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

[boatsnguitars]

It's a painting. It was proven in 1978.

Actually, it's the opposite. It was proven not to be a painting in 1978.

Editor's Note: After years of exhaustive study and evaluation of the data and the submission of their research to highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific journals, the following official Summary of STURP's Conclusions was written by John Heller (in non-technical language) and distributed at the press conference held after STURP's final meeting in October 1981:

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. Computer image enhancement and analysis by a device known as a VP-8 image analyzer show that the image has unique, three-dimensional information encoded in it. Microchemical evaluation has indicated no evidence of any spices, oils, or any biochemicals known to be produced by the body in life or in death. It is clear that there has been a direct contact of the Shroud with a body, which explains certain features such as scourge marks, as well as the blood. However, while this type of contact might explain some of the features of the torso, it is totally incapable of explaining the image of the face with the high resolution that has been amply demonstrated by photography.

The basic problem from a scientific point of view is that some explanations which might be tenable from a chemical point of view, are precluded by physics. Contrariwise, certain physical explanations which may be attractive are completely precluded by the chemistry. For an adequate explanation for the image of the Shroud, one must have an explanation which is scientifically sound, from a physical, chemical, biological and medical viewpoint. At the present, this type of solution does not appear to be obtainable by the best efforts of the members of the Shroud Team. Furthermore, experiments in physics and chemistry with old linen have failed to reproduce adequately the phenomenon presented by the Shroud of Turin. 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. Such changes can be duplicated in the laboratory by certain chemical and physical processes. A similar type of change in linen can be obtained by sulfuric acid or heat. However, there are no chemical or physical methods known which can account for the totality of the image, nor can any combination of physical, chemical, biological or medical circumstances explain the image adequately.

Thus, the answer to the question of how the image was produced or what produced the image remains, now, as it has in the past, a mystery.

We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved.

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

It was. Red ochre with with some blood mixed in.

But, your story is more and more implausible. Was the supernatural lightening bolt so specific so as to seemingly take a portrait (in the style of Medieval paintings) and only captured the exterior features and the wound locations - like a painting wound? That's so specific on the face of it!

Look at it! It's a painting! Medieval style, Medieval cloth, Medieval confession.

Also, why is it the most miraculously preserved cloth from 30CE, yet average for Medieval clothes?

Why isn't it saturated in blood, instead of a few well-placed drops right where you'd expect an artist to put them?

C'mon! Look at it!

[otseng]

In the images which you yourself posted.....

https://www.raydowning.com/blog/2016/2/ ... d-of-turin

.....the blood pattern on the bottom of the left foot is spotty.

It's hard to discern the details of the foot in that image. Yes, there are blood stains on the bottom of the feet.

You yourself took the position that a darker image indicates deeper cloth penetration, and that cloth penetration accounts for an "x-ray" effect on the hands. In the area of the left foot where the blood pattern is not present, and where there is no "x-ray" effect, the image is clearly darker than the finger images. So here, again, the cloth-penetration hypothesis fails.

Some have claimed they can discern the toes.

When the image is viewed from the dorsal side, there is a complete imprint of the right foot that was likely pressed against the cross. This foot shows a bloodstain in the middle, whereas only the top heel of the left foot is visible over the right with a bloodstain visible on the outer portion. According to Dr. Bucklin: In examining the photograph of the right foot, we are able to make out an almost complete imprint. The border is slightly blurred in its middle part, but it still presents a very definite concavity corresponding to the plantar arch. More to the front the imprint is wider, and we can distinguish the imprint of five toes.

https://tandirection.com/enemies-of-sal ... -of-turin/

If his resurrection was to be the only sign that he was the Messiah, then he must not have had a virgin birth----which, from a Christian perspective, means that he wasn't the Messiah.

It would be the only sign that Jesus explicitly said he would give to demonstrate he's the Messiah. Yes, there are other things about Jesus, but he never explicitly pointed to them as signs that he is the Messiah.

Again----you have acknowledged that the Bible itself isn't inerrant and are relying on the Turin cloth to give you an end-run around that problem.

Yes, I'm not assuming the Bible in inerrant, which means I'm not assuming every claim of the Bible is factually correct. But that does not mean every claim is factually incorrect. I'm simply using the Bible as any other historical document.

[otseng]

There are many things we cannot yet explain or understand completely. There are many things in the past we could not explain, yet now we can. I believe it is irrational to assume that just because we cannot at this moment explain those phenomena, that they prove our favorite religios belief is therefore true.

Again, I'm not trying to prove anything. All I'm claiming is my position is rational and justifiable based on empirical evidence and all other theories are untenable.

The skeptics common argument is that nothing is proved. This is simply a hyper-skeptical position which pretty much nothing can hold up to. Not even science prove something is true. In court cases, nothing can be proven to be true. In history, nothing can be proven to be true. I'm not even sure if all you guys are real, but simply a long massive hallucination that I'm having.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2752

It's hard to discern the details of the foot in that image.

.....which means that there's no evidence of any "cloth collapse".

Yes, there are blood stains on the bottom of the feet.

And it's easy to discern that the blood pattern is spotty. Most of the sole is clearly visible.

Some have claimed they can discern the toes.

But no calcaneus, metatarsals or phalanges, in a darker area where "cloth collapse" should have produced an "x-ray" image.

[JoeyKnothead]

In explaining the unexplainable, any cockamamie hypothesis is as equally valid as any other. To claim one guess is superior to another is, I contend, better an example of how proud one is for their beliefs, and less about their explanation.

Not all theories are equally valid as another. Would you accept that argument if I said creationism is just as valid as evolution because "any cockamamie hypothesis is as equally valid as any other"?

Evolution is a fact.

Creationism is a religious belief that can't be shown to be fact.

...
The best theory would:
- explain the most features on the shroud
- not involve methods that have been scientifically ruled out
- have the least ad hoc proposals

This criteria is used not just for this exercise, but also in science, history, and law. So, please explain how any other theory better explains the features of the shroud than the cloth collapse theory.

You're still confusing hypothesis with theory.

You have a hypothesis that seeks to explain how a man borne of a virgin pregnancy could end up with his image and blood on a piece of cloth. The facts of the case indicate a cloth of dubious origin and unconformable lineage, they do not indicate a god somehow managed to resurrect the earthly representation of himself.

Nothing in your hypothesis rises to an acceptable level of evidentiary, or worse, explanatory value to have it considered a theory. You fail to establish the very first step in the chain of events (virgin y chromosome), thus can't even show the biblical Jesus even existed.

Then, you have nothing by way of comparison to confirm the image or blood belongs to Jesus.

So you just swerve around those problems and try to explain the circumstances of your foregone conclusion.

You seem to think your hypothesis is brilliant for what it explains, but it's dull as dirt for what it don't.

[Diogenes]

The skeptics common argument is that nothing is proved. This is simply a hyper-skeptical position which pretty much nothing can hold up to. Not even science prove something is true. In court cases, nothing can be proven to be true. In history, nothing can be proven to be true. I'm not even sure if all you guys are real, but simply a long massive hallucination that I'm having.

Not only is your statement not true, it is a frivolous claim. It's just as silly as your repeated assertion, despite the evidence, that it has been 'proved' no pigments were found on the 'Shroud' of Turin. WAY back in April in post #2183 I provided proof from Walter McCrone, the "Father of modern forensic microscopy,"* that red ochre and vermilion pigments were used to paint the image on the 'Shroud.'

The faint sepia image is made up of billions of submicron pigment particles (red ochre and vermilion) in a collagen tempera medium. The pigments red ochre and vermilion with the collagen tempera medium was a common paint composition during the 14th century; before which, no one had ever heard of the Shroud.
....
The “Shroud” is a beautiful painting created about 1355 for a new church in need of a pilgrim-attracting relic.
https://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/64/t ... d-of-turin

viewtopic.php?p=1117064#p1117064

Your only 'rebuttal' was to say (in effect) "Well... but... McCrone wasn't a member of STURP." Right! He was not a member of STURP. That is to his credit. But he got his 32 samples from STURP. STURP is highly biased as is Barrie M. Schwortz who makes a living hawking 'shroud' replicas: https://www.shroud.com/obtain.htm

So... we have a painting on 14th Century fabric, painted in 14th Century style (not anatomically accurate), using 14th Century paint, and Carbon dated to the 14th Century. Even the Church does not claim the Cloth of Turin to be a genuine relic, with some Popes even calling it a "fake."
https://www.history.com/news/shroud-turin-facts

As for claiming "no one can prove anything," read and analyze the detailed analysis here:
http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads ... 560933.pdf

Before you continue to make your refuted and false claim about the "mystery" and that there are no pigments on the "Shroud" you should read McCrone's detailed work and actually analyze it. So far all you've done is say he's not a member of a biased committee.
The 'Appendix I referenced above is a pdf so I can't cut and paste a quote, but on page 2 under "Microscopical Identification of Red Ochre," McCrone gives exacting and extensive detail on the pigments he found on "every image tape" and also explains the precision and technique one need to employ to see the pigments from the painting. In contrast the STURP report reads more like an amateurish compilation of gossip notes than a scientific report, AND, in contrast to what has been reported here, they DID find iron pigments in their own testing, but preferred (without detailed analysis) to conclude they came from blood rather than red ochre.

It is recklessly disingenuous to continue to assert your false and refuted claim about 'no pigments' and instead engage in wild, complicated and unsubstantiated speculation about the 'mysterious' image. There is nothing mysterious about a painting.
_____________________________
*

Few, if any, criminalists are not familiar with Dr. Walter C. McCrone's voluminous contributions to the field of forensic microscopy and the analyses of micro and ultra micro transfer (trace) evidence.... Dr. McCrone can be said to have been responsible for the training of a large majority of microscopists who literally analyzed tens of millions of samples. These analyses were performed utilizing methodologies developed predominately by him and adopted by regulatory agencies in the United States and abroad.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15027546/
http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/v/8/Dr-Walter-C-McCrone

[brunumb]

It's a painting. It was proven in 1978.

I agree, although I prefer to think of it as what remains of what was once a painting.

[otseng]

Red ochre with with some blood mixed in.

The other way around. The STURP team concluded it was blood on the shroud. McCrone only found a few particles. From McCrone himself:

There are very small amounts of pigment and me-
dium on the body-image fibers, undetectable except by
careful light microscopy at a minimum magnification
of 400x. The blood-image areas hold more solid ma-
terial as red ochre, vermilion, and collagen tempera but,
still, much less than a normal painting.

http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads ... 560933.pdf

But, your story is more and more implausible. Was the supernatural lightening bolt so specific so as to seemingly take a portrait (in the style of Medieval paintings) and only captured the exterior features and the wound locations - like a painting wound? That's so specific on the face of it!

This is the argument from incredulity fallacy.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa.

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

The Argument from Personal Incredulity describes a situation where someone dismisses a claim for no other reason than they find it difficult to believe. In fact, the person may be having trouble believing something simply because it doesn’t conform to how they currently think, or even that they simply don’t understand some element of the claim. However, rather than asking for more information or an explanation, the claim is dismissed as false because it seems unlikely to them.

https://fallacioustrump.com/ft29/

Look at it! It's a painting! Medieval style, Medieval cloth, Medieval confession.

C'mon! Look at it!

I don't know why you keep on telling me to look at it. I've been looking at it for a long time. Rather, what you need to do is look at the evidence. I've presented many pages of evidence of the shroud. Please present evidence it's a medieval fake instead of just repeatedly stating it is.

Also, why is it the most miraculously preserved cloth from 30CE, yet average for Medieval clothes?

Why isn't it saturated in blood, instead of a few well-placed drops right where you'd expect an artist to put them?

What do you mean "average for Medieval clothes"? Please give evidence a 14' x 3.5' herringbone weave linen cloth was even used as medieval clothing. Even the 1988 C-14 scientists couldn't find a medieval herringbone weave linen sample to be used as a control.

There are blood stains all over the body, even much more than the Medieval depictions I've seen. There also claims the body had been washed.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2752

It's hard to discern the details of the foot in that image.

.....which means that there's no evidence of any "cloth collapse".

I'm saying you are using Ray Downing's image of the shroud which does not resolve the feet area in much detail.

But no calcaneus, metatarsals or phalanges, in a darker area where "cloth collapse" should have produced an "x-ray" image.

It does seem the heel bone was imaged, but not sure if that's just the blood. Also, I'm not so sure it should have imaged the feet bones. It would seem the cloth at the feet area should've moved less distance than the hand area. When the cloth collapsed at the hand area, the cloth would also go through the body area. Since there was more volume under the hand area that became a vacuum, there would be more negative pressure and cause the cloth to collapse faster than the feet area.

[otseng]

Evolution is a fact.

Creationism is a religious belief that can't be shown to be fact.

With your logic, no, they are both "cockamamie hypothesis as equally valid as any other".

You seem to think your hypothesis is brilliant for what it explains, but it's dull as dirt for what it don't.

If it's "dull as dirt", it should be easy to present rational argumentation with evidence, rather than simply repeating your assertions which I've already addressed many times. And I've already given you a big help by pointing you to a professional shroud skeptic.