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

[TRANSPONDER]

These are both false statements. Bible scholars agree the gospels were written by anonymous people long after the contemporaries of Jesus were dead. Your ignorance of the source of the Bible is staggering so you should refrain from lecturing others about which you are ignorant.

Debate on facts not your emotions . Mark , Matthew were disciples of Jesus Mark and Luke were disciples Peter and Paul . Jesus had disciples outside the 12 , the gospels were an eyewitness account of Jesus life . ''Bible scholars " give the names of these scholars , their qualifications and the sources of information of these scholars . The scriptures are consistent . Scriptures found in the new testament is supported by the scriptures found in the old testament .

The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (with the modern names of the "Four Evangelists" added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.

The books that you have mentioned are outdated , this is unreliable most credible research is in a 5 year span yet you are mentioning books from 1998 . Provide current evidence of these claims .

The gospels contradict each other in many instances, particularly about the details of the imagined 'resurrection.' If you actually are willing to examine this issue, here's a free book to read:
The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/

This book was written in 2000 , you are providing outdated information which is unreliable , even reading the bibliography of the book all the cited sources are from even starting from the 50s . Provide scriptural references and context of these contradictions . There are even references to resurrection in Hosea and Isaiah and Psalms . It clear that you have not read the bible or have limited knowledge on the scriptures and your not even providing up-to date information . Yet you have the time to be intellectually dishonest and discourteous how disappointing !!

It is a false argument to point to old information and call it out of date. It is only out of date if new information has come up. So far the new information only confirms the old doubts. What you are pleased to designate the 'most credible research' is rather your partial choice if not an unsupported faithclaim. Mind, I do feel that there is too much scholarly acceptance of the claim that the gospels are eyewitness or report of it, were written down within a handful of years of the events and are more or less a reliable record of what happened. I think that is wrong and scholarship will com to recognise that the gospels were written by Greek Christian polemicists, they are not reliable and they date to a hundred or more years after the events. If scholarship is not already becoming aware of this.

The other kid of scholarship that supports gospel reliability is rather Religious apologetics and is, of course, not intellectually honest. It is not intellectually honest to link to a book we have to research rather than you making a case here yourself.

Do you really want to contest the contradictions? You won't get far in trying to push OT quotes fiddled to be prophecies. Here's just one - John has no transfiguration. Compare Luke 9 with John 6 where the transfiguration ought to be but isn't. To save time, the 'different event' and 'Jesus told them to say nothing' excuses have failed. What do you have? Don't disappoint me.

[otseng]

which is why "cloth collapse" doesn't work without careening off into a conveniently oddball process for a body's disappearance.

The "conveniently oddball process" is where the data leads to. Somehow the body simply disappeared after the blood stains were on the cloth and before the body decomposed and in the process left an image. Rather than being an oddball process, it is the most consistent process to explain the body image that we see.

We see in Gothic images the face is normal to thin, not wide as would happen with a bas-relief.

So if a bas-relief were made even more narrow, it could flatten out into a Gothic-shaped image.

The distortion is a result of curvature of the topology of the body. So all the distortions would not be corrected simply by making the bas-relief narrower. There are contours everywhere on the body. How can one make a bas-relief so that all these distortions caused by contours are corrected?

But feel free to bring up that scriptural evidence you're referring to and we can look at them.

Here's a starter I sometimes refer to:
viewtopic.php?t=6580

That topic is on divorce, so I don't see how it's relevant to the resurrection. If there's a specific claim that you made in that thread, please copy it here.

[otseng]

Mind, I do feel that there is too much scholarly acceptance of the claim that the gospels are eyewitness or report of it, were written down within a handful of years of the events and are more or less a reliable record of what happened. I think that is wrong and scholarship will com to recognise that the gospels were written by Greek Christian polemicists, they are not reliable and they date to a hundred or more years after the events. If scholarship is not already becoming aware of this.

So you disagree with the vast majority of Biblical scholars? This will require some strong evidence from you to challenge scholars. Please present it.

Here's just one - John has no transfiguration.

As mentioned before, this is easily explained by the fact that Lazarus wrote the book of John, not John the disciple.

[otseng]

The more I read and listen to all the skeptical arguments against the resurrection, fundamentally, there is only one argument against it - nothing supernatural can happen. Whether it's skeptics arguing against the textual evidence of the minimal facts argument by Habermas and Licona or it's the artifact evidence of the TS and the cloth collapse theory, the reason a resurrection is rejected is supernaturalistic explanations are rejected a priori. This is so ingrained in most peoples' minds that they fail to recognize that philosophical naturalism is only an assumption. It is assumed to be true, but in fact there is no way to demonstrate it is actually true. The problem shows up in that there is no consistent definition of what is "natural". And it shows up where naturalists are left with either saying "I don't know how it happened" or even proposing non-natural explanations for past events.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2892

The "conveniently oddball process" is where the data leads to. Somehow the body simply disappeared after the blood stains were on the cloth and before the body decomposed and in the process left an image. Rather than being an oddball process, it is the most consistent process to explain the body image that we see.

You're still relying on the assumption that the cloth was wrapped around a body.

The distortion is a result of curvature of the topology of the body. So all the distortions would not be corrected simply by making the bas-relief narrower. There are contours everywhere on the body. How can one make a bas-relief so that all these distortions caused by contours are corrected?

A bas-relief doesn't have to recreate all the contours of a body, only the ones which will create a forward image.

That topic is on divorce, so I don't see how it's relevant to the resurrection. If there's a specific claim that you made in that thread, please copy it here.

You invited me to present textual evidence that Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah and I provided some.

Sorry for not being specific; I don't know of a way to link to individual posts. The last post in that thread (#105) essentially sums up the point.

[Adonai Yahweh]

It is a false argument to point to old information and call it out of date. It is only out of date if new information has come up. So far the new information only confirms the old doubts. What you are pleased to designate the 'most credible research' is rather your partial choice if not an unsupported faithclaim. Mind, I do feel that there is too much scholarly acceptance of the claim that the gospels are eyewitness or report of it, were written down within a handful of years of the events and are more or less a reliable record of what happened. I think that is wrong and scholarship will com to recognise that the gospels were written by Greek Christian polemicists, they are not reliable and they date to a hundred or more years after the events. If scholarship is not already becoming aware of this.

It's basic research conduct using research that is older than 5 years is unreliable . And thats for various reasons 1. The field of research has advanced significantly. New discoveries and technologies can change the way we understand a topic, making older research obsolete. For example, research on the effects of smoking on health conducted in the 1960s would be considered outdated today, as we now know much more about the dangers of smoking.
2. Research methods and standards change over time, so older research may not have been conducted using the same rigorous standards as more recent research. There older research is unreliable because the research methods used are outdated and less rigorous . The authors credentials and publisher also matters , because anyone can just make up information . This is standard research procedure , basic knowledge to a university graduate , when writing research assignments or having debates up-to date information has to be used meaning otherwise its not valid . Stating claims from information that is even older than 22 years is intellectually dishonest . And present this new information that confirms the old and that the gospels were written by Greek Christian polemicists . And what are the credentials of the " scholarship " .

Do you really want to contest the contradictions? You won't get far in trying to push OT quotes fiddled to be prophecies. Here's just one - John has no transfiguration. Compare Luke 9 with John 6 where the transfiguration ought to be but isn't. To save time, the 'different event' and 'Jesus told them to say nothing' excuses have failed. What do you have? Don't disappoint me.

The contradictions are viewed by an atheist mind due to the limited understanding of bible , and its not like you are actually reading to understand what is been said you are reading to satisfy your perceptions . The bible is a historical and metaphoric , for example when in Proverbs 20:1 it says " Wine is mocker , strong drink is a brawler, and whoever is led astray by it is not wise. " It does not actually mean that wine can mock someone or that a strong drink can brawl it speaks about when someone who led by wine and strong drink ( over indulgences of these drinks ) they will mock people and fight people because they are under the influence of alcohol and it not wise to do so ... the message is to drink in moderation . When the consistency is spoken about we are comparing old material and new material this is common sense , meaning that we are comparing the old testament and the new testament . The transfiguration is in Exodus and 2 Kings that is then confirmed in Luke , Matthew and Mark . To say that transfiguration was meant to be John 6 , under what premise do you have to come to that conclusion ??? What credentials do have to be making such a claim ??

[otseng]

You're still relying on the assumption that the cloth was wrapped around a body.

I presented my argument that it involved an actual body here:
viewtopic.php?p=1126026#p1126026

So, the evidence supports a body was involved.

The distortion is a result of curvature of the topology of the body. So all the distortions would not be corrected simply by making the bas-relief narrower. There are contours everywhere on the body. How can one make a bas-relief so that all these distortions caused by contours are corrected?

A bas-relief doesn't have to recreate all the contours of a body, only the ones which will create a forward image.

What I'm saying is contours on a bas-relief will cause image distortions. In order to correct for these distortions, you already stated that the bas-relief was somehow made differently in order compensate for the distortions ("So if a bas-relief were made even more narrow, it could flatten out into a Gothic-shaped image"). Not only would the bas-relief have to made narrower to compensate for a wide body image, it would have to compensate wherever there is curvature on the bas-relief (face, eyes, nose, chest, arms, fingers, legs, etc). It is not simply just making the bas-relief narrower, but every place on the bas-relief would have to be adjusted.

That topic is on divorce, so I don't see how it's relevant to the resurrection. If there's a specific claim that you made in that thread, please copy it here.

You invited me to present textual evidence that Jesus wasn't the Jewish Messiah and I provided some.

Sorry for not being specific; I don't know of a way to link to individual posts. The last post in that thread (#105) essentially sums up the point.

Just click on the post number and then you'll get the link in the address bar.

You mean this post?
viewtopic.php?p=1029002#p1029002

[otseng]

Larry Stalley notes that 2 Timothy 4:13 could be a reference to the shroud.

https://www.academia.edu/47520165/_BRIN ... othy_4_13_

2Ti 4:13
The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2ti/4/13/s_1129013

In Greek, the passage is:
τὸν φαιλόνην, ὃν ἀπέλιπον ἐν Τρῳάδι παρὰ Κάρπῳ, ἐρχόμενος φέρε, καὶ τὰ βιβλία, μάλιστα τὰς μεμβράνας.

A literal translation would be:
“The cloak, (the one) that I left in Troas with Carpus, (when) coming (you)
bring, and the books, especially the parchments.”

The emphasis is on the cloak. And then it mentions the books and parchments afterwards, which is of secondary importance.

Cloak is φαιλόνης (phailonēs). This word is found only in this passage. Though it is translated cloak, it can also mean a mantle.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

The root of φαιλόνης is φαίνω (phainō), which means "appear, shine, exposed."
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

Phelonion is a derived word from phailonēs that means a kind of mantle worn by Byzantine priests.

The phelonion (Greek: φαιλόνιον, plural, φαιλόνια, phailónia; Latin: paenula, Russian: Фело́нь - Felón’) is a liturgical vestment worn by a priest of the Byzantine Christian tradition. It is worn over the priest's other vestments and is equivalent to the chasuble of Western Christianity.

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

Late Greek phelónion a kind of mantle, alteration of phainólis; akin to phaínein to shine

https://www.wordreference.com/definition/phelonion

The traditional view is Paul wrote 2 Timothy while in Rome.

Paul wrote this second letter to Timothy during his second imprisonment in Rome, shortly before his death. This imprisonment was after the one recorded in Acts 28. He probably wrote it in A.D. 64–65, though some would place it as late as 67.

https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-globa ... 2-timothy/

Paul had travelled to Troas several times:

Act 16:8
And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.

Act 16:11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course to Samothracia, and the next [day] to Neapolis;

Act 20:5-6 These going before tarried for us at Troas. 6 And we sailed away from Philippi after the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas in five days; where we abode seven days.

2Co 2:12 Furthermore, when I came to Troas to [preach] Christ's gospel, and a door was opened unto me of the Lord,

Troas is located in northwest modern Turkey.

Troas, also called Troad, the land of Troy, ancient district formed mainly by the northwestern projection of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) into the Aegean Sea.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Assus

2 Timothy was the last letter Paul wrote.

Chronologically, 2 Timothy appears to be Paul’s final letter in the New Testament

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... y?lang=eng

Luke was with Paul when he wrote the letter.

2Ti 4:11
Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry.

If it was clothing that Paul was asking for, why would he have left it in another city hundreds of miles away? Why would he now ask for it? If he was cold, couldn't he get a cloak from a nearby clothing store? Or why didn't he ask Luke, who was with him, to get him a clock? Why would a cloak be considered more important than the books/scripture?

If it was the shroud, then perhaps he wanted to see it one last time before he died, in addition to seeing the books/scripture. Or he was going to use it to preach to the Romans. It would also make more sense to have left the shroud in Troas so they could use it during their evangelism.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2897

What I'm saying is contours on a bas-relief will cause image distortions. In order to correct for these distortions, you already stated that the bas-relief was somehow made differently in order compensate for the distortions* ("So if a bas-relief were made even more narrow, it could flatten out into a Gothic-shaped image"). Not only would the bas-relief have to made narrower to compensate for a wide body image, it would have to compensate wherever there is curvature on the bas-relief (face, eyes, nose, chest, arms, fingers, legs, etc). It is not simply just making the bas-relief narrower, but every place on the bas-relief would have to be adjusted.

*I said it could have been made differently.

"Nickell's first rubbing was done using an available bas-relief—a four-
inch oblique (nonfrontal) view of the face of Bing Crosby. STURP applied
its mapping function to a half-tone magazine photograph of this image and
found it wanting. As expected, it exhibits the three-dimensional informa-
tion it picked up from the bas-relief, but STURP's three-dimensional
reconstruction from it is badly distorted in places. Whether or not this is a
proper and significant test is highly debatable, but nevertheless STURP
has made much of this "failure"."

Distorted "in places"? Does that mean in some places but not in others?

And note the quotation marks around "failure".


And you've never adequately explained why the gap at the head is so well-defined, with no tapering distortion as the curvature of the cranium added to the "angle encoding".

You mean this post?
viewtopic.php?p=1029002#p1029002

That's the one.

[otseng]

"Nickell's first rubbing was done using an available bas-relief—a four-
inch oblique (nonfrontal) view of the face of Bing Crosby. STURP applied
its mapping function to a half-tone magazine photograph of this image and
found it wanting. As expected, it exhibits the three-dimensional informa-
tion it picked up from the bas-relief, but STURP's three-dimensional
reconstruction from it is badly distorted in places. Whether or not this is a
proper and significant test is highly debatable, but nevertheless STURP
has made much of this "failure"."

Distorted "in places"? Does that mean in some places but not in others?

And note the quotation marks around "failure".

This is a different type of distortion than what I'm referring to. I was talking about distortion from a cloth pressed against a body and then pressed flat. Here it is talking about 3-D imaging distortion, which points to lack of true depth encoding.

And you've never adequately explained why the gap at the head is so well-defined, with no tapering distortion as the curvature of the cranium added to the "angle encoding".

What do you mean by "tapering distortion"?

You mean this post?
viewtopic.php?p=1029002#p1029002

That's the one.

Here's the post in its entirety:

Jesus didn't speak about disobedience he spoke about "stubborness of heart", in other words a mental inclination.

Right-----a mental inclination toward disobedience. Stubbornness requires a context. People can't just "be stubborn"; they have to be stubborn about something. If Jesus wasn't saying that they were disobedient, then he must have been admitting that they were obedient. If they were obedient, how were they being stubborn?

"Therefore circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be stiff-necked (stubborn) no longer." (Deut. 10:16)

How could Moses write a flexibility for their stubbornness into the same law in which he explicitly tells them to stop being stubborn?

There was no law that commanded people to be stubborn

I didn't say there was. You're the one building strawmen.

and nothing in the law that prohibited divorce.

That's what I've been saying. By admitting that Jesus violates Deut. 4:2 by adding to the law in Matt.5:32, you're making my argument for me.

I fail to see any relevance of this to the resurrection.