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 #2667

And again, without a vaccuum this doesn't account for the back image.

I have no idea what you think I'm claiming. I'm claiming there was a vacuum.

Since I've always stated there would be a vacuum, it would account for it.

And I've pointed out that a vaccuum would also cause the cloth covering the top of the head to be pushed inward, an observation you haven't been able to refute.

Neither of us know exactly the mechanics of dematerialization. As mentioned before, it could've dematerialized in layers, like an MRI. If it was by layers parallel to the front and back cloth and from the outside of the body inward, then there would've been little vacuum at the top of the head.

When you speak of "dematerialization," are you not assuming the existence of the very thing that this entire forum is about, namely, the existence (on not) of a god that allows supernatural events to occur? In other words, aren't you employing the begging the question fallacy?

[boatsnguitars]

Looks like a painting. Not sure why it's important to ask why there are blood stains outside the image?

The imaging is a depiction of the body. If there is blood outside the body image, how can someone bleed outside of their body?

Do you mean some drops of paint landed out side the body?

No, not paint, blood. Yes, there are blood stains outside the body image on the cloth.

Btw, if people were wrapping the body with all the aloes and creams, as they lathered up the naked Jesus, where are the hand and finger prints?

I'm never claimed the aloe and myrrh caused any of the imaging. There's also no claim that any imaging can resolve fingerprints. I'm not even claiming it can resolve coins placed over the eyes.

So the artist added some pig blood to make it look real and dropped some? OK.

Yes, but where are the smudges of fingerprints, handprints, etc? The shroud would be riddled with them.

[otseng]

Neither of us know exactly the mechanics of dematerialization.

No kidding! NO one knows the "mechanics of dematerialization." There is a very good reason for this lack of knowledge:
There is no such thing as "dematerialization" in physics.

Actually, physics is already venturing into teleportation.

Since faith in orthodox Christianity requires a belief in magic, AKA, 'the supernatural,'

As I've extensively argued, modern science has already breached into the supernatural.

Cosmology (and physics) have started to resort to non-natural explanations because naturalistic explanations are not viable. These are not done by religious right-wing nuts, but by bona fide scientists. The only way to get around this is to equivocate and redefine what is natural. Something outside of our universe is not natural. Something in another dimension is not natural. Something that we have no idea what it is and is not even measureable is not natural. Where do we see the outcry from skeptics against these scientists saying they cannot invoke non-natural explanations? There are none. We give them a pass because they are "scientists". Yet, if any religious person says there's something outside our universe, or in another dimension, or is not measureable and have not idea what it is comprised of, skeptics immediately jump up and down and say foul. This is special pleading, scientists can invoke non-natural explanations, but religious people cannot.

[otseng]

You're conveniently invoking the same kind of ad hoc directionality which made you reject the radiation hypothesis.

The directionality is only introduced by the actual mechanics of dematerialization/teleportation. Sure, it's entirely hypothetical, but not entirely unreasonable. If someone were to invent teleportation, it can involve the technique I'm proposing. Slice a body into atomic layers. Then teleport each atom row by row for each layer. The idea is similar to how cathode ray tube TVs work.

[Diogenes]

Neither of us know exactly the mechanics of dematerialization.

No kidding! NO one knows the "mechanics of dematerialization." There is a very good reason for this lack of knowledge:
There is no such thing as "dematerialization" in physics.

Actually, physics is already venturing into teleportation.

Since faith in orthodox Christianity requires a belief in magic, AKA, 'the supernatural,'

As I've extensively argued, modern science has already breached into the supernatural.

Cosmology (and physics) have started to resort to non-natural explanations because naturalistic explanations are not viable. These are not done by religious right-wing nuts, but by bona fide scientists. The only way to get around this is to equivocate and redefine what is natural. Something outside of our universe is not natural. Something in another dimension is not natural. Something that we have no idea what it is and is not even measureable is not natural. Where do we see the outcry from skeptics against these scientists saying they cannot invoke non-natural explanations? There are none. We give them a pass because they are "scientists". Yet, if any religious person says there's something outside our universe, or in another dimension, or is not measureable and have not idea what it is comprised of, skeptics immediately jump up and down and say foul. This is special pleading, scientists can invoke non-natural explanations, but religious people cannot.

Again you have quoted yourself, your own arguments. You have not supported these arguments. Please cite proof of 'dematerialization' or teleportation in physics. Tell us how physics demonstrates a dead human body can be completely 'dematerialized' then reappear alive. I seem to have missed that proof in my weekly review of the current literature in physics.
What scientific, peer reviewed journal has an article where 'non-natural' explanations of physical phenomena have been demonstrated... or are you merely referring to speculation among science fiction aficionados?

Perhaps you are referring to the fact that science is willing to EXPLORE the cause of phenomena it does not yet fully understand. When and if science discovers a 'non-natural' explanation or mechanism, that mechanism will no longer be considered supernatural because it will in fact be part of nature rather than be attributable to magic.

EDIT: I just noticed you have admitted your speculations are "entirely hypothetical," just like the flat Earth hypothesis.

[earl]

About dematerialization,
Is there any known written clarification or usage of dematerialization ?

The Urantia Book
Copyright 1955
P.36.4.3
51.2.2
51.2.3
74.1.5
189.2.1
It seems dematerialization is not a recent term as scientists continue to explore the shroud

[otseng]

The behavior of the cloth during the proposed "dematerialization" would depend on how fast this event was (ignoring the fact that such a thing would require supernatural input). If it were "instant", then the volume occupied by the body would be replaced by (presumably) "nothing" (ie. a perfect vacuum at the instant the event occurred. Air would then rush in from all sides, likely crumpling the cloth as it simultaneously responded to gravity and the lack of support (for the upper sections) pulling it down, and the violent air flow as it rushed in to equalize a roughly 1 Bar pressure differential.

I agree. That's why I've stated I do not believe it was instantaneous. Evidence it was not instantaneous is the facial area is darker than the rest of the body. So, there's some time difference involved somehow.

Any image formation, if it is proposed to have occurred during the event, would need to have been essentially instantaneous and coincident with the "dematerialization" itself, otherwise the image distortion from the cloth reacting to the sudden vacuum and resulting air flow would be severe.

Another reason I propose a layered dematerialization. It would be a "controlled" imaging where the cloth is collapsed through the body. It would be analogous to a body moving through a MRI machine. A layered dematerialization would move the cloth fairly uniformly through the body.

Does your preferred mechanism for formation of the image allow it to have occurred in milliseconds or less?

No idea what the timing would be, but could be on the order of millisec. The imaging on the cloth only penetrated the body to reveal the teeth and finger bones and no further. So the distance the cloth moved to penetrate into the teeth and finger bones would be a factor in determining the length of time of the dematerialization.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to otseng in post #2691]

Slice a body into atomic layers. Then teleport each atom row by row for each layer. The idea is similar to how cathode ray tube TVs work.

It is more like the fictional transporter from Star Trek which "dematerialized" a body into an energy pattern, then reassembled it ("rematerialization") somewhere else. Jesus would have been "beamed up" to heaven.

In a cathode ray tube an electron gun (usually a heated tungsten coil that heats a cathode mateial) generates electrons which are "steered" to a phosphor-coated glass front surface via magnetic fields. When the electronics impact the phosphor, light is emitted. But it is a one-way, dead-end process, with no actual image existing at the origin point (the cathode). The image is created in real time as the electrons hit the phosphor screen and it disappears as soon as the phosphor emission dies off (or is regenerated 1/60 of a second later as the screen is "redrawn"). Nothing is being reconstructed during the process.

Of course, the technology to actually teleport, or "transport" like in Star Trek, a human being is pure science fiction at the moment. Tearing apart a biological system atom by atom then reassembling it intact at another location is far from anything even remotely possible now (or likely ever IMO).

As I've extensively argued, modern science has already breached into the supernatural. Something outside of our universe is not natural. Something in another dimension is not natural. Something that we have no idea what it is and is not even measureable is not natural.

But all of these things would be natural if confirmed to exist. None of them are proposed as supernatural or nonnatural, but as the result of some mathematical analysis or an implication of some hypothesis. Scientists are not venturing into the supernatural realm with hypotheses like these, but trying to make analogies and interpretations of what a mathematical model may suggest and put it into English rather than pure mathematics.

[otseng]

When you speak of "dematerialization," are you not assuming the existence of the very thing that this entire forum is about, namely, the existence (on not) of a god that allows supernatural events to occur? In other words, aren't you employing the begging the question fallacy?

As stated at the outset:

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

I will also add a theory can involve a method that current science does not fully understand. Given that 200 years ago, people did not have the scientific knowledge to understand the shroud like we do now, it's not so far-fetched that 200 years from now, science will be advanced enough to understand something about the shroud that we currently do not know.

I'm assuming an explanation can involve a mechanism we do not currently fully understand. When Star Trek was written, teleportation was pure science fiction. However, now we are able to do quantum teleportation. Who knows if material teleportation might be possible many years in the future.

If you have a better theory that explains more features of the shroud than the cloth collapse theory, please present it with supporting evidence.

[otseng]

So the artist added some pig blood to make it look real and dropped some? OK.

Actually, the off body image blood stains match exactly the wounds when the body is wrapped in the shroud. To accidentally drop blood that matches the wound of a wrapped body was be extremely unlikely.

Yes, but where are the smudges of fingerprints, handprints, etc? The shroud would be riddled with them.

Whose fingerprints are you referring to? Jesus? Again, I do not claim the imaging of the shroud can resolve to the scale of fingerprints.