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: 20848
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 364 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

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20848
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 364 times
Contact:

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

Post #2721

Post by otseng »

Diogenes wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:03 pmYou see what you want to see. Some see Jesus. Some see a dog.
Funny, but a bit uncivil in my opinion.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20848
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 364 times
Contact:

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

Post #2722

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:26 am Thinking on it now though, if my position on the naturalness of it holds, so too could the theist declare a god's involvement, by creating the creators of teleportation.
One can invent endless ad hoc explanations. Could be someone from year 5000 AD went back in time to 1350 AD and created the shroud using technology thousands of years from the future and gave it to Geoffroi de Charny to fool all of us in the 21st century.

The best explanation would be one that fits the most evidence and with the least ad hoc proposals, regardless if it's a natural or supernatural explanation.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20848
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 364 times
Contact:

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

Post #2723

Post by otseng »

Evidence that dematerialization of the body occurred is the blood stains are intact and not torn, smeared, or broken.
A problem now
arises in connection with the tiny fibrils comprising the threads of the blood-
impregnated cloth, for these are not torn. It is reasonable to suppose that the blood
that was in contact with the cloth dried, thereby causing the body to stick to the
cloth. Three possibilities present themselves: (a) the body rotted, (b) the body was
moved, and (c) the body “disappeared,” perhaps in the manner conjectured by
Jackson and Trenn. The first two possibilities are improbable, however.
If the body rotted then each molecule composing it slowly underwent
chemical change, finally resulting in the body falling away in a manner that would
not tear the thread fibrils. However, the decomposing body would surely have left
some evidence of rot on the cloth lying under the body. Since no rot on the cloth
bearing the dorsal Image exists, the first possibility is rendered implausible. The
second possibility is that the body was removed from the Shroud and perhaps
placed in something else. However, the act of removing the body, some parts of
which would be stuck to the cloth by the dried blood, would tear the blood-
impregnated fibrils. The absence of torn fibrils suggests that the body was not
taken out of the Shroud. It might be objected here that the body might have been
taken out of the Shroud before the blood in contact with the cloth had a chance to
dry. But then it is difficult to understand how the detailed Image of the Man on the
Shroud could have been formed, for, according to this suggestion, the Man would
have been in the Shroud only for only long as it takes blood to dry, probably an
hour at most. This response is admittedly speculative, for no mechanism by which
the Image might have been formed is presently accepted by those most closely
associated with research into the Shroud, but it is difficult to conceive of an Image
forming so quickly that the blood did not have time to dry. The third possibility is
that the body somehow “disappeared,” perhaps by weak dematerialization.
https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/wiebe.pdf

Though not the same dematerialization process as the cloth collapse theory, an example of bodies dematerializing and leaving an image are shadows of Japanese people obliterated by the Hiroshima nuclear bomb.

Image
When the world’s first atomic bomb used in warfare detonated over Hiroshima on the morning of August 6, 1945, a resident was seated on the stone steps outside of the Sumitomo Bank. In their right hand they clutched a walking stick, their left may have been across their chest.

But seconds later, they were incinerated in the boiling light of an atomic bomb. In their place was a shadow that served as a horrifying relic of their final moments.

In fact, throughout the center of Hiroshima were a myriad of haunting outlines from window panes, valves, and even people in their last seconds. Etched on buildings and sidewalks now were the nuclear shadows of a city about to be obliterated.

When the atomic bomb “Little Boy” detonated 1,900 feet above the city, a flash of brilliant, boiling light scorched all that it touched. The surface of the bomb burned 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit and anything within 1,600 feet of its blast zone was incinerated in an instant. Anything within a mile radius of its impact site was reduced to rubble.

The heat from the explosion was so intense, in fact, that it also bleached everything in its blast zone, leaving eerie nuclear shadows of human detritus where citizens once were.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/hiroshima-shadows

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

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

Post #2724

Post by JoeyKnothead »

otseng wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:12 am
JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 8:26 am Thinking on it now though, if my position on the naturalness of it holds, so too could the theist declare a god's involvement, by creating the creators of teleportation.
One can invent endless ad hoc explanations. Could be someone from year 5000 AD went back in time to 1350 AD and created the shroud using technology thousands of years from the future and gave it to Geoffroi de Charny to fool all of us in the 21st century.

The best explanation would be one that fits the most evidence and with the least ad hoc proposals, regardless if it's a natural or supernatural explanation.
Interesting. While I'm willing to explore notions that might lend credence to theistic ideas, you consider my notions that go against theist ideas to be "irrelevant", or "red herrings".
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Athetotheist
Prodigy
Posts: 3380
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 19 times
Been thanked: 604 times

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

Post #2725

Post by Athetotheist »

[Replying to otseng in post #2720
I think it's consistent since we know there's more imaging at the facial area since it's darker and there's a faint imaging on the back side of the cloth. So, the cloth penetrated deeper at the face.
But you're not explaining why it would penetrate deeper at the face.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

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

Post #2726

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 5:49 pm [Replying to otseng in post #2720
I think it's consistent since we know there's more imaging at the facial area since it's darker and there's a faint imaging on the back side of the cloth. So, the cloth penetrated deeper at the face.
But you're not explaining why it would penetrate deeper at the face.
Nor is he showing it penetrated any part of the body.

As we all know, speculation doesn't always represent fact.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1371
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 910 times
Been thanked: 1314 times

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

Post #2727

Post by Diogenes »

otseng wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:06 am
Diogenes wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:03 pmYou see what you want to see. Some see Jesus. Some see a dog.
Funny, but a bit uncivil in my opinion.
Sorry if you think so, but so very many lies and illogical claims have been made in the support of some religious belief, including hundreds of miraculous claims about Jesus or Mary appearing on various objects that the scamming needs to be ridiculed.

People are being victimized by this rubbish. It is hardly uncivil to point this out. Whatever the merits of some religion and despite the sincerety of many good folks of faith, the peddling and victimizing of the faithful by the religious relic industry is shameful and deserves ridicule, if not legal action.

For every sincere person of faith, there is a charlatan ready to take advantage of their credulity.

Religious leaders agree:
"The Virgin Mary on an underpass wall? The face of Jesus on a fish stick? True believers have pointed out such "miracles" in unlikely places, but religious authorities say to treat holy apparitions with skepticism."

https://www.dw.com/en/was-bavarias-rosy ... a-43023910

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

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

Post #2728

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Diogenes wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:54 pm
otseng wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 8:06 am
Diogenes wrote: Sun Jun 18, 2023 10:03 pmYou see what you want to see. Some see Jesus. Some see a dog.
Funny, but a bit uncivil in my opinion.
Sorry if you think so, but so very many lies and illogical claims have been made in the support of some religious belief, including hundreds of miraculous claims about Jesus or Mary appearing on various objects that the scamming needs to be ridiculed.

People are being victimized by this rubbish. It is hardly uncivil to point this out. Whatever the merits of some religion and despite the sincerety of many good folks of faith, the peddling and victimizing of the faithful by the religious relic industry is shameful and deserves ridicule, if not legal action.

For every sincere person of faith, there is a charlatan ready to take advantage of their credulity.

Religious leaders agree:
"The Virgin Mary on an underpass wall? The face of Jesus on a fish stick? True believers have pointed out such "miracles" in unlikely places, but religious authorities say to treat holy apparitions with skepticism."

https://www.dw.com/en/was-bavarias-rosy ... a-43023910
We also shouldn't just dismiss disparagement and threats within religious holy texts.

If one promotes such texts as legit, even virtuous, surely they can see why they might find themselves on the receiving end.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20848
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 364 times
Contact:

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

Post #2729

Post by otseng »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 9:29 am Interesting. While I'm willing to explore notions that might lend credence to theistic ideas, you consider my notions that go against theist ideas to be "irrelevant", or "red herrings".
I want people, including you, to attack my arguments. But I want it to be on par with argumentation that would pass professionals in the field. I want the debate to be at the highest level possible for a public forum. This means relevant and rational argumentation with supporting evidence and references. A good place to start is to find shroud skeptics and what they've written and quote their arguments and evidence. I'm not talking about simply quoting articles from news outlets, which tend to sensationalize. I'll even let you know who I consider to be the most educated shroud skeptic there is - Hugh Farey. He has many articles and is very active in the shroud community.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20848
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 214 times
Been thanked: 364 times
Contact:

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

Post #2730

Post by otseng »

Athetotheist wrote: Mon Jun 19, 2023 5:49 pm [Replying to otseng in post #2720
I think it's consistent since we know there's more imaging at the facial area since it's darker and there's a faint imaging on the back side of the cloth. So, the cloth penetrated deeper at the face.
But you're not explaining why it would penetrate deeper at the face.
Since the facial area is darker, I believe the dematerialization process took longer at the facial area. Like one toast is darker than another since it's been in the toaster longer. Since it took longer, it would mean the cloth could travel longer and thus deeper.

Post Reply