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]

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.

I'm not so sure the foot image is the darkest. Yes, there's blood there, which would make the composite darker, but it doesn't mean the linen fibers on the foot is the darkest.

Again, here are the facts:

A44) The luminance level of the head image in the positive photograph of Durante (2000) is 10%
and more lower (darker) than that of the whole body image (Moran 2002).

A47) A body image color is visible on the back surface of the cloth in the same position of some
anatomic details as for the body image of the frontal surface of the TS. The hair appears more
easily to the naked eye (Ghiberti 2002) but also other details of face and perhaps hands appear by
image enhancement (Maggiolo 2002/03, Fanti and Maggiolo 2004).

https://shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf

What then can account for these?

[otseng]

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. [/size]

Your claim I have nonsensical beliefs makes no sense. I've been logically presenting my case and supporting it with evidence and cite all my sources. The only responses you have been making are illogical and fallacious arguments. It is not me that have the nonsensical beliefs and ridiculous arguments.

[otseng]

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.

Who said I'm trying to confirm anything? Again, all I'm claiming is it is the most viable explanation out of all the possible explanations.

[otseng]

So, what could've caused Jesus to dematerialize? We have no naturalistic scenarios to explain this. It would be a miracle. It is not a proof of Jesus' resurrection, but it would be a rational conclusion given all the evidence from the shroud.

The obvious point of weakness in the design argument from the Shroud is
that our evidence that weak dematerialization was the mechanism by which the
Shroud was formed, while impressive, is not conclusive. However, the conjecture
that a very powerful intelligence would be responsible for such an extraordinary
event seems highly plausible.

The design argument from the
Shroud, however, on the Jackson-Trenn theory, shows that some intelligent,
purposive, and very powerful agent has acted in a specific event in comparatively
recent history.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wiebe.pdf

So, what we have with the Shroud of Turin is verifiable evidence that supports the claim of the resurrection of Jesus.

On this theory, the Shroud offers evidence for two of the three crucial elements
implied by the claim that a Resurrection took place. This is an important
achievement, for two centuries of biblical criticism, much of it directed against the
Resurrection, in conjunction with increased standards of evidence as science has
been incorporated into all forms of critical thinking, have undermined confidence
both inside and outside the Church that the Resurrection ever occurred.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wiebe.pdf

What is also interesting is Jesus said his resurrection would be the only evidence he would provide that he is the Messiah.

When asked by the Pharisees to show that he is from God, Jesus replied with the sign of Jonah.

[Mat 12:38-40 NIV] Then some of the Pharisees and teachers of the law said to him, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from you." 39 He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. 40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

He also had said he would rebuild the temple in 3 days.

[Jhn 2:18-19 NIV] 18 The Jews then responded to him, "What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" 19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

Both of these are references to him being resurrected after three days.

This evidence was not only for the Jews of the first century. It is evidence for us today as well. We have the actual shroud of Jesus in our hands today that testifies to Jesus being the Messiah.

[boatsnguitars]

So, the artist deliberately dropped blood where the wounds would have been. And this amazes you?

Yes, because he put the blood on where it should be as if the body was covered with the cloth, even if it was not part of the body image on the cloth. What artist would even think of that?

I'm talking about hand prints as they lathered Jesus up, then grabbed the cloth and wrapped him.

Is this seen on any ancient burial cloth?

BTW, I watched a portion of the video. Painful! What about load of motivated reasoning! It's horrible. I stopped when he said he was amazed that Photoshop can make a 2D image look 3D. He's a moron.

This is a BBC video, not some video an amateur produced in his basement.

C'mon, man! JUst look at it! It's a Medieval painting.

It's been proven it's not a painting. Refer to:
viewtopic.php?p=1124026#p1124026

This is why these religious people can't be trusted. Not only do they have a financial reason to lie to you, they don't even understand the subject matter. It's Ken Ham all over again.

Instead of just constantly making wild assertions, please argue logically backed with evidence.

It's a painting. It was proven in 1978.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Who said I'm trying to confirm anything? Again, all I'm claiming is it is the most viable explanation out of all the possible explanations.

In explaining the unexplainable, any cockamamie hypothesis is as equally valid as any other. To claim one guess is superior to another is, I contend, better an example of how proud one is for their beliefs, and less about their explanation.

This is an important consideration, especially considering how dismissive you are of the three points I've presented.

[Athetotheist]

I'm not so sure the foot image is the darkest. Yes, there's blood there, which would make the composite darker, but it doesn't mean the linen fibers on the foot is the darkest.

In the images which you yourself posted.....

https://www.raydowning.com/blog/2016/2/ ... d-of-turin

.....the blood pattern on the bottom of the left foot is spotty. You yourself took the position that a darker image indicates deeper cloth penetration, and that cloth penetration accounts for an "x-ray" effect on the hands. In the area of the left foot where the blood pattern is not present, and where there is no "x-ray" effect, the image is clearly darker than the finger images. So here, again, the cloth-penetration hypothesis fails.

What is also interesting is Jesus said his resurrection would be the only evidence he would provide that he is the Messiah.

He shouldn't have had to provide the people of his day with any evidence that he was the Messiah. When asked for a sign he should have said, "You've already been given a sign; Isaiah prophesied my birth to a virgin."

If his resurrection was to be the only sign that he was the Messiah, then he must not have had a virgin birth----which, from a Christian perspective, means that he wasn't the Messiah.

Again----you have acknowledged that the Bible itself isn't inerrant and are relying on the Turin cloth to give you an end-run around that problem.

[Diogenes]

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.

Your claim I have nonsensical beliefs makes no sense. I've been logically presenting my case and supporting it with evidence and cite all my sources. The only responses you have been making are illogical and fallacious arguments. It is not me that have the nonsensical beliefs and ridiculous arguments.

I agree; it would make no sense if I had said that about you. I did not; however, if you are agreeing you see jesus on a dog's butt or piece of toast and actually believe that image is Jesus, or is a miracle, then that would be nonsensical. A sensible reaction to seeing a person in a cloud or on toast or elsewhere would be to acknowledge that homo sapiens is a pattern seeking/recognizing organism.

To be clear, I do not see your pursuit of the "Shroud of Turin" as actually being an image caused by a supernatural phenomenon caused by a Jesus-God as anything other than a rational (tho' misguided/incorrect) opinion or obsession that fits within the realm of normal human behavior. It is normal for humans to have biases. I have some myself.

Let me add:
During the first 30 or so years of my life I frequently thought Jesus was God and loved and admired him. I still think Jesus is an admirable human and leader and great teacher whom I wish I was more like. I just don't think he is/was a god, nor do I think HE thought he was God.

There are many things we cannot yet explain or understand completely. There are many things in the past we could not explain, yet now we can. I believe it is irrational to assume that just because we cannot at this moment explain those phenomena, that they prove our favorite religios belief is therefore true.

To be clear, I think all beliefs in the supernatural are non rational, but I also believe it is normal to have some irrational beliefs; i.e. when I say a belief is not rational I do not necessarily consider that use of "irrational" to be a pejorative. Homo Sapiens , even such an enlightened example as myself, probably has some non rational beliefs. I just can't think of one at the moment.

[otseng]

It's a painting. It was proven in 1978.

Actually, it's the opposite. It was proven not to be a painting in 1978.

Editor's Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data and the submission of their research to highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journals, the following official Summary of STURP's Conclusions was written by John Heller (in non-technical language) and distributed at the press conference held after STURP's final meeting in October 1981:

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

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. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

[otseng]

In explaining the unexplainable, any cockamamie hypothesis is as equally valid as any other. To claim one guess is superior to another is, I contend, better an example of how proud one is for their beliefs, and less about their explanation.

This is an important consideration, especially considering how dismissive you are of the three points I've presented.

Not all theories are equally valid as another. Would you accept that argument if I said creationism is just as valid as evolution because "any cockamamie hypothesis is as equally valid as any other"?

As I stated at the outset, here are the qualifications used to determine what theory is the best:

The best theory would:
- explain the most features on the shroud
- not involve methods that have been scientifically ruled out
- have the least ad hoc proposals

This criteria is used not just for this exercise, but also in science, history, and law. So, please explain how any other theory better explains the features of the shroud than the cloth collapse theory.