I see little reason to continue studying a relic of dubious origin, except as relates to the psychology of religious belief.

[JoeyKnothead]

Nor is he showing it penetrated any part of the body.

As we all know, speculation doesn't always represent fact.

If you have another theory for the image creation, photonegative effect, x-ray effect, long fingers, depth encoding, angle encoding, et al., then please provide it. I'm not claiming the cloth collapse theory is a fact, I'm claiming it is the best theory out of all the theories. It is entirely possible there is a better explanation that I have not come across yet, so please present it.

My position remains - without some means to confirm these various hypotheses, speculation is what's being engaged.

I see nothing in the shroud to warrant the conclusion some entity within was "spirited away". Until such can be confirmed, I see just another religious relic.

I seek to understand the following...

1. If The claim of a virgin birth producing a y chromosome can't be confirmed, biblical Jesus likely never existed.

2. If we consider biblical Jesus to've existed, we have no image to compare.

3. If we consider biblical Jesus to've existed, we have no blood sample to compare.

These three points, investigatively fundamental, have yet to be confirmed. Lacking such, speculation abounds.

[brunumb]

If The claim of a virgin birth producing a y chromosome can't be confirmed, biblical Jesus likely never existed.

What if Jesus was born a female but raised as male? No Y-chromosome necessary.

[JoeyKnothead]

If The claim of a virgin birth producing a y chromosome can't be confirmed, biblical Jesus likely never existed.

What if Jesus was born a female but raised as male? No Y-chromosome necessary.

In a male centric society, surely that would be a blasphemy of a most unholy order.

But I can't refute it. Good catch.

[brunumb]

If The claim of a virgin birth producing a y chromosome can't be confirmed, biblical Jesus likely never existed.

What if Jesus was born a female but raised as male? No Y-chromosome necessary.

In a male centric society, surely that would be a blasphemy of a most unholy order.

But I can't refute it. Good catch.

Besides, based on modern ideology, if Jesus self-identified as a male, or even as God, then we must accept it.