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

[JoeyKnothead]

If it's the work of a god, then surely it'd be easy to show such is the case. Right?

The TS is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history, so it will take a long time to go through all the evidence and arguments. In terms of providing evidence, it is easy to find and present. In terms of how long it'll take to present it, it'll be hard.

Meh. How much something has been studied doesn't really tell us much more than how much it was studied.

The owners of the shroud have blocked the use of any new samples. To some, this may be seen as an attempt to stymie, well, study.

The thing with rational thought is, where we don't know something, we don't default to the gods as an explanation.

Where's all the rational thought from skeptics?

Spread among the pages of this thread.

Rather, it's been mostly fallacious arguments by the skeptics and not willing to back up their claims with evidence.

Facts have been presented that refute your contentions. That you find those facts fallacious is sound indication your faith will not be burdened with em.

Who said I'm defaulting to God? Only when there are no viable naturalistic explanations will non-natural explanations be entertained. So, please provide evidence of a viable naturalistic explanation of the TS.

They're scattered throughout this thread. I trust the observer can separate the chaff and the wheat.

We see you're well versed in declaring what the shroud ain't...
So now just go on and show us what it is.

That's what I'm doing, but it will take a long time to present all the evidence and arguments before I reach my final argument.

We can predict your final argument as sure as we can predict it'll be Friday just as soon as Thursday lets up.

Go ahead, show us all how a god made this image on this cloth.

Do you concede there are no viable naturalistic explanations?

My conceding ain't gonna do a bit to putting a supernatural explanation onto this.

I propose that all that which exists or occurs in nature, is, by definition, natural. If my position holds true, even you have a possibility of showing this is all a natural thing, whether a god's involved or not.

Surely God wouldn't leave you hanging here, in front of him and everybody. Right?

Who's the one hanging? I've been providing evidence and will be continuing to do so. As I've mentioned, it's doubtful I'm even halfway through with presenting all the evidence.

Well wake me up when you do

The bottom line here is that if we disregard all we know about the shroud, you'll still never show it to be the product of the supernatural.

You'll never show the image is that of the biblical Jesus, nor will you ever show a blood match. Nevermind DNA, you don't even know Jesus' blood type.

The data present within and without this thread leads to the most reasonable conclusion being the shroud is a religious icon of dubious origins. It fails as a relic because it lacks the provenance (among other data) required to establish its relicicity.

[Diogenes]

We could always ask actual scientists in the appropriate field.
"Forensic scientists have once again concluded that the Shroud of Turin, supposedly the burial cloth Jesus was wrapped in after his crucifixion, was artificially created."

The new research is in line with numerous previous studies that have concluded that the Shroud is not authentic. Earlier carbon dating work has determined that it dates to 1260 to 1390; Jesus is generally believed to have died in the year 33. And a blue ribbon panel called the Turin Commission concluded in 1979 that stains on the garment are likely pigments, not blood, while textiles experts and art historians have suggested that the materials and images are not from the right era.

As early as 1390, about 35 years after the Shroud first emerged in France, Pierre d'Arcis, the Catholic bishop in Troyes, wrote to Pope Clement VII that the shroud was "a clever sleight of hand" by someone "falsely declaring this was the actual shroud in which Jesus was enfolded in the tomb to attract the multitude so that money might cunningly be wrung from them."

In the Journal of Forensic Science actual scientists looked particularly closely at the stains of the left arm to determine consistency between the stains of the hand and the forearm.

Using synthetic and real human blood throughout several experimental poses, the researchers determined that the blood patterns "would have to occur at different times, and (should the Shroud be authentic) a particular sequence of events or movements would have to be imagined to account for these patterns,"

"Borrini, a Roman Catholic, said his findings — which he said had resulted in backlash from certain members of the religious community and "personal attacks" — are in line with the church's position. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Shroud to be an icon, not a holy relic.

Others have stated, "The level of credulity needed to believe this piece of cloth is actually from the 1st Century or from a crucifixion beggars the mind."

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/f ... ke-n892251

[Diogenes]

'Eyewitnesses Testify Shroud of Turin a Fake'


"Two men, [John the Apostle and Simon Peter] who personally investigated the tomb of Jesus early on the morning of the disappearance of his body, present testimony which seriously jeopardizes the validity of the famous shroud of Turin.*
....
they also found a facial napkin used to wrap the head. The use of such a napkin would have prevented an image of the face from forming on the outer linens. The Shroud of Turin is a fake."
https://www.chick.com/battle-cry/articl ... rin-a-fake

______________________
*Reported in THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST JOHN, (Ch. 20)

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2227

If the TS is the work of an artist, all these questions should easily be answered. It's not like the artist would've been superhuman and be able to do things we cannot understand. Shouldn't it be easy to provide a naturalistic explanation for all the features of the shroud? If not, why would that be the case?

Naturalistic explanations don't always come quickly.

"Once completed, the (Easter Island) statues were ready to be transported to the ahu for which they had been carved. Scholars continue to debate how this major effort was accomplished."
(emphasis mine)

https://islandheritage.org/intro-to-eas ... e-statues/

[Diogenes]

The TS is the most scientifically studied artifact in human history, so it will take a long time to go through all the evidence and arguments. In terms of providing evidence, it is easy to find and present. In terms of how long it'll take to present it, it'll be hard.
....
Where's all the rational thought from skeptics? Rather, it's been mostly fallacious arguments by the skeptics and not willing to back up their claims with evidence.

The rational thought from skeptics has been amply demonstrated and referenced by several here who, among other things, have demonstrated STURP itself has a bias, a religious bias; therefore, STURP does not represent scientific inquiry. The few skeptics on STURP have pointed this out.

Harry Gove, whose laboratory at the University of Rochester was among those chosen for the dating tests, said he "wouldn't touch it [the analysis] with a ten-foot pole" if STURP was involved. "The trouble is they're all people who actually have a pretty strong belief it's Jesus's shroud, and it bothers the hell out of me they're the only ones so far who've carried out any kind of scientific measurements," he said.

Gove and Garman Harbottle, a senior chemist at Brookhaven National Laboratory who has been associated with STURP, as a skeptic, for 10 years, were refused access to the shroud in 1978. "It's very difficult for scientists to talk to Cardinals," Gove remembers.

Harbottle hopes to participate in the upcoming dating trials. Al though he has tried to remain neutral in the debate about STURP, he admits that straddling the fence is at times uncomfortable. At a car bon-14 conference in Trondheim, Norway, in 1985, he recalled, "all the people interested in the Shroud of Turin were in the same room at the same time. And they almost came to blows."

https://www.the-scientist.com/news/shro ... ists-63623

[otseng]

"Borrini, a Roman Catholic, said his findings — which he said had resulted in backlash from certain members of the religious community and "personal attacks" — are in line with the church's position. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Shroud to be an icon, not a holy relic.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/religion/f ... ke-n892251

Posting the same assertions again doesn't make your argument any stronger. Rather, it shows there are no further arguments to produce.

You already mentioned about the BPA experiment. And I already responded to it.

Others have stated, "The level of credulity needed to believe this piece of cloth is actually from the 1st Century or from a crucifixion beggars the mind."

Another fallacious argument. This would be the argument from incredulity:

Argument from incredulity, also known as argument from personal incredulity, appeal to common sense, or the divine fallacy, is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

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

Argument from incredulity, also known as personal incredulity fallacy, is a logical fallacy in which someone concludes that something must not be true (or false) since they cannot believe or imagine it being true (or false).

https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-fro ... -examples/

[otseng]

"Two men, [John the Apostle and Simon Peter] who personally investigated the tomb of Jesus early on the morning of the disappearance of his body, present testimony which seriously jeopardizes the validity of the famous shroud of Turin.*
....
they also found a facial napkin used to wrap the head. The use of such a napkin would have prevented an image of the face from forming on the outer linens. The Shroud of Turin is a fake."
https://www.chick.com/battle-cry/articl ... rin-a-fake

I thought you dropped out because I used subpar sources, yet you come back and use Chick publications?

Anyways, here is the passage:

[Jhn 20:6-7 KJV] 6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie, 7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

The head napkin was not lying with the shroud, but in a separate place. So, the napkin was not around the head when the body was wrapped in the shroud, but was removed prior to the body being wrapped with the shroud.

[otseng]

Naturalistic explanations don't always come quickly.

Then do you concede there are currently no viable naturalistic explanations for the TS?

[otseng]

The rational thought from skeptics has been amply demonstrated and referenced by several here who, among other things, have demonstrated STURP itself has a bias, a religious bias; therefore, STURP does not represent scientific inquiry.

Since you've made this charge many times, I'll then have to say more about this...

Accusing someone of bias is not rational thinking. What is rational is to provide evidence about the TS, not making accusations against people.

Everyone is biased, whether people are willing to acknowledge it or not. So, it is meaningless to charge someone is biased.

Even if someone is biased, it is entirely possible for them to speak truth. The criteria to determine if something they claim to be true would be evidence, not an analysis of their personality.

Also, no evidence has been produced on the religious beliefs of all the STURP team members. Please cite a reference which shows the religious beliefs of all the STURP members. I've been trying to find this and cannot find anything. If you cannot produce one, then how can you support your statement they all have a religious bias?

Even if someone is religious, it does not automatically mean they support the authenticity of the TS. You had even quoted from Chick publications, which is definitely a Christian source, and it believes the TS is a fake.

The few skeptics on STURP have pointed this out.

Harry Gove was not on STURP. Here's the list of STURP members:
https://www.shroud.com/78team.htm

Harry Gove, whose laboratory at the University of Rochester was among those chosen for the dating tests, said he "wouldn't touch it [the analysis] with a ten-foot pole" if STURP was involved. "The trouble is they're all people who actually have a pretty strong belief it's Jesus's shroud, and it bothers the hell out of me they're the only ones so far who've carried out any kind of scientific measurements," he said.

Actually, what this reveals is Gove was biased. It is factually incorrect STURP members all had a pretty strong belief it's Jesus's shroud.

Gove and Garman Harbottle, a senior chemist at Brookhaven National Laboratory who has been associated with STURP, as a skeptic, for 10 years, were refused access to the shroud in 1978.

Harbottle hopes to participate in the upcoming dating trials. Al though he has tried to remain neutral in the debate about STURP, he admits that straddling the fence is at times uncomfortable. At a car bon-14 conference in Trondheim, Norway, in 1985, he recalled, "all the people interested in the Shroud of Turin were in the same room at the same time. And they almost came to blows."
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/shro ... ists-63623

The site requires me to sign up so can't read it. But since "they (the C-14 scientists) almost came to blows" reveals they were definitely not a group of dispassionate and cordial scientists.

[Diogenes]

The site requires me to sign up so can't read it. But since "they (the C-14 scientists) almost came to blows" reveals they were definitely not a group of dispassionate and cordial scientists.

No and that's the point. STURP is not composed of "... a group of dispassionate and cordial scientists." That's the problem with religion in general and chasing relics in particular. Religion poisons everything, turning rational objective scientists into advocates.

Chasing religious relics is a goofy and perhaps blasphemous* obsession.** Erasmus once remarked that many buildings could be constructed just from the wood of fake crosses. The most interesting, laughable and perhaps most emblematic of relics is the foreskin of baby Jesus.

A number of alleged relics associated with Jesus have been displayed throughout the history of Christianity. While some individuals believe in the authenticity of Jesus relics, others doubt their validity. For instance, the sixteenth-century philosopher Erasmus wrote about the proliferation of relics, and the number of buildings that could be constructed from wooden relics claimed to be from the crucifixion cross of Jesus. Similarly, at least thirty Holy Nails were venerated as relics across Europe in the early 20th century. Part of the relics are included in the so-called Arma Christi ("Weapons of Christ"), or the Instruments of the Passion.

Some relics, such as remnants of the crown of thorns, receive only a modest number of pilgrims, while others, such as the Shroud of Turin, receive millions of pilgrims, including Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis.

As Christian teaching generally states that Christ was assumed into heaven corporeally, there are few bodily relics; The notable exceptions consist of those described as being removed or expelled from Christ's body prior to his ascension, such as the Holy Foreskin of Jesus or the blood of the Oviedo Shroud.

It's not behind a paywall. Here's the entire article:

'SANTA FE, N.M.—No project in modern times has brought science and religion into closer contact than efforts to assess the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. And the debate about the role of scientists in the project has been every bit as heated as the religious discussions. At the center of the controversy is a group of scientists that make up the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Formed here in 1976, the 30 or so volunteers rely on private donations to conduct their work.

At the center of the controversy is a group of scientists that make up the Shroud of Turin Research Project (STURP). Formed here in 1976, the 30 or so volunteers rely on private donations to conduct their work.

Robert Dinegar, a retired physical chemist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, is one of the organizers of STURP. He is also an ordained Episcopal priest. Although Dinegar says that STURP members come from a diverse religious background that includes Catholics, Protestants, Jews and agnostics, outsiders say that the group's religious bias is strong enough to warrant its exclusion from the upcoming trials.

Last fall Vatican officials agreed in principle to a battery of tests, including carbon-14 dating, on the relic that is held by many believers to be the burial cloth of Jesus. Scientists close to the work expect tests to begin as early as this month.

According to the protocol pro posed in October, seven labs world wide will use advanced carbon-14 dating methods on minute shroud specimens. Results will be correlated by the British Museum, which will reveal a final average age.

Because STURP has no facility to perform carbon-14 dating, the organization will not be involved directly in the dating. But the group hopes to conduct other experiments on the shroud's blood stains and fibers.

In 1978 STURP attempted to analyze the famed image on the cloth, which according to Church tradition is an image of Christ's corpse. Although inconclusive, that examination inspired strong feelings of mistrust among some scientists.

"We found there is no indication that the image on the Shroud of Turin was 'painted' on the cloth," said Dinegar. "Something caused the fibers of the cloth to lose water molecules, and that's why they've taken on a dark appearance …We have a feeling the image could be what it claims to be."

But Marvin Mueller, a physicist at Los Alamos, is among those who have challenged this interpretation publicly in a series of articles. He believes other methods, especially artistic rubbing using a ferric oxide material, could explain the image.

For Mueller, it is "an argument on a higher plane—an argument of physical laws and mathematical principles." Accepting a super natural explanation could change "the way we look at the world," he says. "Science has never had to frame a supernatural process."

Mueller has mixed feelings about STURP's involvement in future tests. But he acknowledges that the group has been willing to listen to his arguments regarding the image.

"Generally, their investigation was quite good," he said. And he credits Dinegar for his administrative and political expertise in helping to win approval for the up coming examinations.
A Strong Belief
Harry Gove, whose laboratory at the University of Rochester was among those chosen for the dating tests, said he "wouldn't touch it [the analysis] with a ten-foot pole" if STURP was involved. "The trouble is they're all people who actually have a pretty strong belief it's Jesus's shroud, and it bothers the hell out of me they're the only ones so far who've carried out any kind of scientific measurements," he said.

Gove and Garman Harbottle, a senior chemist at Brookhaven National Laboratory who has been associated with STURP, as a skeptic, for 10 years, were refused access to the shroud in 1978. "It's very difficult for scientists to talk to Cardinals," Gove remembers.

Harbottle hopes to participate in the upcoming dating trials. Al though he has tried to remain neutral in the debate about STURP, he admits that straddling the fence is at times uncomfortable. At a car bon-14 conference in Trondheim, Norway, in 1985, he recalled, "all the people interested in the Shroud of Turin were in the same room at the same time. And they almost came to blows."

As both scientist and priest, Dinegar is accustomed to criticism such as Gove's. "I believe it was our scientific reputations that convinced the Cardinal Archbishop [of Turin] that we should be given the chance to investigate," Dinegar said about the 1978 tests.

"I just want to find out what it is. Nobody's faith depends on it …I don't care which way it falls."

Dinegar and other STURP members see no inherent conflict between science and religion. He describes his own role as "a scientist in both fields."
Sides of a Coin
"Science is a search for truth and knowledge," he said. "Physical science and religious science are two different aspects of the same field—the search for knowledge."

But Dinegar maintains he wears only his scientist's hat during his work on the Shroud. "What physical science can do is give me more information about a religious object than if it was only approached from a religious side."

Harbottle believes that whatever obstacles exist to the next round of tests will come from the scientific community rather than the Vatican. Besides the mistrust between believers and cynics, there is also competition among scientists for a role in the high-profile project.

"The fundamental problem is personal egos," asserted Roger Morris, a physicist at Los Alamos who participated in the 1978 tests. Morris was hesitant to become involved at first, fearing the Vatican would try to influence results.

But "I did not see that," he remembered. "What I saw was a lot of personal bickering because someone was excluded."
Weisberg is a freelance writer in Santa Fe, N.M.'

_________________________
*“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:”
Exodus 20:4
** Perhaps the obsessive nature of this is why Paul warned about the "passions" stirred by graven images:
Colossians 3:5, "Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry."