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

[earl]

An interesting statement from the Urantia Book
P.2037.4
Peter could not get away from the sight of the grave cloths resting there in the tomb as if the body of Jesus had evaporated from within.
Does this wording indicate a collapse theory ?

[TRANSPONDER]

John 20. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the [a]handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.

That doesn't sound like a 'collapse' of the grave -clothes as though the corpse had suddenly vanished, but someone removed the cloth over the face and apparently folded it before placing it aside. Then removing the rest of the wrapping. Thus it appears a third person or persons were involved.

[brunumb]

John 20. 6 Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; and he saw the linen cloths lying there, 7 and the [a]handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.

Does the plural 'cloths' contradict the shroud being a single piece of linen?

[HArnoldJ]

No, it doesn't contradict that the Shroud is a single piece of linen since the Greek word translated as "linen cloths" can also mean single linen cloth or garment.

[otseng]

Your argument against medieval fakery is an argument from ignorance. You assume that no natural process can explain the image because you assume that there can be no natural processes left.

There's no assumption on my part. I've already investigated the major naturalistic explanations for the body image. What naturalistic process have I missed?

"The scourging produced deep stripelike lacerations and appreciable blood loss, and it probably
set the stage for hypovolemic shock, as evidenced by the fact that Jesus was too weakened to carry the
crossbar (patibulum) to Golgotha."

If the scourging had produced appreciable blood loss and the body wasn't washed before burial, we should see a massive blood smear across the back rather than the clear, individual scourge marks we supposedly see. This would indicate that the body was washed before burial, but if that's the case then the blood rivulets elsewhere should have been removed as well.

The overall indication, therefore, is that we're not looking at an actual image of the crucified Jesus.

Actually, I don't believe the scourging was done by flagrums with sharp metal endings, but with rounded metal endings. The former would cause deep lacerations, like what Gibson depicted in the Passion. The latter would not cause deep lacerations. The UV imaging shows the scourging had 2 dumbbell shaped metal endings, which would cause swelling rather than deep cuts. So, I would disagree on this point with the paper.

viewtopic.php?p=1115523#p1115523

[otseng]

That doesn't sound like a 'collapse' of the grave -clothes as though the corpse had suddenly vanished, but someone removed the cloth over the face and apparently folded it before placing it aside. Then removing the rest of the wrapping. Thus it appears a third person or persons were involved.

Again, evidence is against this explanation since the blood stains have no evidence of any smearing, breakage, or cracking.

viewtopic.php?p=1118731#p1118731

Please post evidence someone had removed the body from the shroud.

[otseng]

Does the plural 'cloths' contradict the shroud being a single piece of linen?

The shroud had been cut at one point in its history as evidenced by the side stripe. So, the shroud was actually in two pieces. I explained this at:
viewtopic.php?p=1105582#p1105582

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3065

There's no assumption on my part. I've already investigated the major naturalistic explanations for the body image. What naturalistic process have I missed?

The "major" naturalistic explanations aren't necessarily the only ones. There could be any number of factors not yet considered.

Actually, I don't believe the scourging was done by flagrums with sharp metal endings, but with rounded metal endings. The former would cause deep lacerations, like what Gibson depicted in the Passion. The latter would not cause deep lacerations. The UV imaging shows the scourging had 2 dumbbell shaped metal endings, which would cause swelling rather than deep cuts. So, I would disagree on this point with the paper.

Problem #1.
If the scourging didn't cause bleeding, it weakens the hypovolemic shock hypothesis even further.

Problem #2.
After scourging even with rounded metal endings, carrying the crossbeam to Golgotha----falling several times along the way----and then hanging with the back against the upright support would have opened the swelled skin and caused bleeding anyway, which would bring us back to explaining why there aren't blood patterns where there should be----or why there are blood patterns where there shouldn't be.


"None of the numerous ancient images proposed depict a shape similar to the hypothetical scourge of the Shroud. Vignon was not able to locate a single one, either in real life, drawn or carved, that would leave marks matching those visible on the Shroud.

"But medieval artistic representations often show soldiers striking Jesus with two different scourges, one of cords with knots or spherical weights, sometimes spiked, the other a cluster of switches. These can already be found from the first half of the ninth century; both types can be seen in the thirteenth century.

"These two different scourges are documented in medieval art, not in Roman practices. Moreover, precisely in the middle of the fourteenth century the Flagellants movement began to spread widely. The marks on the man wrapped in the Shroud therefore coincide with wounds familiar to artists of the Middle Ages. Everything is compatible with when the Shroud was created, the first half of the fourteenth century.

"Bible dictionaries and studies on the passion of Christ should remove references to a Roman scourge with pendants or circular weights. This is the product of medieval beliefs, erroneous archaeological identifications, and twentieth century Shroud-related conjectures."

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/12/W ... ing-Jesus/

[otseng]

There's no assumption on my part. I've already investigated the major naturalistic explanations for the body image. What naturalistic process have I missed?

The "major" naturalistic explanations aren't necessarily the only ones. There could be any number of factors not yet considered.

Yes, I could have missed other naturalistic proposals. Do you know of any other naturalistic proposals that exist that I have missed?

Problem #1.
If the scourging didn't cause bleeding, it weakens the hypovolemic shock hypothesis even further.

The bleeding was also from the crown of thorns and the crucifixion wounds. I believe a significant part of his injuries was from the crown of thorns and this was a major contributing factor in his death. Compared to the scourging, the Bible gives much more detail about the crown of thorns and what happened.

Matt 27:29-30
And then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. They spit on him, and took the staff and struck him on the head again and again.

Mark 15:17-19
They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him.

John 19:2-3
The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe and went up to him again and again, saying, "Hail, king of the Jews!" And they slapped him in the face.

This is more like what his crown of thorns looked like. It was more like a helmet of thorns based on the head blood patterns on the TS.



The passages mention the soldiers took a staff and beat him repeatedly on the head with the crown of thorns on. This would cause the thorns to penetrate the scalp and embed into the skull which would cause bleeding and extreme pain. This led to severe weakening and Jesus falling while carrying the cross (perhaps several times). Ultimately a fall led to his shoulder dislocation and he was then physically unable to carry the cross. Simon was picked out of the crowd and then ordered to carry Jesus's cross the rest of the way.

More on the crown of thorns:
viewtopic.php?p=1116603#p1116603

Problem #2.
After scourging even with rounded metal endings, carrying the crossbeam to Golgotha----falling several times along the way----and then hanging with the back against the upright support would have opened the swelled skin and caused bleeding anyway, which would bring us back to explaining why there aren't blood patterns where there should be----or why there are blood patterns where there shouldn't be.

Carrying the cross wouldn't have necessarily opened the swelled skin, but we do see evidence of abrasion marks made by carrying the cross.


viewtopic.php?p=1117201#p1117201

We also see bleeding patterns while Jesus was shifting his weight repeatedly on the cross at the feet and hands.

viewtopic.php?p=1125609#p1125609
viewtopic.php?p=1105368#p1105368

"Bible dictionaries and studies on the passion of Christ should remove references to a Roman scourge with pendants or circular weights. This is the product of medieval beliefs, erroneous archaeological identifications, and twentieth century Shroud-related conjectures.[/i]"

https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/12/W ... ing-Jesus/

As Nicolotti notes, the only scourge artifact he's been able to find is one with 29 bronze balls. So, he refutes his own claim that flagrums with circular weights do not exist.

Modern archeology is far more cautious. It is extremely difficult to find and identify actual scourges because of the perishable materials. Archaeologists must also take great care in accepting older classifications, especially when the artifact was subject to arbitrary additions and restoration attempts by diggers and private collectors.

The only object I have been able to identify that might be a scourge, from Rome but undated, has a handle and 29 bronze balls strung onto two cords.

And just because there is only one flagrum that we've found does not mean other types in the past did not exist. Proposing a flagrum had only 2 balls for each strip instead of 29 balls is not unreasonable.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3069

Yes, I could have missed other naturalistic proposals. Do you know of any other naturalistic proposals that exist that I have missed?

I would say that even the proposals you've mentioned warrant further examination.

The bleeding was also from the crown of thorns and the crucifixion wounds. I believe a significant part of his injuries was from the crown of thorns and this was a major contributing factor in his death. Compared to the scourging, the Bible gives much more detail about the crown of thorns and what happened.

You believe that significant injury came from a few thorns in his scalp?

The passages mention the soldiers took a staff and beat him repeatedly on the head with the crown of thorns on. This would cause the thorns to penetrate the scalp and embed into the skull which would cause bleeding and extreme pain.

The thorns would probably have bent and broken before penetrating the skull.

Carrying the cross wouldn't have necessarily opened the swelled skin, but we do see evidence of abrasion marks made by carrying the cross.

It's most likely that carrying a cross would open swollen skin. Even a skinned knee or elbow can bleed, and skin swollen through abrasion is damaged and even more sensitive.

As Nicolotti notes, the only scourge artifact he's been able to find is one with 29 bronze balls. So, he refutes his own claim that flagrums with circular weights do not exist.

It isn't about whether or not they do exist. It's about whether or not they did exist in the right form and during the right period. Apparently, they didn't.

And just because there is only one flagrum that we've found does not mean other types in the past did not exist. Proposing a flagrum had only 2 balls for each strip instead of 29 balls is not unreasonable.

As you often point out, it's about evidence----and the necessary evidence is currently lacking.