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

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2856

If you don't think there was a body involved at all, then you'll need to present your case for this.

I don't have to demonstrate that a body didn't dematerialize in a conveniently quirky fashion to make an impression on a piece of cloth which looks like it was made from bas-reliefs.

[boatsnguitars]

Have Shroud believers explained this away?:

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

Magic? I bet they'll say magic.

[earl]

Image retention over centuries and thereafter loss of it will foster a multitude of variables in attempting to explain the current image status .
Consider how many variables in the yellowing and decomposition of a curtain in a house exposed not only the elements but all other potentials over a simple years time attacking the curtain.
Did you almost answer your own question in saying the witnesses in the fifteenth and sixteenth saw the shroud as vivid and bright red blood stains.
So in what years and how many did the shroud have the most handling and witnesses to see it potentially causing the greater amount of decomposition over a short period of time?

Too many variables to answer either way.
But handling and exposure to sunlight accelerates the process.
Elvis keeps his curtains closed at his house .The limited sunlight keeps his furnishings clean and bright.

[brunumb]

Have Shroud believers explained this away?:

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention. On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from the year A.D. 30, why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.

Magic? I bet they'll say magic.

Maybe someone tried to wash it after the fire and........OOPS!

[earl]

The Jackson Report.
Jackson states UV radiation is the only possible explanation for the image formation.
However it must be without any accompanying heat radiation.

Is there any UV radiation without heat?

Light without heat
From the Urantia Book
Copyright 1955
Light that is ,light without heat is another of the nonspiritual manifestations.....
And there is still another form of nonspiritual energy which is virtually unknown on earth,it is as yet unrecognized.
So here we are not talking supernatural but simply nonspiritual unrecognized undiscovered UV light without heat.

[boatsnguitars]

Image retention over centuries and thereafter loss of it will foster a multitude of variables in attempting to explain the current image status .
Consider how many variables in the yellowing and decomposition of a curtain in a house exposed not only the elements but all other potentials over a simple years time attacking the curtain.
Did you almost answer your own question in saying the witnesses in the fifteenth and sixteenth saw the shroud as vivid and bright red blood stains.
So in what years and how many did the shroud have the most handling and witnesses to see it potentially causing the greater amount of decomposition over a short period of time?

Too many variables to answer either way.
But handling and exposure to sunlight accelerates the process.
Elvis keeps his curtains closed at his house .The limited sunlight keeps his furnishings clean and bright.

Oh, I'm sure it was normal processes that caused the Shroud to fade. I'm sure only normal, natural processes were involved the whole time from it's creation sometime between 1260-1390 and since. There is no mystery.

[earl]

For a body to disappear in a matter of seconds or instantaneous ,from the Jackson report ,who can do this naturally and not spiritually?
For a body to decompose it requires a very long time with variables down to the very last tooth to disappear,return to dust.
This seems there will require a technique of "accelerated time" to accomplish in a matter of seconds or less to perform and where no decomposition took place.
The human would not be factored into this technique as no one or group can duplicate the process to this day.
Therefore the nonspiritual technique is applied to accelerate time but the application of this technique is beyond human skill set and has been for over 2000 years.

[earl]

Paul understood something of what happened to Jesus' body.Ac.13.37-His body did not decay

[otseng]

And, as expected, you knew exactly what I was talking about, but instead had me post something you off-handedly dismiss.

I didn't dismiss your post. I simply asked for evidence.

Also, though I suspected you were referring to the d'Arcis memo, I wasn't sure since I already spent a lot of time addressing it. You might've been referring to something else that I have not addressed yet. All you stated was, "The artist confessed to it." There was no context on that statement. You never mentioned the d'Arcis memo or what artist you are referring to.

The evidence against the authenticity and reliability of the d'Arcis memo is overwhelming. To recap:

1. The letter is unsigned, undated, and there is no record of it ever sent to Antipope Clement VII. We cannot verify who wrote it, when it was written, and if it ever left the trash can.

Hmm, very much like many of the books of the Bible - except here, we have the original. Go figure there's better evidence against the Shroud than there is for the entire story of Jesus...

There are some similarities, but there are also many differences.

What evidence do you have that it is the original? Also, the d'Arcis memo was never sent. And why would anyone write a letter and not send it, but store it so that it would be kept safe for over 400 years?

Really the only reason skeptics accept the d'Arcis memo as reliable is only because of what it purports to claim, that the shroud was created by a forger. If the d'Arcis memo claimed the shroud was legit, would skeptics accept the memo as reliable? I doubt it.

Again, my arguments against the d'Arcis memo is based on 15 arguments that the letter is suspect. The whole thing doesn't make any sense.

You apparently don't know that there was a shift against the use of relics - which would be Research 101.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27831005

Please enlighten me then. Cite what is that article claiming and how it relates to the discussion.

You simply seem to lack basic academic rigor. I wonder if you've even tried to disprove your assumption that the Shroud is real?

We can let the shroud professionals judge. Are you willing to accept the challenge of proposing our ideas to shroud professionals to decide who has more academic rigor?

I really wonder, are you emotionally capable of accepting you are wrong about the Shroud?

An ad hom argument, but I'll address it. Nobody claims their faith is dependent on the shroud. As a matter of fact, I never really studied the shroud in-depth until a year ago and I've been a Christian for over 30 years. And if you ask any Christian about the shroud, few even know anything about it. Even the RCC has no position on the shroud. So practically speaking, if the shroud was a fake, it wouldn't affect Christian belief.

I will add though I've upped the ante by saying if skeptics can demonstrate the shroud is a fake, then it will disprove the resurrection of Jesus. There is nobody else I've seen that makes this claim. But if the shroud is legit, then this is a serious challenge to skeptics.

Lastly, the difficulty must be noticed that while the witnesses of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries speak of the image as being then so vivid that the blood seemed freshly shed, it is now darkened and hardly recognizable without minute attention.

The body image and blood stains are different. The blood stains are still red, so the only way we normally experience that is if it is fresh blood. Over minutes, the blood will darken and no longer be red. The body image color has been the same and there's no evidence it has changed over the years.

[otseng]

I don't have to demonstrate that a body didn't dematerialize in a conveniently quirky fashion to make an impression on a piece of cloth which looks like it was made from bas-reliefs.

A bas-relief explanation has little explanatory power to account for the features for the shroud. Yes, it can explain some, but it has few compared to the cloth collapse theory.