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]

[Replying to otseng in post #2787

What better alternative is there that can account for the data?

You're really not in a position to ask that question, since there's so much data which your hypothesis doesn't account for. At least downpullers explain all gravitational observations.

Of course I'm in a position to ask that. It was the entire premise from the very start.

We will now deep dive into theories of how the body image originated on the cloth. First off, there is no widely accepted theory on how the body image got there. There are many theories and each one has strengths and weaknesses. We'll look at the top theories and see how each stands up.

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

The best theory is not which one explains all the features, but which one explains the most features. There is no theory that can account for everything. Even in science there is no theory that can account for everything, especially when you delve deep into a theory.

As I pointed out earlier, a good sign that you're off-track is having your explanations get more complicated instead of simpler.

Simpler per se would not necessarily be the best. I think a lot of people view history this way. We all typically want a simple explanation to historical events (eg, RCC was against science so they attacked Galileo), but in reality, it's not quite so simple. We have to look at all the facts and do deep research. With the TS, I've researched a lot of data, from both the authentic side and the skeptic side. I've thought through both sides of this and tested it out through this debate. And the lack of any viable counterarguments from skeptics show to me my arguments are sound. I agree bias can be at play here, so that's why I've even been willing to up the ante by submitting our ideas to shroud experts. And with this challenge nobody has accepted it.

There really are no valid arguments the shroud is a fake and practically all the evidence points to authenticity of the shroud. And so far, the best theory to explain the body image is Jackson's cloth collapse theory.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2791

The best theory is not which one explains all the features, but which one explains the most features.

A proposal has to offer an explanation for all features in order to qualify as theory. Short of that, all you have is hypothesis.

Even in science there is no theory that can account for everything

Scientific theory isn't proof of something, but it offers explanations which can themselves be verified. For cloth collapse to qualify as theory explaining the image on the cloth, it would have to explain how and why the body would not only dematerialize, but dematerialize in a specific sequence. As it stands, the dematerialization claim just makes cloth collapse unfalsifiable and, thus, unscientific.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I agree bias can be at play here, so that's why I've even been willing to up the ante by submitting our ideas to shroud experts. And with this challenge nobody has accepted it.

I accept that challenge. To whom would you like refer our arguments?

There really are no valid arguments the shroud is a fake and practically all the evidence points to authenticity of the shroud. And so far, the best theory to explain the body image is Jackson's cloth collapse theory.

Not even the owners of the shroud say that's Jesus on it, so your speculation doesn't solve much.

[otseng]

As it stands, the dematerialization claim just makes cloth collapse unfalsifiable and, thus, unscientific.

It is falsifiable in the sense that if a naturalistic explanation is proposed that explains more features, then the cloth collapse theory is falsified. Also, I'm not claiming the dematerialization theory is scientific. As a matter of fact, it is against science because it is in violation of the assumption of naturalistic causation. All I'm claiming is I'm going where the evidence leads to. Again, if there is no other viable alternative explanation that best aligns with the evidence, then there really is no other logical conclusion.

[otseng]

...
I agree bias can be at play here, so that's why I've even been willing to up the ante by submitting our ideas to shroud experts. And with this challenge nobody has accepted it.

I accept that challenge. To whom would you like refer our arguments?

Great. Write a post with a summary of why the shroud is a fake. I'll also write a post with a summary of why the shroud is legit. I'm in the process now of networking with the shroud community and then we'll get the process going.

Not even the owners of the shroud say that's Jesus on it, so your speculation doesn't solve much.

You talking the Pope? What does it matter what he says? If a Pope says it's authentic, would you accept that?

[otseng]

We have been exploring the top proposals for explaining the body image and the best explanation so far is Jackson's cloth collapse theory. Next to account for is the blood stains. As far as I can tell, no viable artistic method has been proposed to account for the blood stains and there has been no attempt to replicate all the blood markings. So, at this time, really the only viable explanation for the blood on the shroud is the actual burial of Jesus.

As with the body image, the blood markings are enigmatic. For one, the blood is still red. Another is it is real blood. So, how can anyone paint blood that maintains the reddish color? Nobody knows how to do this.

There is a $1 million challenge to anyone who can fully duplicate the shroud:

So convinced is Rolfe that he’s issuing a challenge worth $1m to the British Museum. “If … they believe the shroud is a medieval forgery, I call on them to repeat the exercise, and create something similar today,” he says. “Because from all the evidence I’ve seen, if this is a forgery it’s the most ingenious forgery in history – and of course it dates back almost 2,000 years, to a time of far less sophisticated forgery techniques.

“They said it was knocked up by a medieval conman, and I say: well, if he could do it, you must be able to do it as well. And if you can, there’s a $1m donation for your funds.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/ ... t-was-done

It's ridiculous if it's an artwork from 1350 that nobody now would be able to fully duplicate it. But, if it is legit, it makes sense.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2796

We have been exploring the top proposals for explaining the body image and the best explanation so far is Jackson's cloth collapse theory. Next to account for is the blood stains.

Declaring yourself the winner and hurrying to move on?

Cloth collapse doesn't explain why the body would just happen to conveniently dematerialize in the exact way necessary to make the images look like they were produced off of bas-reliefs.

Bas-relief imaging does explain it.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to otseng in post #2796]

Namaskaram otseng

I do not understand why it has taken so long time for someone to notice the image? Did they not notice it back then - 2000 years ago? Was it not worth writting about? Why keep the cloth? Because there was an image nobody had notice? If nobody had notice it why then keep it? What would be the point...

Your friend forever

Waterfall

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I agree bias can be at play here, so that's why I've even been willing to up the ante by submitting our ideas to shroud experts. And with this challenge nobody has accepted it.

I accept that challenge. To whom would you like refer our arguments?

Great. Write a post with a summary of why the shroud is a fake. I'll also write a post with a summary of why the shroud is legit. I'm in the process now of networking with the shroud community and then we'll get the process going.

I've not sid the shroud is a fake. I've said that without confirmatory data, we don't know who the image represents.

Not even the owners of the shroud say that's Jesus on it, so your speculation doesn't solve much.

You talking the Pope? What does it matter what he says? If a Pope says it's authentic, would you accept that?

It's reasonably assumed the owners would want it to be real, yet not even they have declared it such.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I agree bias can be at play here, so that's why I've even been willing to up the ante by submitting our ideas to shroud experts. And with this challenge nobody has accepted it.

I accept that challenge. To whom would you like refer our arguments?

Great. Write a post with a summary of why the shroud is a fake. I'll also write a post with a summary of why the shroud is legit. I'm in the process now of networking with the shroud community and then we'll get the process going.

I've not said the shroud is a fake. I've said that without confirmatory data, we don't know who the image represents.

Not even the owners of the shroud say that's Jesus on it, so your speculation doesn't solve much.

You talking the Pope? What does it matter what he says? If a Pope says it's authentic, would you accept that?

It's reasonably assumed the owners would want it to be real, yet not even they have declared it such.