The Instigator
1Samuel15-3
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Akoluthos
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Biblical Inerrancy and Infallibility is a Failed Theology

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/25/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 261 times Debate No: 83063
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

1Samuel15-3

Pro

In this debate, I will be arguing for the proposition that Biblical inerrancy and infallibility is a failed theological concept. By innerancy, I mean that the Bible, as most fundamentalists would say, is free from all contradictions or error in history, science, theology, teaching. etc. By accepting this challenge, you will be arguing that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible Word of God, devoid of error.

This debate will have five rounds. Round one is for introduction, while round two is opening arguments only. Round three and four are rebuttals and counter-rebuttals while round five is closing statements.

Rules:

1. Use well-reputed sources. Tertiary sources with an obvious bent, and poor sourcing themselves, such as Answers in Genesis, cannot be used. You can, however, use the secondary or primary sources that they cite (Assuming they are not citing themselves). This applies to me as well. I will not be allowed to use poor sources like a skeptic blog, skepticpedia, or similar poorly-composed sources.

2. "God did it" in any way, shape, or form, is not an acceptable response. This is included in topics related to canonicity, preservation of texts, etc.

3. Simply rebutting attacks does not prove inerrancy. Instead, you also have to provide arguments, both theological and otherwise, for innerancy.

4. I would like to point out that I am a liberal Christian who believes Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who died to take away the sins of the world. That being, theological arguments are open and viable as well.

Good luck!
Akoluthos

Con

Greetings! I accept your challenge, and hope that I will be able to present my side effectively and persuasively.

I am glad that I have been give the position of arguing in favor of an inerrant and infallible Word of God, as I am an Evangelical Christian myself, and fully believe that the Bible is without error.

Many thanks for the rule guidelines, this will allow me to question my sources and work on my thesis with an open mind. I certainly hope to achieve a higher level of academic debating skills, and I assure you I will not lean on the "God did It" argument.

This will be certainly interesting, as I am a Conservative Evangelical Christian. Of course, since we have a common faith in God, this should provide a nice common ground, so I am very happy to be debating with you for my first official debate.

Without further ado, I welcome your opening statement!

Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
1Samuel15-3

Pro

I am excited that my opponent has accepted this debate. We are both Christians, similar to age, and from no doubt similar backgrounds. I was born and raised in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church, but during my senior year, I began to doubt my faith. By the summer, I was an agnostic. However, I am now a liberal Christian, with more faith in Jesus than faith in a book.

I will build my argument off of five ideas 1) The Bible has a faulty view of cosmology - 2) The Bible has a faulty view of ethics - 3) The Bible contains contradictions - 4) The Bible shows a polytheistic world - 5) The Bible's loss of textual integrity, poor canon, and poor composition make it difficult to view it as the "Word of God."

In this opener, I will lay down 1-4 while devoting another portion next round to dealing with the theological questions behind 5.

To begin, let's start with

1) The Bible has a faulty view of cosmology
To most fundamentalists and evangelicals, the Bible is a perfectly composed book that not only gives spiritual insight, but also shows us science and history as it truly is. The egregious view of Young Earth Creationism is a perfect view of that. Instead of turning this into a Creation v. Evolution debate, I would like to instead concentrate on verses that show a view of cosmology in which the earth is a flat disk with the dome sky surrounding it.

Starting in Genesis, we see a lot of this idea. Genesis chapter one starts off telling us about Creation. Take a moment and look closely at some of the statements it makes:

Genesis 1:1-2 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.”


Genesis 1:6-9 “Then God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.” God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

Starting right there in Genesis 1, we see the general idea of pre-exilic cosmology. Notice for a moment something that is forgotten by literalists: God never created water. He manipulated it, He commanded it, but He never created it. It was already in existence. The eternal water.

Notice also that God created an “expanse” to divide water “above the expanse” from waters below it. Is there an ocean above the sky? Hardly. The historian Josephus gives a little commentary to show that this view of a solid dome sky was not dead even after Jesus’ own death: “he placed the heaven over the whole world, and separated it from the other parts, and he determined it should stand by itself. He also placed a crystalline round it.”

On the third day, according to the text, God gathered the waters and land, respectively, into one place, a single pangea continent surrounded by a single, giant ocean. God did not create land in this story. Rather, God moved the water to allow dry land to appear. This is very different from the way we were taught in Sunday School, but it is what the text actually describes.

Another good text to show this view is Isaiah 40 :22

"It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;"

Some Evangelicals will honestly try to tell me that this is saying that the earth is round. No, it is stating that God sits on what is essentially a floating throne above a flat earth. This is made equally clear by the Hebrew words used. The first Hebrew word used for circle, if it were describing a sphere, is דּוּר (Dur) while the Hebrew word in Isaiah 40:22 is ח֣וּג (Hug), which literally means "flat circle." Also, this is not a metaphor or simile, because we see in the next part of the sentence "like grasshoppers," "like a curtain," and "like a tent." These are symbolized by Hebrew prepositions that are lacking in the part about the earth. For now, these are the two passages I will lay out for examination.

2) The Bible contains a faulty view of ethics
The Old Testament especially views women as objects, slavery was accepted, violence was rampant, and "family values" were at an all time low. Consider a few of these verses with my commentary of why they are abhorrent

Exodus 21:20-21 "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod, and the slave dies under his abuse, the owner must be punished. 21 However, if the slave can stand up after a day or two, the owner should not be punished because he is his owner’s property."
This text is a great double-whammy, showing both slavery as ownership of another human being, but also that this owner could beat that human being to near death without consequence, only at death or permanent maiming is there a mention of punishment. This is despicable. Note also that this is the direct law from God, not out of context. The direct words of God according to tradition.

Psalm 137:9 "Blessed is he who takes your little children and dashes their heads on the rocks!"
In this passage, found in a Psalm about revenge, shows graphically not only was the writer of the Psalm propagating revenge by killing babies and children, he also says you will be "blessed" because of it. If that's not sick, I do not know what is.

1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’
This time, the call to kill children via genocide is not from a mouthpiece of God like a Psalmist, but in context from God Himself. God commands the genocide of a people-group, including infants. That is wrong.

3) The Bible Contains Contradictions
This one will be a straight forward as well. I will lay out contradicting passages and offer my commentary

Matthew 3:17 "and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” "
Mark 1:11 "And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” "
These are obvious contradictions. What did the voice speak directly to Jesus, or to the crowd. To make matters worse, the author of Hebrews, Psalms, and the more likely variants in Luke indicates that it said "You are my beloved Son. Today I have become Your Father."

The second contradiction I want to call attention to is not in detail, but in broad storyline.

In John, the entire book is laid out with Jesus' signs

The seven signs are changing water into wine, healing the royal son, healing the paralytic, feeding the 5000, walking on water, healing the blind man, and raising Lazarus. The Greek word for "sign" is not the same for "miracle." The word for sign is σημεQ50;ον (sēmeion), while the word for miracle is δa3;ναμις (Dunamis).

In the Gospel of Matthew 12:38 - 39 we read "Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, “Teacher, we wish to see a sign (Simeion) from you.”But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. "

So wait a minute, in Matthew Jesus says there will not be a single sign, but in John Jesus performs 7? John 20:30 even says "Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; 31 but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.
According to John, Jesus did many, more signs to have us believe! How does that mesh with Jesus saying He will not give any signs at all?

4) The Bible Shows a Polytheistic World
There are several words for "God" used in Hebrew. Yahweh is the name of God (also called Jehovah). Adonai is a name meaning "Lord." Elohim means "God or gods" while El means "God, god, mighty one." To start, let's look at the word Elohim, and by extension, El. אֱלֹהִים (Elohim) is essentially the pluralization, using the hireq-yod-mem masculine plural suffix, of the word אֵל (El). Keep that in mind as we go that Elohim both is used as a plural word meaning gods and also a name for the Hebrew God. One way we can tell if it's being used as a plural or a singular is if another name for God (like YHWH) is used in the same passage. take a look at these polytheistic passages that I have transliterated the names of God and pluralization in order to have a clearer understanding.

It is also worth noting that El is a Canaanite god, so read it in that context as well.

Psalm 29:1
Ascribe to Yahweh, O sons of the god(s)/sons of El,
Ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.

Psalm 82:1

Elohim takes His stand in His own congregation;
He judges in the midst of the gods

Psalm 89:7-8

An El greatly feared in the council of the gods,
And awesome above all those who are around Him?
O YHWH, God of hosts, who is like You, O mighty YHWH?
Your faithfulness also surrounds You.

Exodus 15:11
“Who is like You among the gods, O YHWH?
Who is like You, majestic in holiness,
Awesome in praises, working wonders?"

Job 1:6 "Now there was a day when the sons of God/El came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them."

Job 2:1 "Again there was a day when the sons of God/El came to present themselves before YHWH, and Satan also came among them to present himself before YHWH."

Obviously, this is describing a polytheistic universe where YHWH is a son of El, but is more powerful and rules over them.

Conclusion
This is the end of my argument for this round. To conserve space, I will save my sources for the next round. I hope that is acceptable. Best of luck to my opponent.

Akoluthos

Con

I too share the excitement around this debate, and I am very pleased to be working with a fellow Christian. As predicted, we share a very common background. I was raised into a family of Baptists and a long linage of Christians, my early life was spent in a small community Baptist Church which I still attend to this day.

Much like yourself, I will build upon my thesis with a few fundamental points.

A) Scripture is Without Error or Fault
B) The Bible Is Historical Fact
C) The Authority of God Trumps Inaccuracies
D) Jesus Was a Sinless Deity

My opening statement will briefly touch each of the above mentioned ideas

Scripture is Without Error of Fault-

The fundamental ideas of Christianity are, and always have been, sculpted around scripture. The Holy Bible lays down many laws and regulations that form the Ideology of our faith. Of course, one might question the legitimacy or accuracy of Biblical passages, much like the Old Testament is often neglected as true law.
So how do we know that we can fully rely on Scripture? The simple answer would be because the Son of Man has no fault, therefore, the Word of God is without fault. I will touch on the Sinless nature of Jesus more heavily in my fourth fundamental, so for now, I wish to visit a few passages of Scripture to further evaluate my point.

1 John 3:5- You Know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in him there is no sin

From the get go, we are faced with the undeniable fact that the Son of Man was on a mission to cleanse the sinful nature of mankind, in order for that to happen, all sin must be removed from him. Therefore, if we believe in a perfect and Sinless God, we must also believe that his Word is absolute truth.

Psalm 12:6- The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times

In this passage the Word of the Lord is described to be as pure as silver tried in a furnace of earth, therefore, if it is believed that God is without sin, then the Lord himself must be pure. If any scriptural text is a lie or inaccurate, then our Lord has sinned, which is fundamentally impossible.

Proverbs 30:5- Everything God says is pure

Once again, scripture confirms the pureness of God, allowing us to conclude that all his works are without fault, meaning that the Bible is perfect in every way.

The Bible is Historical Fact-

Another way that we can confirm the infallible Word of God is through the History of the Bible itself. The Word of God is written in a historical tense, which describes names, places and events.
Through our human history, we have constantly worked to prove the Bibles canon through biblical archaeology (which I will elaborate further in upcoming arguments). For example, in 1907-1909, the ruins of Jericho where discovered at the base of a valley in Jordan, its collapsed state was presented in the same manner it was recounted in Biblical Texts.

So where am I going with this? Well, if we can believe the Bible to be true in some aspects, then should we not view the Bible as completely and utterly believable in all aspects?

John 20:31- But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name

This verse tells us that these things where written so that we may believe. The History of the Bible, was written in order to let us believe, so why would God purposely inject inaccuracies into his word that would deny us our assurance?

The Authority of God Trumps Inaccuracies -

We are told that God's Word never leads astray. It is important to recall that language used in the Bible may be used for many different purposes, and not to state facts only. For example, verses that may appear controversial may in fact be just a simile, or have a double meaning.

Matthew 13:31- He presented another parable to them, saying, the kingdom from heaven is like a mustard seed that a man took and planted in his field.

The overall point being, while scripture may appear to be flawed, God always has a reasoning behind his mentality, which trumps inaccuracies. Now I know this may be viewed as the "Because God said so" argument, but I assure that it is more than that. For Example,

Romans 8:28- And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose

We are told God has a reason for everything, for the greater good of those who love him. Implying the double meaning principle, we can also apply this to scriptural controversy.

Jesus Was a Sinless Deity-

The one thing that all Christians can agree about Jesus is his undeniable purity. The only reason that we have the assurance that our sins will be forgiven is through the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross.

2 Corinthians 5:21- He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

If Jesus was impure, then the sins of the world would not have been able to be put on his shoulders

1 Peter 2:24- And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed

The point, once again, is that if our Lord was impure, than any works spoken through his tongue are failed by default. Therefore, the Bible itself would be false.

However, this is not the case, because our Lord is a perfect deity, anything he says or does is perfect, otherwise, our sins would not be forgiven.

Conclusion-

That is my basic outline, I look forward to continuing the debate. Much like yourself, I believe this is enough text for now, I too shall save my sources for a later date (possibly the closing statement). Good luck to yourself, friend.

God Speed.
Debate Round No. 2
1Samuel15-3

Pro

I appreciate my opponent's argument and look forward to the rest of this debate. Since my opponent's arguments were all theological, my fifth argument will also serve as a rebuttal, with specific applications to my opponent's arguments later on.

This last and final argument deals with the humanity of the Bible. When people say the Bible is the "Word of God," they usually imagined that it fell out of the sky one day, but this is not the case. Piece by piece, I will show how the Bible we have fails horridly to be called inerrant or infallible.

This argument will be broken down into three parts

  1. Questionable Composition
  2. Wrongful Canonization
  3. Textual Criticism

1) Questionable Composition
To begin, we need to look at the composition of some of the books of the Bible such as the Samuels and Kings, the Torah, and the Psalms. These books all have a human factor so large that the only argument that they are inerrant is "God did it."

Samuel and Kings

Samuel and Kings are made up of several different sources probably patched together in the reign of King Hezekiah and/or during the Exilic period in Babylon.

Most people assume these books were written by one author, probably a prophet like Jeremiah, However, when we look at the books, we can clearly see that, although there certainly is scribal and editorial work, a good majority of the text of the Kings comes from earlier sources, some of which are named in the book, including the “Chronicles of the Kings” (1 Kings 14:19), “Acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41), and “Annals of the Kings of Judah” (1 Kings 14:29). The same goes for the Samuels.

These editorials cause awkward conflicts in storyline

1 Samuel 16:18.b-19 introduces us to David. It describes him as such:
"a man of valor, a man of war, prudent in speech, and a man of good presence, and the Lord is with him.” Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me David your son, who is with the sheep.”

The passage goes on in verse 21 to say that

"And David came to Saul and entered his service. And Saul loved him greatly, and he became his armor-bearer."

So in Chapter 16, David is a warrior and a man who becomes Saul's armor bearer.

Chapter 17, however, changes the story. In this classic story about David and Goliath, David is reintroduced, and he is very different than before. Look at these exerts and look up the whole passage if you want for context:

"Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem in Judah, named Jesse, who had eight sons... And Jesse said to David his son, “Take for your brothers an ephah... of this parched grain... Goliath by name, came up out of the ranks of the Philistines and spoke the same words as before. And David heard him... "
Wait a second... David was Saul's armor bearer, but now David is being a shepherd and not at battle? Odd...

"And David said to Saul, “Let no man's heart fail because of him. Your servant will go and fight with this Philistine.” 33 And Saul said to David, “You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him, for you are but a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth.”
So wait, David was just a warrior and man of valor a chapter before, but now he's a boy who is no match? Odd again...

"As soon as Saul saw David go out against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the commander of the army, “Abner, whose son is this youth?” And Abner said, “As your soul lives, O king, I do not know.” 56 And the king said, “Inquire whose son the boy is.”
This is the nail in the coffin. Saul does not even know who David is, but the chapter before he "greatly favored" David, saw him daily, and even asked that he be his armor bearer? No... Saul doesn't know who David is.

In the course of just a few verses, David went from a man and warrior to a boy with no experience, from close bodyguard of Saul to a boy without military experience that Saul has never met.

This is what happens when multiple sources are spliced together in a text. It is the human composition of human writings. Unless you want to say each individual author, perhaps dozens of them, were inspired and that the editors were somehow inspired with the whole process basically God whispering in ears, this doesn't work.

2) Wrongful Canonization

As a nice transition, the composition of a book has a lot to do with its canonization. One of the primary ways a book is considered as "canon," or acceptable for spiritual teaching and doctrine, is its authorship. In the New Testament, authorship by an apostles or friend of an apostle is a must. For the Old Testament, a prophet or similar figure must have written it. Another indicator is whether or not its theology is useful and/or meshes well with other books previously called canonical (Starting points with books like the Torah or Isaiah). Here is a summary of books that definitely do not fit into that category:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy (Tradition says Moses wrote it) :
Contradictions such as in the Creation narratives or 10 Plagues, differences in writing style, changing in the names for God (YHWH and Elohim) varies with the writing style. Contains entire chapters talking about the death of Moses. No external evidence for Mosaic authorship. JEDP Theory is the prevailing understanding. Not written by Moses

Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon (Tradition says Solomon wrote it):
Song of Solomon never mentions God one time in any way, nor does it claim Solomonic authorship. It is erotic poetry that was, according to the writing style, not written until the early Hellenistic Period. As for Ecclesiastes, it too never claims authorship by Solomon, and its writing style (including the Persian borrow-words of וּפַרְדֵּסִ֑ים and פַּרְדֵּ֣ס) show a late authorship. Certainly not by Solomon. In fact, the theology of Ecclesiastes is at points Greek, including annihilism, and in direct conflict with the rest of scripture.

Esther (No claim to authorship):
Esther never mentions God, has no claim to special authorship, and is not historical. Martin Luther tried to toss it out of the canon.

New Testament Problems

The Gospel of Matthew (Tradition ascribes it to St. Matthew):
Internally never once claims authorship, speaks of the disciples (which Matthew was one of) in the third-person, does not talk in different way when describing Jesus calling Matthew. No external evidence.

1 & 2 Timothy, Titus (Tradition ascribes them to St. Paul)
Internally, the writing style is entirely different from the undisputed Pauline Epistles. Using long sentences and different Greek words for "church," "spirit," and many others, there is little doubt in scholarship that Paul did not write these Epistles. Also, the author's emphasis on church structure and pastors is in direct conflict with 1 & 2 Corinthians (i.e. Pastors and deacons are the heads of the church v. all of one body, none greater than the other, Christ as head)

Hebrews (Tradition Ascribes it to Paul)
Never does the author claim to be Paul. This letter was long debated on in the church, and it is hard to believe how anyone thought Paul wrote it. Writing style is again different, and there is no mention of Paul writing it in Acts. Even evangelical scholars question the authorship.

Revelation of John (Ascribed to St. John)
It does not claim to be written by "John the Apostle," but "John of Patmos," which could literally be anyone. Dating brings it up to 100 AD, and St. John would have had to have been about 100 years old. During this time "The Revelation of the Shepherd of Hermas," as well as "The Revelation of Peter," all three were written within 25 years of each other.

So many Bible books have composition and authorship issues. How can they all be right? Tradition does not hold water.

3) Textual Criticism

There are more textual variants in the New Testament Greek than words in the Greek. Variants mean that in one text, the passage says or is written one way, but in the other it changes. This is mostly based on pre-fourth century fragments and 4th and 5th century codexes, or complete copies of the New Testament. Here are some major variants, although there are many more

Mark 16:9-20
This passage is present in our Bibles, but not in the earliest Codexes, 4th-century manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. This describes Jesus' ascension, the Great commission, and talk of miracles. It is quoted on the wall of my university campus, but was not written by Mark.

John 7:53-8:11
This heartwarming tale of the woman taken in adultery, so beautifully shown in "The Passion of Christ," was never written by John and added in the 300's. It is not found in P66 or P75 fragments, nor Codex's Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Essentially Jesus fanfiction.

1 John 5:7-8 Comma Johanneum
This passage is the sole explicit reference to the Trinity in the Bible and does not appear in a single Greek manuscript, nor the earliest Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Without this, the doctrine of the Trinity is again open to debate.

There are hundreds of other major examples, but these are just three.

Rebuttal Based on Argument Five:
My opponent's major argument are literally "The Bible says it's inerrant, so it is!"

My opponent assumes, based on the Bible, that God inspired the Bible. Then He turns around and says since the Bible is the inspired word of God, it has no fault, so it must be from God! Basically circular reasoning.

If we can't even know who the author was, whether it should be canonical, or what the text even originally said, then how can we use it to argue for itself?

My opponent's argument for contradictions or otherwise? Out of context passages talking about an apocalyptic theology and persecution and calling it a "double meaning." He assumes that the Bible is inerrant because its the word of God because the Bible says so and is inerrant.

But I ask again: "How can we even know if its canonical, what it originally said, or the author with this information."

I look forward to my opponent's rebuttal and furtherance of his arguments. Sources will be put in a bibliography at the end.

Akoluthos

Con

I would like to take a moment to personally and publicly apologize for my lack of preparation for this round of the debate. The reality of life has denied me the time needed to continue to work on my thesis.
To my opponent, I thank you for your patience and your understanding, I assure that I will continue the argument regardless, and make a more in depth rubuttle in later arguments.

For now I hope this will suffice.....once again, I apologize, and hope that I can still provide some insight through my following comments.

Let us first consider the actions of the Holy Spirit. Numerous times in the Bible, the Holy Spirit has been mentioned and has directly interfered with mortal beings. Being that the Holy spirit is one of the tri-personalities of God, it is not only plausible, but highly likely that the Holy Spirit hold athority among men. We know from Biblical texts that the Word of God was in fact "God Breathed", even though mortal men physically scribed the Bible, the Word itself was inspired through God.

From my previous arguments, I debated the fact the because God is perfect all his works are perfect. I think that we need to look at this in a context, specifically the context of salvation.

First of all, how can we know we are saved? It is very clear in the Bible that our sins where forgiven on the cross. Now, in order for all the sins of the world to be cleansed by a single sacrifice, the sacrifice would literally have to be a "perfect" sacrifice. In the Old Testament it was common practise for a sinner to slay ox, sheep and goats in order to appease God. However, these animals where unclean, unperfect and would not suffice for an eternal salvation.

What God did was provide a perfect sacrifice, In order to cleanse sin.

So what's the point? Well, simply, if we believe we are saved then we must also believe in a perfect God, because without a perfect God, we would not be saved.
I think we are focusing too heavily on the technicality of the Word, and simply disregarding the basic fundementals of Christanity. If we are to be divided in the opinion that God is perfect, then we are in turn, doubting our salvation, doubting God and doubting our faith. If we so heavily disregard the Bible is unfactual, we are disregarding our entire Religion.

The Book of God was granted to humanity so we might be saved, it's not a tool for lies, trickery and misconseptions. It's our means for salvation, something that Jesus died for.

So I ask, if we can have faith in salvation, can we not have faith in God's Word? Because if not, then our entire belief system is a flawed doctrine.

Thank you for tolerating my very short rant, once again, I hope this will suffice.

God be with you, Brother.

1 John 5:13- "I write these things to you who believe in the name of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life
Debate Round No. 3
1Samuel15-3

Pro

1Samuel15-3 forfeited this round.
Akoluthos

Con

Akoluthos forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1Samuel15-3

Pro

1Samuel15-3 forfeited this round.
Akoluthos

Con

Akoluthos forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by THsea 1 year ago
THsea
Hey! I'm currently in a similar debate! This one is a little easier for Pro, since you aren't making claim to particular translation. I'm doing this with KJV and textual contradictions... Which sucks, because they changed a lot of that translation when they found errors. They still exist though, so it should be fine.

I'll definitely be checking in on this debate, it is an interesting subject. Since you aren't using KJV, just the bible in general, you should be able to bring up who the bible claims killed Goliath... :)

Goodluck con! you certainly have an uphill battle...
No votes have been placed for this debate.