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

[oldbadger]

And although this cloth was wrapped around a body, it was a DEAD body and imo the stains and discolorations would have occurred over a much longer time than the 1.5 days (a Friday sunset to a Sunday dawn) that Jesus is claimed to have lain within it, before rising.

If the body was washed and anointed before wrapping there would be little or no blood stain at all. In my opinion, the blood stains on the shroud have been faked.

I suppose this shroud could be real, but certainly nothing to do with a 1st century Jesus of Nazareth.

Even if a linen cloth had been produced which science had tested and declared to be a 1st century item, it would still have needed to be forensically 'tied' to a tomb in Jerusalem and if all of that had been accomplished (which of course it wasn't!) then my proposal that Jesus survived the cross and was got clear away and soon after to see his friends (as claimed in the gospels), would still be stronger than any resurrection of the God who formed the universe with its countless billions of galaxies.... and bothered to come here.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to oldbadger in post #2280

In any case, if the presentation of a stained linen cloth is the proof that Jesus was God then this must show how wobbly Christianity is becoming.

"It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits."
---James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", 1785

[otseng]

A lot to respond to here. The following arguments from Athetotheist, brunumb, and Diogenes are scriptural arguments. Responding to those will require a separate in-depth discussion. Not exactly sure when is the best time to do that, but I was originally intending to do that after all the non-Biblical evidence has been presented, since I was assuming non-Biblical evidence is more important than Biblical evidence for skeptics.

The beloved disciple saw the linen clothes and believed according to the fourth gospel's narrative. That version has Simon Peter running to the tomb after being told by Mary Magdalene that the body had been removed by someone. Luke's version has the women, including MM, having told the disciples about seeing angels at the tomb by this time.

Why is the author of Matthew the only writer who says anything about there being a guard at the tomb? (Scholars tend to agree that Mark's account came first, and after that ending the disciples taking the body would be a logical conclusion.) If there actually was a guard at the tomb, how could a story of the disciples removing the body----also mentioned by Matthew----even get started? What Roman soldier would have trusted Jewish authorities to smooth things over with their commander after pleading guilty to the death-penalty offense of sleeping on duty? Who would have believed that ALL of them were asleep at the same time?

It's more plausible that the disciples did remove the body and that Matthew and/or other early Christians attempted damage control by making up a story about Roman guards put at the tomb.

If the body was washed and anointed before wrapping there would be little or no blood stain at all. In my opinion, the blood stains on the shroud have been faked.

There are multiple contradictions in the accounts:
How Long Was Jesus in the Tomb?
How the Tomb was Guarded
How He Is Anointed Before Burial
Who Visited Jesus’ Tomb?
When Did they visit?
It’s not clear what the women saw when they arrived at the tomb.
Who Greets the Women?
What did the Women Do?
https://www.learnreligions.com/contradi ... omb-250141
[/size]

This, from St. Augustine, may be relevant to this discussion:

St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:

"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true.--St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.

Obviously I don't agree with St. Augustine on this issue. And in this thread, I'm arguing we can reject inerrancy and still be able to justify the belief the Bible is trustworthy and authoritative.

As for the resurrection, I'm not even using the Bible as a primary source yet. I'm arguing for the resurrection now through the artifact evidence of the TS and what we can deduce from it.

[otseng]

More info that the majority of the blood stains is from blood exudate:

We have shown that [the blood] must have
been taken from the exudate of a clot at a certain point in the clotting process. An artist would
therefore have needed the exudate from the wounds of a severely tortured man, or baboon,
and he would need to take the substance within a 20-minute period after the clotting had
begun, and paint it on the cloth with the serum edges and all the other forensic precision that
we see there.”

www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

all of the medical forensic examinations
of the blood images are in agreement that they were exudates from clotted wounds transferred to
the cloth by its being in contact with a wounded human male body consistent with the historic
descriptions given for the Crucifixion of Christ.

That these
are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single
blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring agreeing with the earlier
observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf

This is in agreement with the body image chromophore being a dehydrated oxidized form of
cellulose and not an artist's applied iron oxide paint. The reflectance spectra of the blood
marks from the whole cloth and also a near UV-visible microspectrophotometric study of
blood particles from the sticky tapes 29 are consistent with the spectra expected for a traumatic
blood clot exudate. In a more recent study 13 transmission UV-visible spectra of a simulacrum
of a traumatic clot exudate prepared from laboratory chemicals matches these observed
Shroud spectra, but the spectra of a simulacrum of a mineral pigment blood composed of iron
oxide, mercuric sulfide, and gelatin is a complete mismatch.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part1.pdf

[JoeyKnothead]

More info that the majority of the blood stains is from blood exudate:

We have shown that [the blood] must have
been taken from the exudate of a clot at a certain point in the clotting process. An artist would
therefore have needed the exudate from the wounds of a severely tortured man, or baboon,
and he would need to take the substance within a 20-minute period after the clotting had
begun, and paint it on the cloth with the serum edges and all the other forensic precision that
we see there.”

www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault%20final%2001.pdf

all of the medical forensic examinations
of the blood images are in agreement that they were exudates from clotted wounds transferred to
the cloth by its being in contact with a wounded human male body consistent with the historic
descriptions given for the Crucifixion of Christ.

That these
are clotted wound exudates is clearly seen in the ultraviolet photographs where every single
blood wound shows a distinct serum clot retraction ring agreeing with the earlier
observations of the pioneers on the major blood wounds as seen directly on the cloth.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/adler.pdf

This is in agreement with the body image chromophore being a dehydrated oxidized form of
cellulose and not an artist's applied iron oxide paint. The reflectance spectra of the blood
marks from the whole cloth and also a near UV-visible microspectrophotometric study of
blood particles from the sticky tapes 29 are consistent with the spectra expected for a traumatic
blood clot exudate. In a more recent study 13 transmission UV-visible spectra of a simulacrum
of a traumatic clot exudate prepared from laboratory chemicals matches these observed
Shroud spectra, but the spectra of a simulacrum of a mineral pigment blood composed of iron
oxide, mercuric sulfide, and gelatin is a complete mismatch.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/ssi43part1.pdf

My problem here is in establishing this blood as coming from a particular individual. Where's the comparison sample? What's the chain of custody for either sample?

Without such comparison, all we can do is speculate. Given the TS owners reticence to allow more thorough testing, there's little logic behind trying to claim this as the blood of Jesus.

[TRANSPONDER]

I really, really don't want to get dragged into this again, but the shroud really is a puzzle.I can see why STURP concluded it was absolutely genuine. Even I could not believe it was a medieval painting but IF it was some kind of fake, had to be done later. That is, substituted for a less convincing medieval original. But there are problems with that, too.

The questions both ways - and I have my own about the bloodstains, and indeed the 'exudae' (or water stains) and what is needed is further testing (if ever) to verify these questions - is it a surface image with no substances (e.g paint, pigment) or are there substances that can be identified? Bottom line for me is this is not a properly intended shroud which would have been wrapped around, giving a total distortion of the image. At best, this is lightly draped across a figure first (arguably) laid on it. If it was what it claimed to be, it only supports the idea that the burial was temporary and was intended to be.

Which is why I don't mind even if the shroud IS genuine.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to otseng in post #2284]


No surprise, all references are from shroud.com, an obviously highly biased site that carries on the proud Roman Catholic tradition of selling copies of religious "relics."

"Shroud of Turin Backlit Transparencies in PhotoGlow Frames
Miniature Shroud Replica On Cotton Canvas
Lifesize Shroud Face - 16" x 20" Fine Art Print
Shroud of Turin Lithographic Print Set
Ray Rogers In His Own Words - DVD Video
Barrie Schwortz - 35 Years of Shroud Science, A Personal Perspective - DVD Video
Shroud of Turin Lifesize Photographs
Shroud of Turin Lifesize Replica on Cotton Canvas"
https://www.shroud.com/obtain.htm

My favorites are the "Backlit Transparencies in PhotoGlow Frames."
Available with shipping for only US$520.00

I'm holding out for one painted dayglow pink with a blue neon frame
... or maybe one of the Sistine Chapel.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #2287]

Well can't blame them. Doing some Armarna stuff online I saw a lot of Nefertiti replica heads for sale. But (despite a few accusations of Fake - there's always a few) that's real enough, so can we blame them for peddling replicas of the only relic that looks quite convincing? Not the True crucifix nail, which looks like the top of some iron railing.


There is the Mandylion business, but I would certainly credit just the face of the shroud rather than a separate relic as one has to wag the magic wand a bit harder to get a shroud AND a separate face -cloth, both with images on. But it was always a problem that John's grave wrappings didn't fit the synoptics sheet and some adroit Interpretation was needed to make one look like the other.

[JoeMama]

OTSENG said,

"The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy."

JoeMama asks,


Can you give an example of a part of the Bible you deem to be untrustworthy?

[otseng]

My problem here is in establishing this blood as coming from a particular individual. Where's the comparison sample? What's the chain of custody for either sample?

Without such comparison, all we can do is speculate. Given the TS owners reticence to allow more thorough testing, there's little logic behind trying to claim this as the blood of Jesus.

I'm not arguing we know the blood is from any particular individual. I'm arguing it's real blood, not paint as McCrone claims.

As for identification of any individual, it would be from the blood stain patterns as I mentioned here.