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

[otseng]

I know enough about the shroud to know you'll never be able to confirm the image or the blood belong to a guy who came about by a woman having a virgin pregnancy, and producing a y chromosome without male involvement in that pregnancy.

Yeah, more evidence you've actually done no reading on the shroud, instead just make up red herring arguments and try to pass it off as some sort of "evidence".

You've presented evidence, logical argumentation, and all such as that, where a man'd be within his sanity to conclude, as you have, that the shroud belongs to Jesus. I'm not saying you haven't done this.

My burden is simply to show the argument for authenticity is stronger than it being a fake. Since nobody has been willing to offer rational counterarguments, then my argument is the only reasonable position to hold.

What I'm saying is that in the lack of image and blood comparison, and the problems with a virgin toting her around a y chromosome, others are perfectly within their sanity to reject your conclusions.

And what I'm saying is they are red herring arguments. They don't even fall into any criteria of the standard practice of validating a historical event.

You can't even get your ideas past my scrutiny, and I'm the least educated person on this site.

Red herring arguments are scrutiny?

And if they just constantly said, "No image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed"

Wasn't it you that mentioned red herrings?

Yes, exactly, this is a red herring argument. And this is exactly what you are doing. Want me to just continually post "No image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed" on the forum and categorically state evolution has not been confirmed to be true?

or "Nobody has ever demonstrated that abiogenesis is true, therefore evolution is wrong", then it would just be considered ranting.

Wasn't it you who mentioned red herrings?

Precisely. Why should I need to demonstrate how Jesus was born when no evolutionist can show how life first arose?

[otseng]

A body is three-dimensional. If a 3-D object with mass were to suddenly disappear, leaving a vacuum, the atmosphere filling the vacuum would push everything inward from all sides. Thus, the part of the cloth covering the top of the head would have been pushed inward by atmospheric pressure, into the space where the head had been, so there should be imaging on that part of the cloth.

As stated, I do not think the entire body dematerialized simultaneously. So, we don't really know the actual mechanics of the process. Also, even if it was simultaneous, not so sure the cloth of the facial area would behave the same as the cloth at the top of the head. Since there is a bend of the cloth around the head, there'd obviously be some difference in how the cloth would collapse compared to the relatively flat area on the front and back of the face. Suppose you have a piece of curved paper and placed on a vent that sucked air. Now compare that with a flat sheet of paper with air being sucked from it. The flat sheet would be displaced more than the curved one. The curvature of the cloth would act more as a lever point where the cloth collapses together at.

[otseng]

Oliver, in all your years of study, have any of your ideas ever been published in peer-reviewed journals?

I've never even tried to submit to a peer-reviewed journal before. But, with the Shroud of Turin, I'm so confident of my arguments I have been dramatically upping the ante.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2582

Suppose you have a piece of curved paper and placed on a vent that sucked air. Now compare that with a flat sheet of paper with air being sucked from it. The flat sheet would be displaced more than the curved one. The curvature of the cloth would act more as a lever point where the cloth collapses together at.

If you have a sheet of paper curved up over a vent drawing air in, the effect on the paper will be less because the suction is drawing more air through the bigger gap between the paper and the vent. In the scenario of linen wrapped over a head, there is no gap.

Paper is also stiffer than cloth. Even if the curved cloth were to somehow act as a "lever point", the midpoint of the curvature would still be pushed inward like pushing in on a balloon.

[JoeyKnothead]

I know enough about the shroud to know you'll never be able to confirm the image or the blood belong to a guy who came about by a woman having a virgin pregnancy, and producing a y chromosome without male involvement in that pregnancy.

Yeah, more evidence you've actually done no reading on the shroud, instead just make up red herring arguments and try to pass it off as some sort of "evidence".

Unless you're proposing there's an image of a herring in that shroud, you're just showing us all you have no viable, confirmable counter to my argument.

My burden is simply to show the argument for authenticity is stronger than it being a fake. Since nobody has been willing to offer rational counterarguments, then my argument is the only reasonable position to hold.

Without the confirmatory data to which I refer, the best we're gonna get is speculation.

What I'm saying is that in the lack of image and blood comparison, and the problems with a virgin toting her around a y chromosome, others are perfectly within their sanity to reject your conclusions.

And what I'm saying is they are red herring arguments. They don't even fall into any criteria of the standard practice of validating a historical event.

So the three problems that tank your case are "red herrings". I bet if they supported your case they'd spontaneously change color and species.

You can't even get your ideas past my scrutiny, and I'm the least educated person on this site.

Red herring arguments are scrutiny?

I propose it's your position that's fishy, not my pointing out the problems with it.

And if they just constantly said, "No image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed"

Wasn't it you that mentioned red herrings?

Yes, exactly, this is a red herring argument.

You were the one that brought animals into this, not me.

And this is exactly what you are doing. Want me to just continually post "No image has ever been taken of any prehistoric animal, therefore evolution has not been confirmed" on the forum and categorically state evolution has not been confirmed to be true?

If it'll get you to quit calling problems with your position "red herrings", maybe that'll do.

It's never been my position that evolution has anything to do with this shroud.

or "Nobody has ever demonstrated that abiogenesis is true, therefore evolution is wrong", then it would just be considered ranting.

Wasn't it you who mentioned red herrings?

Precisely. Why should I need to demonstrate how Jesus was born when no evolutionist can show how life first arose?

When evolutionists set to declaring a virgin pregnancy can produce a viable y chromosome having human, I'll fuss at them.

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2583]

Oliver,

After all your deep diving and debating related to the Shroud, you should do the following:

Send the results of your study of the Shroud to each one of the faculty members in the religious studies departments at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton University and ask them if they think your work should be shared with a wider audience. If the email you send them is longer than about three-quarters of a page, font size 12, they probably will ignore it. Keep it short, and there is a remote chance they might bother to read it and even comment back.

Let us know what they have to say.

[boatsnguitars]

Because you aren't doing science. You are cherry picking, and anomaly hunting.

If you were on to something, you'd win a Nobel.

Have you won one?

No.

[otseng]

What I find confounding about this evaluation of different radiation theories is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any radiation was involved at all. It's all just making up stuff about other made up stuff.

I'll address this in a separate post.

Dematerialisation looks easy when it is done in movies, but it would actually require the complete annihilation of all the matter making up the body. Big ask if one simply expects it to vanish without any subsequent effects. An easier way to 'dematerialise' a body would be to simply steal it when no one is looking.

Nobody is suggesting dematerialization would be easy for anybody.

As for stealing a body, there is no evidence of this. In particular, the unbroken blood stains is evidence it cannot have been stolen.

[otseng]

If you have a sheet of paper curved up over a vent drawing air in, the effect on the paper will be less because the suction is drawing more air through the bigger gap between the paper and the vent. In the scenario of linen wrapped over a head, there is no gap.

Paper is also stiffer than cloth. Even if the curved cloth were to somehow act as a "lever point", the midpoint of the curvature would still be pushed inward like pushing in on a balloon.

My experiment is not a perfect comparison, but is simply a comparable thought experiment. Of course if one wants to do it perfectly, one must have a body inside a cloth, dematerialize the body, then analyze how the cloth would react. Really the only way to do this is through computer simulation.

[otseng]

It's never been my position that evolution has anything to do with this shroud.

And it's never been my position that the virgin birth has anything to do with the shroud. My argumentation has purely been on scientific evidence of the shroud itself. So, if you want to debate me, you'll need to debate on what I've claimed, not continually post red herrings and fallacious arguments.

Send the results of your study of the Shroud to each one of the faculty members in the religious studies departments at Harvard, Yale, Columbia, and Princeton University and ask them if they think your work should be shared with a wider audience. If the email you send them is longer than about three-quarters of a page, font size 12, they probably will ignore it. Keep it short, and there is a remote chance they might bother to read it and even comment back.

That might take a few years to work up to. But I'll see if I can eventually get to that point.

Because you aren't doing science. You are cherry picking, and anomaly hunting.

Well, if I'm not doing science, then it should be easy to refute me with rational counterarguments instead of making assertions about me. So, please present arguments with evidence/reference. Why is this so hard for skeptics to do? I keep on asking for this, but we keep on getting responses like yours.