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 #2705

I don't know how the kneecaps would resolve any differently than what we do see.

There should be x-ray images of the bones.

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.

So now you have the cloth conveniently----and inexplicably----penetrating the body to different depths, and not even consistently (it would have to peneterate deeper through the lips to get to the teeth than to get through the relatively thin layers of skin to get to the kneecap and coccyx bones). So you have the same problem.

We do know the cloth around the face penetrated more

You don't know any such thing.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2707]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

Do you not want to be enlightened This is all for free...















Your friend forever

Waterfall

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2707]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

Do you not want to be enlightened This is all for free...















Your friend forever

Waterfall

Enlightened by what?

I can't just take stuff for free, how about you quote me a price per video, and a price for the lot, and let's see if we can't get you a check cut.

[Waterfall]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2713]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

Life But maybe you are enlightened...



Your friend forever

Waterfall

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2713]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

Life But maybe you are enlightened...



Your friend forever

Waterfall

You're about to be banned. Sell your junk somewhere else, troll.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to otseng in post #2705

I don't know how the kneecaps would resolve any differently than what we do see.

There should be x-ray images of the bones.

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.

So now you have the cloth conveniently----and inexplicably----penetrating the body to different depths, and not even consistently (it would have to peneterate deeper through the lips to get to the teeth than to get through the relatively thin layers of skin to get to the kneecap and coccyx bones). So you have the same problem.

We do know the cloth around the face penetrated more

You don't know any such thing.

Great point, but remember, SoT Believers are working with Magic - it can do whatever they need it to do to explain away logic.

Just think - on the face - why a supernatural burst would leave the image as if it were a painting? Why would it leave the outer features of the body? ("Because it's to prove Jesus!" they'd say. Then, in another argument they claim God doesn't want to prove his existence because it would destroy Faith... Go figure...)

Why wouldn't it be an X-ray? Or a image of the man's soul? No, it just happens to look like a Medieval drawing. It's so patently absurd, but people will pay good money for people to write books about it - so i don't expect Christians to stop the grift.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Waterfall in post #2719]

Do you not want to be enlightened This is all for free...

Moderator Warning

You've made multiple posts which are nothing but links to off-topic videos, with no topic for debate. They are likely to be deleted or moved. Please make posts in the appropriate forum sections, and include a question for debate if in a debate section. Note that advertising and/or spam is not allowed. Please review the forum Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics..

[Diogenes]

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.

Teeth? Where? What image shows teeth? I am aware some people/blogs claim teeth are visible on the image of the C of T. This is the equivalent of seeing Jesus on a piece of toast or on a dog's posterior. The image on the Cloth of Turin functions as a kind of Rorschach test. You see what you want to see. Some see Jesus. Some see a dog.



See https://medievalshroud.com/teeth/

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #2713]

Namaskaram JoeyKnothead

Life But maybe you are enlightened...



Your friend forever

Waterfall

Yes, I keep spare bulbs around, so I'm not in the market for any right now. I'll keep you in mind though, if they start running low. Do you run any deals for buying in bulk?

[otseng]

I don't know how the kneecaps would resolve any differently than what we do see.

There should be x-ray images of the bones.

Maybe, if the cloth penetrated deep enough to resolve kneecaps.

So now you have the cloth conveniently----and inexplicably----penetrating the body to different depths, and not even consistently (it would have to peneterate deeper through the lips to get to the teeth than to get through the relatively thin layers of skin to get to the kneecap and coccyx bones). So you have the same problem.

I think it's consistent since we know there's more imaging at the facial area since it's darker and there's a faint imaging on the back side of the cloth. So, the cloth penetrated deeper at the face.

We do know the cloth around the face penetrated more

You don't know any such thing.

I'm just claiming the evidence supports it:

A44) The luminance level of the head image in the positive photograph of Durante (2000) is 10%
and more lower (darker) than that of the whole body image (Moran 2002).

A47) A body image color is visible on the back surface of the cloth in the same position of some
anatomic details as for the body image of the frontal surface of the TS. The hair appears more
easily to the naked eye (Ghiberti 2002) but also other details of face and perhaps hands appear by
image enhancement (Maggiolo 2002/03, Fanti and Maggiolo 2004).

https://shroud.com/pdfs/doclist.pdf