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

[boatsnguitars]

One clearly has to wonder that of all the signs God could have given, if a God existed, that Jesus was the one true Lord (or whatever) why it would be in the form of a Medieval fabric, Medieval image, found in the Medieval era, with Medieval confession, with Medieval documentation - with radiometric dating to the Medieval era....

God can do all things - but apparently can't even make a convincing relic that is obviously from the time of Jesus.

Yet, this is what the SoT believers want us to think. That this is the single proof of Jesus's divinity, and proof that God exists.

It's simply laughable.

[earl]

Did any artist have known to apply UV radiation to create a shroud image prior to the Jackson report findings ?
Considering the time it takes for a linen curtain to naturally yellow with UV radiation.,yellowing,months to years, body decomposition would have been found on the TS while attempting to create the TS.
As blood and various fluids contacted the shroud science did not find any human decomposition.
So shroud contact was made with the body , UV radiation was applied without burning ,only yellowing occurred and then the shroud lost contact with the body and no body decomposition found on the shroud .
The speed in which a linen sheet can be yellowed with UV radiation without burning must be a tremendous speed in a extremely short amount of time.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to earl in post #2878

If Jesus acted as the expected Messiah then Jesus would have never talked to the woman at the well,
never healed the woman's daughter "crumbs under the table"
How many more non Jew things did Jesus do to help suffering of mind and body?

His non-Jewish way of showing that he wasn't the Jewish Messiah was by denying Jewish scripture, as I argue toward the end of this discussion:

viewtopic.php?t=6580

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2879

If the cloth was pressed completely against the body, the distortion would be severe when the cloth is then pressed flat.

I'd say that you're using a loose interpretation of the word "severe".

And an artist could still have incorporated it into Gothic style.


"That being said, the overall evidence against Jesus having been the Jewish Messiah is sufficient to warrent acceptance of the image's shortcomings as telling."

You talking about scriptural evidence?

Yes. And I assume that you dismiss such scriptural evidence since you've given up on the Bible being inerrant, which is why you latch onto the Turin cloth, but the evidence against Jesus in the former corroborates the evidence against him on the latter.

[earl]

The coming one started here
Deut.18.18-a prophet
From then on all sorts of preconceived notions surfaced and solidified.
It began as a prophet ,next a deliverer ,a messiah and more.
Nathaniel said ,what good can come out of Nazareth ?
But he became an apostle overcoming the preconceived notions even when he was taught Jesus didn't fit the traditions.
Moses made it simple others barred the door.
The heathens and gentiles overcame the jewish wall of restrictions as Jesus did not fit their tradition.
Moses said,Deut.18.18-22-don't be afraid of him if what he says don't come to pass
Jesus said I will raise this temple in 3 days
And 3 days it was.
And the Jews were afraid of him

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to earl in post #2885

Moses made it simple others barred the door.

According to the Bible, Moses wrote the law.

Jesus re-wrote it.

[otseng]

I'd say that you're using a loose interpretation of the word "severe".

Let's put it this way. It would no longer resemble an accurate portrayal of a body. This is quite obvious if a cloth is firmly pressed against a body and then pressed flat. As the cloth is wrapped around the face, the flattened cloth would have a wide face. Same with the torso and the legs.

And an artist could still have incorporated it into Gothic style.

We see in Gothic images the face is normal to thin, not wide as would happen with a bas-relief.

You talking about scriptural evidence?

Yes. And I assume that you dismiss such scriptural evidence since you've given up on the Bible being inerrant, which is why you latch onto the Turin cloth, but the evidence against Jesus in the former corroborates the evidence against him on the latter.

I've argued at length with multiple reasons why the Bible should be considered authoritative before I even started to discuss the TS. And I can continue to present additional reasons after we conclude with the TS. So the TS is just one line of argumentation for the reliability of the Bible.

But feel free to bring up that scriptural evidence you're referring to and we can look at them.

[TRANSPONDER]

The coming one started here
Deut.18.18-a prophet
From then on all sorts of preconceived notions surfaced and solidified.
It began as a prophet ,next a deliverer ,a messiah and more.
Nathaniel said ,what good can come out of Nazareth ?
But he became an apostle overcoming the preconceived notions even when he was taught Jesus didn't fit the traditions.
Moses made it simple others barred the door.
The heathens and gentiles overcame the jewish wall of restrictions as Jesus did not fit their tradition.
Moses said,Deut.18.18-22-don't be afraid of him if what he says don't come to pass
Jesus said I will raise this temple in 3 days
And 3 days it was.
And the Jews were afraid of him

Of course, that's the Christian claim. But is it correct? Paul argued that what was simple (Abraham, not Moses, whose laws were the basis and rule of Judaism and not to be set aside because a man found them inconvenient) was made a burden from the start (Moses) because of ...well, Adam's fall it seems, which rather debunks Abraham' innate Righteousness, but Paul never did make sense.

Without going deeper there, the NT (written by Greek Christians, not followers of Jesus or those who took notes from those who were) goes more Pagan than even Paul intended, making Jesus God, not just a Messiah.

So your post is really claiming true and evidence what is demonstrably doubtful and not really evidence of anything other than Greco -Romans writing the NT.

[Adonai Yahweh]

These are both false statements. Bible scholars agree the gospels were written by anonymous people long after the contemporaries of Jesus were dead. Your ignorance of the source of the Bible is staggering so you should refrain from lecturing others about which you are ignorant.

Debate on facts not your emotions . Mark , Matthew were disciples of Jesus Mark and Luke were disciples Peter and Paul . Jesus had disciples outside the 12 , the gospels were an eyewitness account of Jesus life . ''Bible scholars " give the names of these scholars , their qualifications and the sources of information of these scholars . The scriptures are consistent . Scriptures found in the new testament is supported by the scriptures found in the old testament .

The canonical gospels are the four which appear in the New Testament of the Bible. They were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (with the modern names of the "Four Evangelists" added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission.

The books that you have mentioned are outdated , this is unreliable most credible research is in a 5 year span yet you are mentioning books from 1998 . Provide current evidence of these claims .

The gospels contradict each other in many instances, particularly about the details of the imagined 'resurrection.' If you actually are willing to examine this issue, here's a free book to read:
The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity
https://infidels.org/library/modern/tho ... rstcoming/

This book was written in 2000 , you are providing outdated information which is unreliable , even reading the bibliography of the book all the cited sources are from even starting from the 50s . Provide scriptural references and context of these contradictions . There are even references to resurrection in Hosea and Isaiah and Psalms . It clear that you have not read the bible or have limited knowledge on the scriptures and your not even providing up-to date information . Yet you have the time to be intellectually dishonest and discourteous how disappointing !!

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #2887

Let's put it this way. It would no longer resemble an accurate portrayal of a body. This is quite obvious if a cloth is firmly pressed against a body and then pressed flat. As the cloth is wrapped around the face, the flattened cloth would have a wide face. Same with the torso and the legs.

.....which is why "cloth collapse" doesn't work without careening off into a conveniently oddball process for a body's disappearance.

We see in Gothic images the face is normal to thin, not wide as would happen with a bas-relief.

So if a bas-relief were made even more narrow, it could flatten out into a Gothic-shaped image.

But feel free to bring up that scriptural evidence you're referring to and we can look at them.

Here's a starter I sometimes refer to:

viewtopic.php?t=6580