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]

https://skepticalinquirer.org/exclusive ... ic-author/

What are you trying to claim with the link?

Oliver, once physicists develop time-travel technology, you could travel back to that moment in time and space where the shroud is being wrapped around Jesus and then come back and report the results of your investigation to the forum.

500 years ago, one could've said the same thing about the shroud in regards to photography, 3-D imaging, microscopy, etc. Even if one accepts it was a medieval fake! All of these technologies were waiting to be discovered and were hidden in the shroud. It is likely the shroud embeds technology that we still have not discovered yet.

The fundamental question really is not exactly how does teleportation happen. The question is what is the most viable explanation for the image formation. And currently the explanation that does that the best is the cloth collapse theory.

[otseng]

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

Of course it's hypothetical. And of course skeptics will continually bring up the flat earth, which is irrelevant and brought up purely to mock.

Sending 'atomic layers' atom by atom would not be 'dematerialistion' because each atom is material, consisting of matter and energy. So, even IF such a thing could be done, it would not be a supernatural process. Rather it would be a physical manipulation of matter by a technology not yet developed.

I use the term dematerialization as simply an illustration. The body disappeared while wrapped in the shroud and then appeared somewhere else. Can call it teleportation or body transporting or whatever.

Few, if any, of the features of the shroud are true examples of the technologies we know. Even though the shroud has photo-negative properties, it is not really a photograph. Even though it has x-ray properties, it is not really an x-ray. Same with teleportation/dematerialization, esp considering it hasn't even been invented yet for us to know how it could occur.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2700]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

What am I selling How much does it costs...





Your friend forever

Waterfall

[otseng]

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.

Yes, though he "beamed up" to someplace on earth first since he reappeared to others.

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).

Yes, I only use the principle of the CRT as an example illustration.

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).

Probably so.

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.

As we're extensively argued before on this, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[otseng]

.....which fails to explain the absence of bone images such as kneecaps, scapular bones and coccyx. To account for those absences, you have to have different parts of the body conveniently----and inexplicably----dematerialize at different rates.

I don't know how the kneecaps would resolve any differently than what we do see. The shoulder area has been damaged in the 1532 fire, so we can't really make out all the details. Some have claimed the vertebrae can be seen.

Further, it's not likely every area of the cloth penetrated the body at the same depth so that we should see all the bones. We do know the cloth around the face penetrated more since we see imaging on the back side of the cloth.

[otseng]

The fact that humans are, or would be, involved in the creation of teleportation technology would best be explained as a natural phenomenon, as opposed to some god being involved. (Where humans, a product of, and residing within nature, can only do what is natural.)

Except for one major problem, teleportation has not been invented yet. So, how was someone able to be teleported?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2700]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

What am I selling How much does it costs...





Your friend forever

Waterfall

I'm still not understanding what you're getting at.

Are you selling videos? How much for one video? Is there some kind of buy one get one free deal?

[JoeyKnothead]

The fact that humans are, or would be, involved in the creation of teleportation technology would best be explained as a natural phenomenon, as opposed to some god being involved. (Where humans, a product of, and residing within nature, can only do what is natural.)

Except for one major problem, teleportation has not been invented yet. So, how was someone able to be teleported?

Very much. I felt it necessary to point out the difference between human involvement, and real or potential supernatural involvement in the teleportation industry.

Thinking on it now though, if my position on the naturalness of it holds, so too could the theist declare a god's involvement, by creating the creators of teleportation.

Of course, we can consider to an exceedingly high degree of confidence that humans exist, so that's gonna fuddle the math on it all.

[otseng]

So, the artist deliberately dropped blood where the wounds would have been. And this amazes you?

Yes, because he put the blood on where it should be as if the body was covered with the cloth, even if it was not part of the body image on the cloth. What artist would even think of that?

I'm talking about hand prints as they lathered Jesus up, then grabbed the cloth and wrapped him.

Is this seen on any ancient burial cloth?

BTW, I watched a portion of the video. Painful! What about load of motivated reasoning! It's horrible. I stopped when he said he was amazed that Photoshop can make a 2D image look 3D. He's a moron.

This is a BBC video, not some video an amateur produced in his basement.

C'mon, man! JUst look at it! It's a Medieval painting.

It's been proven it's not a painting. Refer to:
viewtopic.php?p=1124026#p1124026

This is why these religious people can't be trusted. Not only do they have a financial reason to lie to you, they don't even understand the subject matter. It's Ken Ham all over again.

Instead of just constantly making wild assertions, please argue logically backed with evidence.

[earl]

In response to the use of the term dematerialization as an illustration for the idea that Jesus reclaimed his previous physical body.
The position of bible believers is that Jesus assumed his original human body,blood circulating physical one.
However this verse Mk.16.12 establishes a new unrevealed body that was witnessed by people,esp Thomas who thereafter saw Jesus in this unrevealed body.
Note that Jesus did not allow Mary to touch him post resurrection.
This runs counter to the Thomas event which is a widely held position that the dead physical body of Jesus was resurrected whom the people saw.
Because a tomb was empty does not make Jesus' resurrection into his previous mortal body a biblical fact.