How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20520
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #1

Post by otseng »

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:
nobspeople wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow 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?
otseng wrote: Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am 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

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2151

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #2126]

I don't understand why so much time and energy is being expended talking about radio-carbon dating of the shroud. Even if everyone agreed that the shroud is two-thousand years old, that wouldn't prove it was the burial cloth of Jesus; it could be the burial cloth of an uncountable number of men who died at about the time of the alleged resurrection.

And, even if it were proved that the cloth was Jesus' burial cloth, that would not prove he was crucified; he could have died by other means.

And, even it were proved that Jesus was crucified, that would not prove he was resurrected and was the son of God, so there would still be no proof that--in otseng's words--"Christianity is true."

As the Bible says, paraphrasing, "It is by faith alone that we are saved." (Ephesians 2:8-9) And it seems to me that it is only by faith alone that that one can believe that Christianity is true.

Christianity will be true, for you, if you just choose to believe it's true; stop looking for a proof that doesn't exist.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2152

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to otseng in post #2149]
There is zero evidence in support of my statement about a bald and clean shaven Jesus. Likewise, there is zero evidence that Jesus had a beard and long hair, as depicted on the shroud.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2153

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to otseng in post #2143]

Otseng wrote,

“all the evidence points to [the shroud’s] authenticity and there is no viable argument that it is a fake.

Joe Mama responds:

Really? Really? Here is what The Guardian reported on October 14, 1988:

Cardinal Anastasia Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, announced yesterday that the Shroud….is a piece of linen woven between AD 1260 and 1390, and cannot be an imprint of Jesus Christ.

Read more about this by googling “shroud Anastasio Ballestrero.”

No viable evidence that it’s a fake? Tell that to the scientists in the laboratories in Zurich, Arizona, and Oxford. Few scientific discoveries in the past two centuries are better attested to than this.

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 2696
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 484 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2154

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2150
In case nobody is catching my argument so far, let me make it explicit. It is the description in the gospel accounts of what Jesus went through during the Passion that correlates with what is depicted on the TS that demonstrates the man on the shroud is Jesus.
The evidence is overwhelming that the image on the cloth is a depiction of Jesus, but that doesn't mean the depiction was put there by supernormal means. The discrepancies in the gospel narratives point to a more mundane origin for the image, and that is reinforced by the commonsense conclusions to be drawn from the physical dimensions of the depiction itself.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2155

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #2154]

JoeMama responds to Athetotheist:

I propose that the “mundane origin” you alluded to is the common sense one: An artist painted the image. :D
Last edited by JoeMama on Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2156

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to Thomas123 in post #2124]

JoeMama wrote,

Otseng said this: "Another example is the Shroud of Turin. I happen to believe it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Has God protected it all these years? Yes, I believe God has."

Otseng, do you believe this on faith alone? If not just blind faith, please explain what evidence you've seen that rules out, in your mind, the possibility that the image on the shroud could have been pressed onto the fabric by placing the cloth on a bearded, long-haired male model coated with goat's blood? All for the purpose of selling the cloth to a dishonest, cynical priest wishing to use it to drum up donations to his church from gullible, miracle-believing peasant parishioners.
Last edited by JoeMama on Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 162
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 35 times

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2157

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #2154]

Otseng wrote:

In case nobody is catching my argument so far, let me make it explicit. It is the description in the gospel accounts of what Jesus went through during the Passion that correlates with what is depicted on the TS that demonstrates the man on the shroud is Jesus.

JoeMama comments:

Otseng, don't you believe a forger would have bothered to read the gospels and know that someone like you would demand that a forged shroud would have to have features consistent with the "descriptions in the gospel accounts" that you mentioned above, and would therefore be careful to make sure he painted those features on his fake?

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20520
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2158

Post by otseng »

JoeMama wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 12:18 pm As the Bible says, paraphrasing, "It is by faith alone that we are saved." (Ephesians 2:8-9) And it seems to me that it is only by faith alone that that one can believe that Christianity is true.

Christianity will be true, for you, if you just choose to believe it's true; stop looking for a proof that doesn't exist.
I'm not out to "prove" anything. Here is what I stated on the outset:
otseng wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 6:41 am The resurrection of Jesus is claimed to be a historical event and is not a make believe event that we should accept by blind faith. And if it is a historical event, then it should be able to be validated like any other historical event.

For any historical event, there are two main methods to demonstrate its historicity - artifacts and written records. We had talked about the account in the Bible of Sennacherib attacking Jerusalem. Without any artifacts or written records, there would be no corroborating evidence to support the Biblical claim. Then in 1830, Colonel Taylor discovered Sennacherib's Prism which is a written account that remarkably matches the Biblical account from the Assyrian perspective. So, there is no now doubt among historians that the Jerusalem siege actually occurred.

Like all arguments I've made in this thread, I'm not out to prove Jesus was resurrected, but I will attempt to show there are evidence to support it and that it is a reasonable position to hold.
JoeMama wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 1:55 pm There is zero evidence in support of my statement about a bald and clean shaven Jesus. Likewise, there is zero evidence that Jesus had a beard and long hair, as depicted on the shroud.
Again, I've never claimed anything about having a Jesus having a beard from the Bible.
JoeMama wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:26 pm Here is what The Guardian reported on October 14, 1988:

Cardinal Anastasia Ballestrero, the Archbishop of Turin, announced yesterday that the Shroud….is a piece of linen woven between AD 1260 and 1390, and cannot be an imprint of Jesus Christ.
We can both bring up people who claim one side or the other. The issue is not what people say, but why they said it. On what evidence do they base their belief on? So, why did Cardinal Anastasia Ballestrero not accept it is genuine?
Tell that to the scientists in the laboratories in Zurich, Arizona, and Oxford. Few scientific discoveries in the past two centuries are better attested to than this.
Apparently you have not read my rebuttals to the C-14 dating. Please provide counter-evidence to my arguments rather than making baseless assertions.
JoeMama wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:38 am Otseng said this: "Another example is the Shroud of Turin. I happen to believe it is the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Has God protected it all these years? Yes, I believe God has."

Otseng, do you believe this on faith alone? If not just blind faith, please explain what evidence you've seen that rules out, in your mind, the possibility that the image on the shroud could have been pressed onto the fabric by placing the cloth on a bearded, long-haired male model coated with goat's blood? All for the purpose of selling the cloth to a dishonest, cynical priest wishing to use it to drum up donations to his church from gullible, miracle-believing peasant parishioners.
I believe God has protected it all these years based on circumstantial evidence, not by blind faith. I'll get into this when discussing the history of the shroud.

No, it's not goat's blood. Please provide evidence it's goat's blood. Please provide evidence it was sold from an artist to a priest.
JoeMama wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:15 pm I propose that the “mundane origin” you alluded to is the common sense one: An artist painted the image. :D
Please provide evidence an artist painted the image.
JoeMama wrote: Fri Mar 31, 2023 1:51 am Otseng, don't you believe a forger would have bothered to read the gospels and know that someone like you would demand that a forged shroud would have to have features consistent with the "descriptions in the gospel accounts" that you mentioned above, and would therefore be careful to make sure he painted those features on his fake?
I've already argued at length the TS is not the work of an artist, but somehow a body was involved. If you believe an artist was involved, please provide the evidence.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20520
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2159

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:38 pm The evidence is overwhelming that the image on the cloth is a depiction of Jesus, but that doesn't mean the depiction was put there by supernormal means. The discrepancies in the gospel narratives point to a more mundane origin for the image, and that is reinforced by the commonsense conclusions to be drawn from the physical dimensions of the depiction itself.
I also believe the evidence is overwhelming it is a depiction of Jesus, but not all skeptics will accept this, so I will need to continue to provide additional evidence to support this claim. Once I complete all my arguments it is Jesus of Nazareth, I'll be exploring the explanations of how the image was formed and discuss which one I believe is the most likely.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20520
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Re: How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Post #2160

Post by otseng »

Image

The largest blood stain on the TS is from the side wound and the blood that gathered underneath the body (blood belt, lumbar belt) from the side wound.

Image

Image

https://renewaljournal.com/2021/12/22/m ... -of-turin/

The side wound is mentioned in John 19:34:

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/jhn/19/34/s_1016034
Between the fifth and sixth ribs on the right side is an oval puncture about 4.4 X 1.1 cm. Blood has flowed down from this wound and also onto the lower back, indicating a second outflow when the body was moved to a horizontal position. All authorities agree that this wound was inflicted after death, judging from the small quantity of blood issued, the separation of clot and serum, the lack of swelling, and the deeper color and more viscous consistency of the blood. Stains of a body fluid are intermingled with the blood, and numerous theories have been offered as to its origin: pericardial fluid (Judica, Barbet), fluid from the pleural sac (Moedder), or serous fluid from settled blood in the pleural cavity (Saval, Bucklin).
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2742663
https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm
The wound in the side is located between the fifth and sixth rib. It may be an evident proof of the practice of "exactus mortis", a mere verification of death effected with an accurate blow of the spear.

According to what we see in the Shroud, the wound on the side can be irrefutable proof of death, especially because of its appearance and morphology. Different forensic authors describe characteristics of a post-mortem hemorrhage, showing how the blood mass is already separated from the plasma or liquid medium in which the red blood cells float. In addition, the halos formed by serous liquids are clearly visible in the entire periphery of the clots, especially if we apply ultraviolet light. Also, the edges of the wound remain open: there is no retraction in the skin, there is no life.

The haemorrhage from the side continues on the back through compact, cadaveric-type streaks, which in this case are in a transverse direction with respect to the vertical, so it must have occurred when the body was no longer on the withers. In the Shroud we call it the "lumbar belt" and we think that it is blood from the wound on the side, caused when the corpse moved, which caused drainage of the inferior vena cava and traces of fluid from pulmonary edema, serum and pleural fluid.
https://renewaljournal.com/2021/12/22/m ... -of-turin/

In John, the word used for spear is lancea - λόγχη. The lancea matches with the wound on the TS, unlike other Roman weapons like hasta, hasta veliaris, or pilum.
The side wound is an ellipse corresponding exactly to excavated examples of the leaf-shaped point of the lancea (lance) likely to have been used by the militia: it does not match the typical points of the hasta (spear), hasta veliaris (short spear), or pilum (javelin) used by the infantry. The lance thrust to the side of Christ was, according to Origen of the 4th century, administered, following the Roman military custom, sub alas (below the armpits), where the wound of the Shroud image is located.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2742663
https://www.shroud.com/meacham2.htm

Image
The Lancea was a javelin used in ancient Rome. According to the OED, the word originally came from the Celtiberian language, also cf. λόγχη (lonche), the Greek term for lance. One kind of lancea, possibly known as the lancea pugnatoria or "the fighting lance" was used as a thrusting weapon by cavalrymen. This weapon was used by cavalrymen as it was lighter and easier to use than the pilum. The lancea was also used by auxiliaries.[5] legionaries would use the lancea if the occasion called for it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancea_(weapon)
Lancea was a common spear during Roman times and could be found as well from the hand of a cavalryman, city guard or even a gladiator fighting for his life in the arena of an amphitheater. Lancea also became the main weapon of the legions in the later days of the Empire. Lancea was typically a handy weapon that could be used both as a light and fast hand-to-hand combat weapon and thrown as a javelin when needed. The length of the shaft varied according to the intended use. Original circa 0 CE.
https://irongatearmory.com/product/lancea-spearhead/

John also mentions blood and water coming out of the side.
Because of the posture of the suspended crucifixion victim, it is likely that some degree of
congestive heart failure occurred. One of the earliest signs of this is the accumulation of
clear fluid in the pleural spaces as well as in other body cavities, including the pericardial
sac. In such a situation, if there were perforation by a sharp pointed object to the rib cage
into the pleural space, there would be an outflow of clear fluid. If the piercing object were
then to be pushed further into the chest, it would penetrate the pericardium and the right
side of the heart and release a quantity of blood. This combination of blood and water
would account for the stain on the front of the chest as well as the heavy stains which
appear over the lower back.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi05part3.pdf

There is no other textual evidence of any other crucified person that was pierced in the side while on the cross, which gives additional confirmation the TSM is Jesus.

Post Reply