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

[JoeMama]

[Replying to otseng in post #2158]

Otseng wrote,

I will attempt to show there are evidence to support it (the resurrection) and that it is a reasonable position to hold.

"Reasonable"?

Really?

Billions of deaths over the history of Earth, not even one time was anyone at any time long dead in his tomb, and then vanished, coming out alive to walk among, and talk with his friends days later? And then being lifted bodily upward into the sky?

You say, Otseng that it is "reasonable" that this happened.

I say it is not reasonable.

Keep in mind, Otseng, a basic rule of debate: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any "extraordinary" evidence in support of your resurrected and risen Jesus?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to JoeMama in post #2170

The believer will be able to say that God's plan all along was to put errors in his Bible to weed out undeserving persons who abandon too quickly their belief in him because of something so trivial as a few Bible "errors."

The problem here is that it would run afoul of 2 Timothy 3:16....

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness"

That rules out a divine trickery scenario through scripture, and the suggestion of such a scenario would merely show what desperate lengths the Bible apologist has to go to in trying to harmonize biblical inconsistencies.

Who among us would take up what I might imagine could soon be Otseng's challenge to "please provide evidence that such a shroud doesn't exist?"

It isn't about proving that such an artifact doesn't exist. It's about putting such an alleged artifact in proper context with the discrepancies and shortcomings in the Christian narrative and measuring the presumption of its authenticity thereby. The Christian Bible (Romans 10:17) states that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God; it doesn't say that faith comes by the appearance of Jesus' burial wrapping, so the claims of Christian scripture have to stand or fall on their own with no help from any artifact.

And these observations are not coming from an atheist.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #2167]

Diogenese [sic] wrote,

"If you declare God is perfect with absolute knowledge of everything and that he wrote a book about the origin of the world, you would expect such a God to write without errors."

JoeMama responds:

Not necessarily.

Skeptics, like me, too often over-estimate the strength of their case against inerrancy. In this case, Diogenes, I think you are not justified in claiming victory. Against seasoned apologists, you might come up short in debate. The believer will be able to say that God's plan all along was to put errors in his Bible to weed out undeserving persons who abandon too quickly their belief in him because of something so trivial as a few Bible "errors."

A. No matter how well justified it might have been, I did not "declare victory."

B. There may be a chance, theoretically, that I may "come up short," in a debate with an apologist... but that's not the way to bet.

C. Yes, there is no end to the silliness, dubious logic, and outright absurdity that an apologist may employ to avoid a reasonable conclusion to clear facts. Your suggestion that this perfect 'God' would be so devious as to purposely mislead those he supposedly "loves" in order to trick them into eternal damnation is an example. I don't concern myself with such nonsense.

Your example is a variant of the one I first heard at least 60 years ago:

When God created the Earth and all life upon it in six days, 6000 years ago, he used the remains of planets billions of years old. These ancient planets had millions of years worth of fossils buried in various strata in order to fool naturalists into believing in evolution and an old Earth.

[otseng]

Apparently you have not read my rebuttals to the C-14 dating. Please provide counter-evidence to my arguments rather than making baseless assertions.

And while you're at it, be sure to read the counter-evidence some of us have provided.

If there's some counter-evidence to the C-14 dating that skeptics have produced that I have not addressed yet, please post the reference to it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2174

If there's some counter-evidence to the C-14 dating that skeptics have produced that I have not addressed yet, please post the reference to it.

I believe you yourself have said that you don't question the C-14 dating. Your challenge has been to the samples which were dated, and it has been countered with citations from experts asserting that the samples were legitimate.

[otseng]

I also believe 100% that the image on the shroud depicts Jesus.

OK.

I think ALL skeptics accept that the image depicts Jesus. What they do not accept is that the image was created by placing cloth onto the body of a murdered man who was later revived and then lifted up into the sky to sit with God.

Depends on what you mean. There's two options I can think of:
1. The shroud image is Jesus of Nazareth.
2. The image is someone that looks like Jesus, but was not Jesus of Nazareth.

So, do you believe in #1 or #2 or do you have a third option?

You have vigorously defended your belief that the bearded image on the Shroud of Turin is the crucified Jesus, but yet you say you do NOT claim that Jesus had a beard when he was crucified?

If you DO, in fact, believe that the crucified Jesus had a beard, on what basis other than faith do you believe that?

I haven't made a claim either way if Jesus did or did not have a beard based on the Bible. Yes, Jesus has a beard on the TS. So, the only evidence we have that Jesus had a beard is the TS.

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #2166]

For the record, I would wish forum members to know that while I'm aware of no evidence that points to the truth of a resurrection, that easily exposing the shroud as an obvious fake does not give us the right to claim that a burial cloth of an "actual" crucified "Jesus" never existed, and may even still be out there, somewhere.

Who among us would take up what I might imagine could soon be Otseng's challenge to "please provide evidence that such a shroud doesn't exist?"

I have no idea what you're claiming. I'm claiming the TS is the actual burial shroud of Jesus. And you stated, "I also believe 100% that the image on the shroud depicts Jesus." If you believe that, what other shroud are you referring to?

Keep in mind, Otseng, a basic rule of debate: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Do you have any "extraordinary" evidence in support of your resurrected and risen Jesus?

The Shroud of Turin. I've been producing the evidence and will continue to produce it for many more pages.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #2165]

Diogenes quoted,

"They concluded that the features can be explained if the shroud is a work of a Gothic artist."

JoeMama asks,

Could Jesus' skull and facial features have been exceptions to the norms? In other words, could not Jesus have been ugly?

Anything is possible if you use 'magic,' magical thinking, the supernatural, or are willing to embrace odds of a million to one against. However, IF someone suggested the 'Jesus was deformed' argument, they would have to do so despite scripture. Jesus was supposed to be 'the perfect lamb of God.' More significantly, a deformity as great as that depicted in the 14th Century painting, "The Cloth of Turin," would have been mentioned in the gospels. Also missing from the gospel accounts is a note about the image of Christ appearing on the discarded linen.

Gospel writers, tho' providing contradictory details about what was found in the empty tomb, omit the claim of the amazing image left on the cloth, along with other details that don't fit the Cloth of Turin. Surely the authors would have mentioned the 'miraculous' image left on the burial cloth[s] if it was present.

Even some apologist organizations note the discrepancies and conclude the Cloth of Turin is not the burial cloth[s] of Jesus.
Creation Ministries International:

... according to John 11:44 and John 20:7 the Jewish custom was to bury their dead using several cloths, not just one. The Jews buried Jesus with a face cloth, which disqualifies the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Christ. Furthermore, Jesus was buried with seventy-five pounds of extremely sticky spices, according to John 19:40, whereas the Shroud shows no signs of them.

[otseng]

Any student of anatomy can easily see the image on the 'shroud' is a painting, just by looking at it.

It's impossible to be a painting or the result of any artwork. This was the conclusion of the 1978 STURP findings:

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.

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.

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.

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

The image is anatomically incorrect.

Is the image photographically correct? No. The image on the cloth is not based on what we would see, but what the cloth would capture based on the imaging projection technique. I discussed this here and here.

Also the arms of a prostrate corpse are not long enough to cover the genitals.

The arm is longer because one of the shoulders was dislocated. I discussed this here.

This image was taken from this site: https://www.churchpop.com/2022/10/21/hy ... -of-turin/

No, I already posted the source as https://themysteryman.com/en/the-mystery-man/

But no explanation, no evidence is given for the body reclining as if on a chaise lounge with the head and knees raised.

The body is in that position because of rigor mortis. I discussed this here.

In addition to being anatomically incorrect, the image on the cloth conforms to the style of gothic representations of painters of the era in which we first hear of the shroud.

Obviously there was some archetype for the Gothic representations. The most obvious answer is the TS. I'll be going into this when I discuss the history of the shroud.

In addition the 'crown of thorns' drawn on the head is too cute by half.

What does "too cute by half" mean?

Among other problems, it seems more likely the crown would have been removed before burial.

Yes, I believe that was the case.

If a body were wrapped in cloth, the hair would not have made such an imprint, but would have rested on the surface the body was on, not up having contact with the shroud to leave the same kind of imprint as the beard.

I believe this is explained by the imaging technique which I'll get to at the end.

[otseng]

You haven't shown why someone would have to believe the bible is without errors in order to be trustworthy. Pick up any book on physics. They are not perfect, but I trust them to teach me physics.

I don't claim the Bible needs to be without error in order to be trustworthy. I claim the Bible does not need to be inerrant in order to be trustworthy.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #2174

And while you're at it, be sure to read the counter-evidence some of us have provided

If there's some counter-evidence to the C-14 dating that skeptics have produced that I have not addressed yet, please post the reference to it.

I believe you yourself have said that you don't question the C-14 dating. Your challenge has been to the samples which were dated, and it has been countered with citations from experts asserting that the samples were legitimate.

Yes and I addressed that starting here.