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]

Not only is your statement not true, it is a frivolous claim.

I'm addressing your claim:

I believe it is irrational to assume that just because we cannot at this moment explain those phenomena, that they prove (emphasis mine) our favorite religios belief is therefore true.

Again, I'm not out to prove anything.

It's just as silly as your repeated assertion, despite the evidence, that it has been 'proved' no pigments were found on the 'Shroud' of Turin. WAY back in April in post #2183 I provided proof from Walter McCrone, the "Father of modern forensic microscopy,"* that red ochre and vermilion pigments were used to paint the image on the 'Shroud.'

Here you even use the word "proof" that even McCrone doesn't claim. Here's what he did claim:

I am not saying the Shroud is not authentic. I am saying that the image area has a lot of iron
oxide and a lot of artist's pigment associated with it but I do not know whether the amount of
iron oxide present is sufficient to explain the entire image.

Although there is considerable iron
oxide on the image, either it is the image, or it enhances an earlier image. Therefore there is
the possibility of later enhancement of an earlier image. I cannot say whether the Shroud is
either real or not real. There is a suspicion that evidence of a medium for the paint also exists
in the samples. There was only a quantitative difference between the particulate matter on the
body image and the blood images. There was also corn starch, wax, minerals, air pollutants,
human hair, wool, cotton, red silk, all obvious fortuitous contaminants from the environment.

I know that a great deal of iron oxide is present in ways telling me it was done by an artist. I
do not know whether or not it is the entire image; it could be enhancement of an earlier
image.

https://www.shroud.com/pdfs/sn002Oct80.pdf

Your only 'rebuttal' was to say (in effect) "Well... but... McCrone wasn't a member of STURP."

You'll need to reread all my rebuttals. I provided 16 points of rebuttal against McCrone here:
viewtopic.php?p=1118417#p1118417

[otseng]

I agree, although I prefer to think of it as what remains of what was once a painting.

Well then, please present your counterargument with evidence to my conclusion is was not a fake and is authentic.

viewtopic.php?p=1120776#p1120776

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2759

I'm saying you are using Ray Downing's image of the shroud which does not resolve the feet area in much detail.

It resolves the hand area in detail, so if there is an "x-ray" image in one area, it should show up in both.

Since there was more volume under the hand area that became a vacuum, there would be more negative pressure and cause the cloth to collapse faster than the feet area.

Linen isn't airtight. Air moving through the fabric, equalizing the pressure as it went, would have filled the vacuum before the fabric could contact the hands tightly enough to form an "x-ray" image.

[Diogenes]

You'll need to reread all my rebuttals. I provided 16 points of rebuttal against McCrone here:
viewtopic.php?p=1118417#p1118417

I read them. NONE of them are persuasive in the least. An example is you mentioned is that McCrone (a genuine expert in the field) "only looked at 32 samples. Yes, and he found iron oxide in every one where there was part of an image; and his detailed analysis which you ignored showed they are not from blood. You claimed NO pigments were found. He found them in the 32 tapes. You seem to be saying something illogical, that if he had studied MORE samples somehow he would not have found pigments in the ones he examined?!

That makes no sense. It appears both you and STURP and shroud.com and the huckster selling copies of relics have a foregone conclusion and refuse to examine the evidence from independent experts. I am no longer going to respond to your "I already discussed that 'here' arguments. This thread is 277 pages long.

Did you actually read McCrone's 1990 appendix I sent? Did you actually read the gossip piece from STURP? Do you really think it met scientific standards? There is a reason the scientific community is now ignoring the junk STURP and stroud.com are offering.

Plus, you have never addressed the fact the image LOOKS like a painting done in 14th Century style complete with anatomically incorrect representations of the human body. McCrone explains in detail the testing he did and the experiment he performed with pigments from the 14th Century and produced EXACTLY the same results. STURP'S junk from 1980 not only does not make sense and is full of gossip about McCrone, it is TEN years behind his 1990 analysis.

Again, throughout these thousands of posts on various subjects you refer to spurious, biased sources to promote your opinion. This is similar to your anti evolution, creationist stuff and the nonsense about taking the flood and Tower of Babel literally. This is not just bad science, it is poor Biblical scholarship.

[JoeyKnothead]

Evolution is a fact.

Creationism is a religious belief that can't be shown to be fact.

With your logic, no, they are both "cockamamie hypothesis as equally valid as any other".

My logic indicates you're confusing the fact of evolution with explanations about it.

What about evolution impacts on claims regarding the shroud and Jesus?

You seem to think your hypothesis is brilliant for what it explains, but it's dull as dirt for what it don't.

If it's "dull as dirt", it should be easy to present rational argumentation with evidence, rather than simply repeating your assertions which I've already addressed many times.

Those rational arguments permeate this thread. Your inability to recognize them as such has nothing to do with it.

And I've already given you a big help by pointing you to a professional shroud skeptic.

I'm content, if only for now, to continue doing my telling it for myself, tyvm.

[boatsnguitars]

What do you mean "average for Medieval clothes"? Please give evidence a 14' x 3.5' herringbone weave linen cloth was even used as medieval clothing. Even the 1988 C-14 scientists couldn't find a medieval herringbone weave linen sample to be used as a control.

There are blood stains all over the body, even much more than the Medieval depictions I've seen. There also claims the body had been washed.

This is the argument from incredulity fallacy.

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone concludes that since they can’t believe something is true, then it must be false, and vice versa.

https://effectiviology.com/argument-from-incredulity/

The Argument from Personal Incredulity describes a situation where someone dismisses a claim for no other reason than they find it difficult to believe. In fact, the person may be having trouble believing something simply because it doesn’t conform to how they currently think, or even that they simply don’t understand some element of the claim. However, rather than asking for more information or an explanation, the claim is dismissed as false because it seems unlikely to them.

https://fallacioustrump.com/ft29/

[otseng]

It resolves the hand area in detail, so if there is an "x-ray" image in one area, it should show up in both.

Linen isn't airtight. Air moving through the fabric, equalizing the pressure as it went, would have filled the vacuum before the fabric could contact the hands tightly enough to form an "x-ray" image.

This is how Jackson proposed the body was wrapped:





The body was entirely covered by the cloth. You can see there is more volume under the hands and face as compared to the feet.

As for air coming through that went around the fabric, I guess there could be a few spots like that, but on the whole, the body was wrapped with the cloth.

As for air coming through the fabric, there could be a little, but I doubt it would have much of an impact. You could even make a kite out of the fabric and I'm sure it can fly.

Source:

[Waterfall]

[Replying to otseng in post #2767]

Namaskaram otseng

Do you really think it is the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in? Why should they have kept it and not just thrown it away or used it to another body...



Your friend forever

Waterfall

[otseng]

I read them. NONE of them are persuasive in the least.

If you read them then why did you state:

Your only 'rebuttal' was to say (in effect) "Well... but... McCrone wasn't a member of STURP."

An example is you mentioned is that McCrone (a genuine expert in the field) "only looked at 32 samples. Yes, and he found iron oxide in every one where there was part of an image; and his detailed analysis which you ignored showed they are not from blood. You claimed NO pigments were found. He found them in the 32 tapes.

McCrone claimed to have found particles that could be from pigment. I never denied this. The issue is the scale of particles required in order to be a painting. When STURP initially went to Turin, they believed it was most likely a painting. So, a lot of their tests were done to confirm or reject if it was a painting. They published over two dozen articles on their findings, many of which are in peer-reviewed journals. Here's the list:

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

It was from these published papers that they concluded it was not a painting.

Finding a few possible pigment particles doesn't show the entire image was from a painting. They found a bunch of other particles on the cloth as well, but it doesn't mean the image is made by dust or hair or bugs.

Even McCrone doesn't claim he can scientifically demonstrate the entire image was a painting.

Did you actually read McCrone's 1990 appendix I sent? Did you actually read the gossip piece from STURP? Do you really think it met scientific standards? There is a reason the scientific community is now ignoring the junk STURP and stroud.com are offering.

What gossip piece are you referring to?

If you've read my arguments, you'll notice that I cited from McCrone's papers. So yes, I've read his papers.

Have you cited from any of the STURP papers? Or do you just categorically reject them all?

Plus, you have never addressed the fact the image LOOKS like a painting done in 14th Century style complete with anatomically incorrect representations of the human body

Yes, I've addressed this. They look similar because all the artwork copied from the TS.

STURP'S junk from 1980 not only does not make sense and is full of gossip about McCrone, it is TEN years behind his 1990 analysis.

McCrone got his samples from Rogers. And then he returned it for STURP to do their studies. So actually, STURP did the latest study from the samples.

And if you're going to bring up what is behind, it is actually McCrone's technique of using polarized light microscopy, which is considered an antiquated technique and has been largely lost. As acknowledged by McCrone in his paper:

Very few chemistry students, undergraduate or
graduate, have ever looked through a microscope except,
perhaps, in high school biology. The direct micro-
scopical approach to the solution of chemical problems
has been largely lost during the past three decades.
This project on the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin
has been an excellent opportunity to gain wide publicity
for the unique capabilities of polarized light microscopy,
providing a real impetus to its deserved renascence.

http://www.mccroneinstitute.org/uploads ... 560933.pdf

Again, throughout these thousands of posts on various subjects you refer to spurious, biased sources to promote your opinion. This is similar to your anti evolution, creationist stuff and the nonsense about taking the flood and Tower of Babel literally. This is not just bad science, it is poor Biblical scholarship.

Obviously I think I my standards are pretty good and I'm willing to present my theories to shroud scholars. Do you accept my challenge of presenting our theories to peer-reviewed journals?

[otseng]

My logic indicates you're confusing the fact of evolution with explanations about it.

What about evolution impacts on claims regarding the shroud and Jesus?

I'm making no claims about evolution. I'm simply showing the logic of your argument is invalid.

And how does the virgin birth impact any claims on the shroud? Again, with your logic, since science cannot prove abiogenesis is true, then evolution is not true.

Those rational arguments permeate this thread. Your inability to recognize them as such has nothing to do with it.

I agree, I fail to see any substantive counterarguments from the skeptics. That is why I'm willing to let the shroud professionals judge. Yet, nobody is willing to take me up on this. What is more reasonable then whose arguments are rational?