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]

This is the argument from incredulity fallacy.

It's entirely possible any of my arguments are fallacious. But, if you're going to do it, you'll have to cite the fallacy correctly.

I'll extend this and say it could be any of my arguments are incorrect. I've heard many things that are incorrect, even from shroud proponents. And it's unlikely everything I've stated is correct. But, to show what I've presented is incorrect, logical argumentation needs to presented backed with evidence, not with claims like, "Look at it! It's a painting!", "C'mon! Look at it!".

[otseng]

Do you really think it is the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in? Why should they have kept it and not just thrown it away or used it to another body...

Of course I believe it's the cloth Jesus was wrapped in. Here's my final argument that I presented:
viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

Sure, if was not the burial cloth of Jesus, it would just be reused for something else. But, if it actually was the burial cloth of Jesus, then it'd be a powerful testimony of Jesus' scourging, crucifixion, death, and resurrection.

Also, please stop adding the videos, they have nothing to do with the discussion.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2767

This is how Jackson proposed the body was wrapped....

The body was entirely covered by the cloth. You can see there is more volume under the hands and face as compared to the feet.

Yet there's a clear, dark image of the bottom of one foot----including the heel. The first photo you posted shows the fabric covering that heel at the same angle at which it would have covered the top of the head----where there is no image.

[boatsnguitars]

This is the argument from incredulity fallacy.

It's entirely possible any of my arguments are fallacious. But, if you're going to do it, you'll have to cite the fallacy correctly.

I'll extend this and say it could be any of my arguments are incorrect. I've heard many things that are incorrect, even from shroud proponents. And it's unlikely everything I've stated is correct. But, to show what I've presented is incorrect, logical argumentation needs to presented backed with evidence, not with claims like, "Look at it! It's a painting!", "C'mon! Look at it!".

But, look at it. It's a Medieval painting. The paint fell off long ago because it's fabric, or it was done in a unique method - but the guy confessed to it. It was dated to that period.

This is Baysian all the way. It's more likely that it's a Medieval scam than actual proof that Jesus rose from the dead - or whatever anyone else is going to claim.

Just because you don't know how it was done doesn't make it a miracle.

Just look at it. Medieval art. Dated, fabric style, confession, etc., etc - Then you have the anomaly hunting, wacky Christians with motivated reasoning from STURP.

C'mon, man!

[JoeyKnothead]

My logic indicates you're confusing the fact of evolution with explanations about it.

What about evolution impacts on claims regarding the shroud and Jesus?

I'm making no claims about evolution. I'm simply showing the logic of your argument is invalid.

So we dismiss any and all arguments borne of an evolutionary event, and are still stuck with how to confirm this image on this cloth belongs to biblical Jesus.

And how does the virgin birth impact any claims on the shroud?

Again, with your logic, since science cannot prove abiogenesis is true, then evolution is not true.

I notice you have much to fuss about with my logic, while using an immeasurably goofy amount of your own.

Let's all now remove "abiogenesis" as having anything to do with it, and ask how the absence of it lends credence to the "He's on the Shroud, Dangit" crowd.

Those rational arguments permeate this thread. Your inability to recognize them as such has nothing to do with it.

I agree, I fail to see any substantive counterarguments from the skeptics.

Poor feller.

That is why I'm willing to let the shroud professionals judge. Yet, nobody is willing to take me up on this.

That threat does seem to've outlasted the lettuce.

Will the not actually submitting one's guesses, to professional scrutiny, outlast a hermetically sealed Big Mac?

I'm reminded of how the pretty thing's come to ask me if I put the trash out - right before it is she asks me, if I want me some dessert. I get dessert every time she doesn't ask. I'm starving over here.

But any way...
We have some astoundingly extraordinary claims to sort out here...

I got me this Jesus shroud, and I came here knocking on your door with the express intent of telling how proud I am of it.

Now we're confronted with the hundred or more however manys it takes to establish this Jesus feller actually exists. So the first obstacle is...

It's reported he was borne of a virgin pregnancy and birth...

Everybody say it with me... "Y CHROMOSOME!"

So let's sort this, in at least two ways...

1. Jesus was borne of him a magic birth and you and your y chromosome can go eat a pile of mud.

2. We'll dismiss us the mud pile eating, and profer "He was real, it's just these folks..."

On the first'n, well there we go. On the second'n...

Jesus is just another preacher, it's just he got him strung up in a most peculiar way.

That last'n seems to fuss up against a supernatural solution.

What is more reasonable then whose arguments are rational?

I normally just ninja edit what I think are typos - which we all stand guilty of the doing - so I do my best to sort it...

What is more reasonable than whose arguments are rational?"

Those whose arguments are correct.

In getting at this shroud, I'm confronted with more problems than I am facts.

[otseng]

Yet there's a clear, dark image of the bottom of one foot----including the heel. The first photo you posted shows the fabric covering that heel at the same angle at which it would have covered the top of the head----where there is no image.

Can you post which photo you are referring to?

[otseng]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2781]

Umm, you're just simply repeating your same unsupported assertions.

Really, this is just additional evidence there are no rational counterarguments and each successive post like this affirms the validity of my arguments. Instead, please address my concluding argument with evidence and cited sources.

[otseng]

1. Jesus was borne of him a magic birth and you and your y chromosome can go eat a pile of mud.

Using your logic, abiogenesis is a pile a mud, literally. Since abiogenesis is some magical incantation of producing a living cell out of primordial soup that cannot be proved to be veridical, evolution has no legs to stand on.

In getting at this shroud, I'm confronted with more problems than I am facts.

I spent a lot of time presenting the facts on the shroud. The issue is what explanation best explains the facts. So, besides Jackson's cloth collapse theory, what do you believe it is? If you have no alternative, then the cloth collapse is by default the best explanation.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #2781]

Umm, you're just simply repeating your same unsupported assertions.

Really, this is just additional evidence there are no rational counterarguments and each successive post like this affirms the validity of my arguments. Instead, please address my concluding argument with evidence and cited sources.

There is nothing else to discuss. It's a Medieval forgery. Your argument is simply ID all over again....

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2776

Can you post which photo you are referring to?