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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2158

Apparently you have not read my rebuttals to the C-14 dating. Please provide counter-evidence to my arguments rather than making baseless assertions.

And while you're at it, be sure to read the counter-evidence some of us have provided.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2159]

I also believe 100% that the image on the shroud depicts Jesus.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2159]

Otseng wrote,

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.

JoeMama comments:

I think ALL skeptics accept that the image depicts Jesus. What they do not accept is that the image was created by placing cloth onto the body of a murdered man who was later revived and then lifted up into the sky to sit with God.

[JoeMama]

Otseng said,

"I've never claimed anything about Jesus having a beard from the Bible."

JoeMama comments:

You have vigorously defended your belief that the bearded image on the Shroud of Turin is the crucified Jesus, but yet you say you do NOT claim that Jesus had a beard when he was crucified?

If you DO, in fact, believe that the crucified Jesus had a beard, on what basis other than faith do you believe that?

[Diogenes]

Any student of anatomy can easily see the image on the 'shroud' is a painting, just by looking at it. The image is anatomically incorrect. In a normal human face the eyes are in the middle of the face. In the painting on the shroud the eyes are drawn one third down from the top of the skull. Also the arms of a prostrate corpse are not long enough to cover the genitals. You can test this yourself by simply lying down, flat on your back, with the back of your head at the same level as your feet, butt, and shoulders. Even if placed there after death, the hands would have resumed a natural position either beside the body or up on the stomach.

This may be why apologists, including Otseng, have concocted an artificial posture for the 'corpse:'

As for being anatomically correct, we can now view what the body would've looked like in 3 dimensions based on research on the shroud.

This image was taken from this site: https://www.churchpop.com/2022/10/21/hy ... -of-turin/
But no explanation, no evidence is given for the body reclining as if on a chaise lounge with the head and knees raised.

In addition to being anatomically incorrect, the image on the cloth conforms to the style of gothic representations of painters of the era in which we first hear of the shroud. They typically drew long narrow faces with the eyes too close to the crown of the head.

Joe Nickell in 1983, and Gregory S. Paul in 2010, separately state that the proportions of the image are not realistic. Paul stated that the face and proportions of the shroud image are impossible, that the figure cannot represent that of an actual person and that the posture was inconsistent. They argued that the forehead on the shroud is too small; and that the arms are too long and of different lengths and that the distance from the eyebrows to the top of the head is non-representative. They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist.

In 2018, an experimental Bloodstain Pattern Analysis (BPA) was performed to study the behaviour of blood flows from the wounds of a crucified person, and to compare this to the evidence on the Turin Shroud. The comparison between different tests demonstrated that the blood patterns on the forearms and on the back of the hand are not connected, and would have had to occur at different times, as a result of a very specific sequence of movements. In addition, the rivulets on the front of the image are not consistent with the lines on the lumbar area, even supposing there might have been different episodes of bleeding at different times. These inconsistencies suggest that the Turin linen was an artistic or "didactic" representation, rather than an authentic burial shroud.

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

Special note should be made of the hands pictured completely covering the genitals.

"Another problem is the attention given to the covering of the genitals. In the Shroud, the man's hands are crossed on the genital area with the right hand completely covering any nudity. Wild notes that the body imaged in the Shroud is portrayed as relaxed in death, but in a relaxed position a man's joined hands will not cover his genitals if he lies on his back. Either the body has to be tilted forward and the arms stretched downward, or the elbows have to be propped up on the side and the wrists drawn together to hold the hands in place over the genital area. In the Shroud image also, the right arm is exceedingly long and the fingers of the right hand almost disproportionate, in order to allow the modest covering. Again, such a feature would be more understandable if the Shroud were an artistic production reflecting the interests of another era."

Brown, Raymond E. (2002). Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. Wipf & Stock. pp. 151–152. ISBN 978-1-59244-024-5. Retrieved 11 September 2022.

In addition the 'crown of thorns' drawn on the head is too cute by half. Among other problems, it seems more likely the crown would have been removed before burial. But it is drawn there to be consistent with the gospel accounts. I also submit the hair drawn on the cloth is a dead giveaway of the forgery. If a body were wrapped in cloth, the hair would not have made such an imprint, but would have rested on the surface the body was on, not up having contact with the shroud to leave the same kind of imprint as the beard.

The eyes are generally found on a line in the center of the head.

The brow line is represented by the center line that we drew in step one. So we know that the eyes should be found just below this line, in the center of the head. We can draw a line here for the "eye line".

https://thevirtualinstructor.com/facial ... efromfront

The figure depicted in the Turin Shroud doesn’t have realistic human anatomical features. Let’s start by looking at the face. The forehead is too small and the lower part of the face too large. On a living human human, the forehead (i.e. the space from the top of the head to the eyes) normally takes up about half the face; on the Turin Shroud, though, the forehead takes up just a little over a third of the face.

https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/ ... ly-a-hoax/

[AquinasForGod]

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.

You haven't shown why someone would have to believe the bible is without errors in order to be trustworthy. Pick up any book on physics. They are not perfect, but I trust them to teach me physics.

[Diogenes]

How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

You haven't shown why someone would have to believe the bible is without errors in order to be trustworthy. Pick up any book on physics. They are not perfect, but I trust them to teach me physics.

If you pick up a book on physics and it sets out magical scenarios and phenomena that occur because of supernatural forces,
you've got an untrustworthy book on physics.
If you consult a book on cosmology and it suggests the Earth is flat, stationary and the Sun and the rest of the universe rotate around it; that the Earth is the center of the universe, you've got an untrustworthy book... in fact, you'd be consulting the Bible.
If you read a book on biology and it claims life on this Earth is only 6000 years old and God made all the species 6000 years ago in the exact form in which we find them today, it's time to get another source for biology.

If you declare God is perfect with absolute knowledge of everything and that he wrote a book about the origin of the world, you would expect such a God to write without errors. So, yes, the Bible should be without errors. Since it is full of errors, then no, it is not trustworthy.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #2166]

For the record, I would wish forum members to know that while I'm aware of no evidence that points to the truth of a resurrection, that easily exposing the shroud as an obvious fake does not give us the right to claim that a burial cloth of an "actual" crucified "Jesus" never existed, and may even still be out there, somewhere.

Who among us would take up what I might imagine could soon be Otseng's challenge to "please provide evidence that such a shroud doesn't exist?"

[JoeMama]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #2165]

Diogenes quoted,

"They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist."

JoeMama asks,

Could Jesus' skull and facial features have been exceptions to the norms? In other words, could not Jesus have been ugly?

[JoeMama]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #2167]

Diogenese wrote,

"If you declare God is perfect with absolute knowledge of everything and that he wrote a book about the origin of the world, you would expect such a God to write without errors."

JoeMama responds:

Not necessarily.

Skeptics, like me, too often over-estimate the strength of their case against inerrancy. In this case, Diogenes, I think you are not justified in claiming victory. Against seasoned apologists, you might come up short in debate. The believer will be able to say that God's plan all along was to put errors in his Bible to weed out undeserving persons who abandon too quickly their belief in him because of something so trivial as a few Bible "errors." Those are the persons that jealous God plans to cast into the fiery pits of hell, the apologist will say. The ones who reject the errors and trust that God will reveal his methods and expose his planted "errors" will find their reward for that faith in heaven.

By the way, I still believe 100% there was no resurrection and therefore any "teaching" about salvation bringing a ticket to heaven is false. But, I cannot prove it.

Nobody can.