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

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2176]

JoeMama wrote:

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.

Otseng said,

Depends on what you mean. There's two options I can think of:
1. The shroud image is Jesus of Nazareth.
2. The image is someone that looks like Jesus, but was not Jesus of Nazareth.

So, do you believe in #1 or #2 or do you have a third option?

JoeMama: I'm not sure what you mean when you say you're not sure what I mean. Let me just comment about 1 and 2.

1. The shroud image was put there by a bad actor; it is not the image formed by placing a cloth on the body of the dead Jesus. This is what I believe likely happened.
2. I can't even agree that the image looks like Jesus, because nobody from that era said what Jesus looked like.

Why do you think that is the image of Jesus of Nazareth when you have no idea what he looked like? Would you testify in court as an expert witness and assert that the image shown to you was of Jesus?

I think we've exhausted the Shroud of Turin issue.

[otseng]

That conclusion is unfounded and incorrect as was pointed out by STURP member McCrone, the only expert in STURP qualified to perform the appropriate examination.

I don't see McCrone listed as a member of STURP in https://www.shroud.com/78team.htm
Please provide the source where you see McCrone was a member of STURP.

As for his findings, we'll do a deep dive into that after I present all the blood pattern evidence.

[otseng]

It's likely the shroud we have is fake, in my opinion, but that doesn't prove the resurrection didn't occur. Perhaps the "actual" shroud will turn up some day and prove the Christianity is true. That's the "other shroud" I was referring to. Silly argument, of course, but such arguments are often offered up by apologists.

It is only the TS that I'm claiming is the actual burial shroud of Jesus.

One wonders what sort of text in the Bible would convince the faithful that the Bible is NOT God's word. So, for example, what if 2 Timothy 3:16-17 read as follows:

"Most scripture is given by man, not God, and is not suitable for instruction."

Where did I say the Bible is not God's word? All I've claimed is it is not inerrant.

If it seems to be an error or false teaching, it's not. God placed that content in the Bible to see what fools would believe such horrible things about him, the inerrantist will say. Bullet-proof defense.

I've never claimed this in this entire thread. So, you are making a strawman argument.

Depends on what you mean. There's two options I can think of:
1. The shroud image is Jesus of Nazareth.
2. The image is someone that looks like Jesus, but was not Jesus of Nazareth.

1. The shroud image was put there by a bad actor; it is not the image formed by placing a cloth on the body of the dead Jesus. This is what I believe likely happened.
2. I can't even agree that the image looks like Jesus, because nobody from that era said what Jesus looked like.

Why do you think that is the image of Jesus of Nazareth when you have no idea what he looked like? Would you testify in court as an expert witness and assert that the image shown to you was of Jesus?

You have already stated "I also believe 100% that the image on the shroud depicts Jesus." So, you contradict yourself if you also say "I can't even agree that the image looks like Jesus."

I think we've exhausted the Shroud of Turin issue.

You might have, but I doubt I'm even halfway through with producing all the evidence for the TS.

[otseng]

I don't know where you got this "projection" idea. Wherever, it's a poor one. You certainly do not explain it satisfactorily.

At a high level, all the viable explanations for the image formation involve some sort of projection. I'll get into this in detail when we look into how the image was formed.

Not only is there no mention of how the eyes are impossibly and inhumanly too close to the crown of the head, but that feature exactly conforms to the anatomical errors and style of 14th Century gothic artists. Coincidence?

Not a coincidence. One had to be the archetype of the other.

Also, there was no "projection." The image, if it came from a body, would be a contact image, caused by direct contact between the body and the cloth.

Only the blood stains was formed by contact. The cloth did not touch every part of the body, but was draped over it. So, there must be some projection involved. But, it is more complicated than this, which again I'll discuss at the end.

The rest of the claims and excuses for why the image does not look like a real body only serve to show how desperate is the effort to explain why a gothic painting on a 14th Century cloth does not look like it came from a human 1300 years earlier.

At a first order, it's anatomically correct. But I agree there are second order anomalies of the image. Again, I believe there is an image formation explanation that accounts for these.

There is a simple explanation for how this 14th Century cloth (carbon dating) has a 14th Century gothic artist's idea of human anatomy: It was painted by a 14th Century artist on a 14th Century cloth for the most common of reasons:

If you believe in the 1988 C-14 dating, please address my previous arguments refuting it.

If you believe it was painted, again this is against the conclusion of the 1978 STURP report. Please provide evidence paint was used.

To attract pilgrims to the church for monetary gain.

All medieval churches had relics in it. So, it really doesn't explain anything.

You've tried to explain away the many anatomical discrepancies, but failed to address at all the most glaring one, the eyes being several inches too high, too close to the top of the head.

I know you're not going to accept this now, but I believe the image formation explanation accounts for second order anomalies like this. I know everyone wants to discuss this now, but I will be presenting it. At the end of this debate, if I do not present it, you can call me out on it.

One more thing. Even if you [somehow] reject McCrone's detailed testing and analysis that shows no blood, and you really still believe there's blood on the cloth, it would hardly be surprising the artist used blood as paint if he was forging an image supposedly formed by human blood.

Is there any artist that has duplicated the details of the blood stains on the TS? Interestingly, as far as I know, all attempts of the duplication of the TS has not tried to do this.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2193

Where did I say the Bible is not God's word? All I've claimed is it is not inerrant.

Then why couldn't the errant text of any other religion just as easily be God's word?

Here again, you seem to be trying to establish the TS as genuinely miraculous so you can conveniently ignore the errancy of the Bible.

[Diogenes]

Only the blood stains was formed by contact. The cloth did not touch every part of the body, but was draped over it. So, there must be some projection involved.

Indeed, if the shroud were merely 'draped' over the body the image would only show those areas of the cloth that were in contact with the body/blood. Since even the non contact areas are displayed, this PROVES the image was painted, not an impression from a real body. This may be why apologists resort to the magical "projection" of the image onto the cloth. We all understand how a contact/transfer stain would occur. How was a stain "projected" onto the cloth? Magic? The Supernatural? A special pleading of magical radiation?

That conclusion is unfounded and incorrect as was pointed out by STURP member McCrone, the only expert in STURP qualified to perform the appropriate examination.

I don't see McCrone listed as a member of STURP in https://www.shroud.com/78team.htm
Please provide the source where you see McCrone was a member of STURP.

McCrone was part of STURP's research team until he resigned June, 1980.

"In October 1978, a team of scientists affiliated with STURP took 32 samples from the surface of the Shroud, using adhesive tape. Of those samples, 18 were taken from areas of the Shroud that showed a body or blood image, while 14 were taken from non-image areas. The chemical microscopist Walter McCrone, a leading expert in the forensic authentication of historical documents and works of art, examined the tapes using polarized light microscopy and other physical and chemical techniques. McCrone concluded that the Shroud's body image had been painted with a dilute pigment of red ochre (a form of iron oxide) in a collagen tempera (i.e., gelatin) medium, using a technique similar to the grisaille employed in the 14th century by Simone Martini and other European artists. McCrone also found that the "bloodstains" in the image had been highlighted with vermilion (a bright red pigment made from mercury sulfide), also in a collagen tempera medium. McCrone reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.

Other members of STURP rejected McCrone's conclusions and concluded, based on their own examination of the Shroud and the tape samples, that the image on the Shroud could not be explained by the presence of pigments.Mark Anderson, who was working for McCrone, analyzed the Shroud samples. In his book Ray Rogers states that Anderson, who was McCrone's Raman microscopy expert, concluded that the samples acted as organic material when he subjected them to the laser.  McCrone resigned from STURP in June 1980, after giving back all of the tape samples in his possession to Ray Rogers.

John Heller and Alan Adler examined the same samples and agreed with McCrone's result that the cloth contains iron oxide. However, they argued that the exceptional purity of the chemical and comparisons with other ancient textiles showed that, while retting flax absorbs iron selectively, the iron itself was not the source of the image on the shroud.

After his analysis of the Shroud was first published in 1980, McCrone continued to argue in journal articles, public lectures, and in the book Judgment Day for the Shroud of Turin (which appeared in 1996), that the Shroud had been painted in the 14th century and that it showed no traces of actual blood. He also argued that the members of STURP lacked relevant expertise in the chemical microanalysis of historical artworks and that their non-detection of pigment in the Shroud's image was "consistent with the sensitivity of the instruments and techniques they used." For his work on the Shroud, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin
Footnote 77, McDermott, Kevin (24 January 2000). "ACS Award in Analytical Chemistry". Chemical & Engineering News. 78 (4): 60. doi:10.1021/cen-v078n004.p055

Its popularity shows no sign of waning, despite the radiocarbon dating – and despite the Catholic Church’s refusal to pronounce officially on the Shroud.
“Relics” are artifacts that the Church believes to be real, but the Shroud is not classed as a relic. Pope Francis has instead called it an “icon of a man scourged and crucified.”
Yet true believers want to see it regardless.

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/shro ... index.html

[JoeMama]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #2191]

Joe Mama wrote,

Dear Forum Members,

This is the best Christianity debate forum on the internet, and I've enjoyed the few discussions I've had with some very intelligent, thoughtful correspondents. However, I find that it's taking too much of my time, so I'm putting myself on indefinite leave. I will probably be back sooner than I think.

[otseng]

Indeed, if the shroud were merely 'draped' over the body the image would only show those areas of the cloth that were in contact with the body/blood. Since even the non contact areas are displayed, this PROVES the image was painted, not an impression from a real body.

Nothing is proven by this. I remind you the conclusion of the 1978 STURP report is the image is not a result of painting. You have yet to produce any evidence any paint was used on the TS. What we do know is the coloring of the image is caused by oxidation/dehydration of the linen fibers, not by the application of any pigments, paints, dyes or stains.

No pigments, paints, dyes or stains have been found on the fibrils. X-ray, fluorescence and microchemistry on the fibrils preclude the possibility of paint being used as a method for creating the image. Ultra Violet and infrared evaluation confirm these studies.

The scientific consensus is that the image was produced by something which resulted in oxidation, dehydration and conjugation of the polysaccharide structure of the microfibrils of the linen itself.

https://www.shroud.com/78conclu.htm

This may be why apologists resort to the magical "projection" of the image onto the cloth.

I haven't even proposed any explanations yet. How do you know they are "magical"?

McCrone was part of STURP's research team until he resigned June, 1980.

McCrone might have claimed he was, but according to Barrie Schwortz (who definitely was on the STURP team) states he was not.

Apparently, Walter never corrected the mistaken assumption that he was a member of STURP and
even contributed to that assumption with some of the articles he wrote. A perfect example is an
article that was published in the May/June 1981 issue of the magazine Functional Photography. It
was titled, "What We Found on the Turin Shroud and How We Found It." [Emphasis mine]. One
can definitely see how statements of that nature could be easily misinterpreted.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/lionsden.pdf

Here is another list of STURP team members and McCrone is not listed:
https://www.shroudofturin.com/Resources ... PTEAM1.pdf

The chemical microscopist Walter McCrone .... reported that no actual blood was present in the samples taken from the Shroud.

I'll be going into details about his findings later.

For his work on the Shroud, McCrone was awarded the American Chemical Society's National Award in Analytical Chemistry in 2000.

Yes, McCrone was highly regarded by the ACS. But, it doesn't really mean much when McCrone overstated his claims on the shroud. Here's what Schwortz reported after speaking to the ACS:

When you are on the stage and presenting to a live audience, you can easily gauge their response
by the expressions on their faces. I saw that they were interested in what I had to say but they
remained mainly neutral (or doubtful) in general. The only time I saw pronounced changes in their
expressions was when I informed them that Walter never even saw the Shroud, was not a member
of our team and took no part in our physical examination of the cloth in Turin. He had only
examined sticky tape samples lifted from the surface of the Shroud after our return. They looked
surprised.

Next up in the program was Dr. Stoney, whose presentation was titled, “Dr. McCrone’s
Microscopical and Microchemical Examination of Tapes from the Shroud of Turin.” As expected,
he went through all of Walter’s work and restated all of Walter’s conclusions that I had just
challenged in my own presentation. I sensed that he was somewhat frustrated by the lack of
response he was receiving from the audience, because at one point he actually stopped and
reminded them that the ACS had awarded Walter their highest honor for his work on the Shroud.
He paused, apparently waiting for some response (applause?), but instead was greeted with
absolute silence. It was a rather awkward moment.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/lionsden.pdf

Its popularity shows no sign of waning, despite the radiocarbon dating

That's because now we know the 1988 C-14 dating is flawed. As a matter of fact, I predict the TS will be having a resurrection of popularity on a worldwide scale.

[otseng]

Then why couldn't the errant text of any other religion just as easily be God's word?

If anybody wants to argue for the authority of any other religious text, feel free to start a thread on it.

Here again, you seem to be trying to establish the TS as genuinely miraculous so you can conveniently ignore the errancy of the Bible.

I've argued against the inerrancy of the Bible before I even started this thread, so I'm not now rejecting inerrancy because I'm defending the TS.

[otseng]

Titian, Christ Carrying the Cross. circa 1565.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_Ca ... _Prado.jpg

All the gospels attest to Jesus carrying the cross (which later Simon of Cyrene helped to carry):

[Mat 27:31-32 KJV] 31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify [him]. 32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.

[Mar 15:20-21 KJV] 20 And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him. 21 And they compel one Simon a Cyrenian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of Alexander and Rufus, to bear his cross.

[Luk 23:26 KJV] 26 And as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyrenian, coming out of the country, and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear [it] after Jesus.

[Jhn 19:16-17 KJV] 16 Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led [him] away. 17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called [the place] of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

There are abrasion marks on the shoulders of the TSM which correlate with carrying a cross:

Two large discolored areas over the shoulder blades are consistent with bleeding from
surface abrasions as if a heavy, rough object had been in contact with the skin at these
points. From what is known about crucifixions, it was the custom for the crossbar of the
cross to have been carried by the victim, supported across the upper back and shoulders.
It is quite likely that it was this sort of structure which produced the abrasions over the
scapulae.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi05part3.pdf

An interesting finding is noted over the shoulder blade area on the right and left sides. This consists of an abrasion or denuding of the skin surfaces, consistent with a heavy object, like a beam. Resting over the shoulder blades and producing a rubbing effect on the skin surfaces.

https://www.shroud.com/bucklin.htm

It is therefore much more likely that the TS Man has carried the cross rather the patibulum [11]. If it
were so, it would mean that the Man of the Shroud has carried the cross on both shoulders, first right
and then left. It can therefore reasonable be assumed that:
1. the more marked bruise on the left shoulder would be due to the higher load on this area in
a more curved subject because weakened by the previous fall;
2. the TS Man has fallen more than once.

https://www.matec-conferences.org/artic ... 03003.html

A life-size model of a cross has been built in accordance with the sizes reported in Section 2. It was built using cardboard, reinforced at the corners by plastic L-profiles; the result is shown in figure 3. As the first author is 169 cm tall and Jesus resulted [5], 175 ± 2 cm tall, he offered himself for the experiments.

The high-contrast TS dorsal body image seems to show four darker reddish areas in correspondence of the shoulders that could have been a heavy and harsh object rubbing on the Jesus skin. Figure 3 shows these areas that also present the scourge marks as more enlarged and less defined than in other zones of the body image; this is coherent with the chafe with relative high pressure on a previous wound.

In reference to the experiments regarding a convict carrying a cross, many positions have been studied; the most probable seems to be that reported in figure 3 where the insertion of one convict's arm in one of the two triangles made by patibulum, stipes and crossbeam is visible.

It can be supposed that Jesus had first used his right shoulder to bring the cross. The abrasions in question are consistent with injuries caused by carrying the cross on the shoulders. The contact areas of the cross on the shoulder have been experimentally verified in the same figure 3.

The authors suppose that during a falling a shock could have been produced on the right end of the patibulum against the ground, perhaps a stone; the right shoulder and arm fast slipped from the conjunction of the patibulum with the stipes to the angle formed by the patibulum and the crossbeam of the cross and it was therefore blocked in the corner, inert. During the Jesus’s falling, his right arm remained entangled in the triangle of the cross and after a rebound of it the right arm was therefore raised over its limit. The relatively high mass of the cross therefore dragged the humerus forward and downward and produced the right shoulder dislocation.

https://www.peertechzpublications.com/a ... -1-110.php