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]

Did Jesus resurrect/rematerialise with new clothing and was that clothing able to magically pass through walls like Jesus possibly could?

If he had the power to dematerialize and rematerialize his own body, I think he would've had the power to dematerialize clothing from a local clothing store and materialize it on himself.

[otseng]

All things are possible when you believe in magic.

Note that it's only until the explanation of the body image on the TS that the supernatural entered the picture. So, in order for you to discount the supernatural, you will need to provide a better explanation for the body image other than Jackson's cloth collapse theory.

[boatsnguitars]

The artist confessed to it.

Evidence please.

Are you suggesting that you are not aware of this and have not read the document (I find this unbelievable) - or, are you asking me to produce something you have already rejected on some grounds?

Why the games?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2847

Here's definition of circular argument:
A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... -Reasoning

What exactly are the propositions and premises in my argument that you are claiming to be self-referential?

I said:

"What seems more likely is that the disciples removed the body and that the general public simply drew that logical conclusion after Mark's brief account, and that Matthew made up the Roman guard to make the removal seem impossible."

You said:

From the perspective of the TS, it is not possible. The blood marks on the shroud are not broken and are fully intact. There is no evidence the body was stolen or removed from the shroud.

You assume that the marks could remain only after a body had disappeared from beneath them rather than being present by some other means, such as having been added later. You also assume that there was a body wrapped in the cloth to begin with. So when you claim that nothing other than a disappearing body was possible from the "perspective" of the cloth, you're actually saying that nothing else was possible from the perspective of what you assume about the cloth.

[otseng]

The artist confessed to it.

Evidence please.

Are you suggesting that you are not aware of this and have not read the document (I find this unbelievable) - or, are you asking me to produce something you have already rejected on some grounds?

Why the games?

Who's the one playing games? It is you making the claim and you didn't even provide a reference to back your claim. Per the rules of debate here, you'll need to provide evidence to back up your claims when asked for. So, please just follow the rules instead of just making personal accusations.

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not persist in making a claim without supporting it. All unsupported claims can be challenged for supporting evidence. Opinions require no support, but they should not be considered as valid to any argument, nor will they be considered as legitimate support for any claim.

viewtopic.php?t=6

[otseng]

You assume that the marks could remain only after a body had disappeared from beneath them rather than being present by some other means, such as having been added later. You also assume that there was a body wrapped in the cloth to begin with. So when you claim that nothing other than a disappearing body was possible from the "perspective" of the cloth, you're actually saying that nothing else was possible from the perspective of what you assume about the cloth.

Yes, I'm assuming the shroud is authentic. This is based on my final argument on the TS. And given all other explanations are not tenable (shroud being a fake, naturalistic explanations of body image), then the shroud being the burial shroud of Jesus is the most reasonable conclusion. None of my evidence I used in my argument is based on scripture. So analyzing scripture based on the shroud is not circular.

What you are assuming is the shroud is not authentic. If you think the blood was applied to the cloth afterwards, then you'll need to provide evidence of this. If you don't think there was a body involved at all, then you'll need to present your case for this.

[boatsnguitars]

[otseng]

So, in all your investigations you never came across this - I simply find that incredible:
https://priory-of-sion.com/biblios/link ... andum.html

Of course I've studied it. I've already posted a lengthy rebuttal of the d'Arcis memo:
viewtopic.php?p=1110516#p1110516

Please provide counterarguments to my arguments instead of simply repeating claims.

[boatsnguitars]

[boatsnguitars]

The evidence against the authenticity and reliability of the d'Arcis memo is overwhelming. To recap:

1. The letter is unsigned, undated, and there is no record of it ever sent to Antipope Clement VII. We cannot verify who wrote it, when it was written, and if it ever left the trash can.

Hmm, very much like many of the books of the Bible - except here, we have the original. Go figure there's better evidence against the Shroud than there is for the entire story of Jesus...

However, you simply dismiss it with ridiculous arguments. For example, you ask "Churches were expected ot have relics - so why argue agaisnt this one?"

You apparently don't know that there was a shift against the use of relics - which would be Research 101.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27831005

Not to mention, the accusation is that they were presenting the Shroud as real (as you are) not, as relics were supposed to be considered, as icons - not actually real.

This is why people shouldn't Google stuff and think they are doing "research". You simply seem to lack basic academic rigor. I wonder if you've even tried to disprove your assumption that the Shroud is real?

I really wonder, are you emotionally capable of accepting you are wrong about the Shroud?