The Instigator
elikakohen
Con (against)
The Contender
boii77
Pro (for)

Biblical Texts Require Belief in the Inerrancy of Scripture

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
boii77 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 369 times Debate No: 97818
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

elikakohen

Con

Rules, (or Subject to Moderator Reset):

1. Scope: Debate does not include whether Scripture is actually inerrant, but rather : if it demands a belief in inerrancy.
2. Definition: "Scripture" should be understood following a "plain-meaning" understanding of a definition that Christian/Jewish Biblical texts provide.
3. Well-Informed, Substantiated Arguments : Applying proper hermeneutics based on Christian or Jewish Biblical texts; (No arguments from various traditions/doctrines).
4. Numbered Arguments: For reference. (e.g., R1.C.1 = Round 1, Con, Argument 1; etc).
5. Burden of Proof : Pro - to assert the references where Scripture demands such a belief. Con - to refute interpretation, translation, or relevance of such references.

Round 1 - Con Argument:

R1.C.1. There is insufficient textual basis to suggest that either Jews or Christians must accept that Scripture, (as it has been preserved today) - is the "Inerrant Word of God" .
R1.C.2. And, if Scripture acknowledges its own errancy, and a necessity to rely on greater sources of truth - then Christians/Jews should not be required to believe in the inerrancy of Scripture.
boii77

Pro

Actually scripture was meant to be interpreted. But this doesn't mean that we are saying that the bible is of fault. Yes biblical texts do require the belief that the bible is without fault. Now many may say that then this means that Christians must still obey EVERYTHING written in the old testament but this is also wrong because in the bible in Romans it clearly states that Christians are no longer under the law but under the grace. Therefore it is true that Biblical Texts do require the belief that the scripture is without error. Though biblical texts require this belief still it doesn't mean that then it is wrong for us to take the bible into our own interpretations.
Debate Round No. 1
elikakohen

Con

Thanks for accepting!

@Pro.R1.1
- "Actually scripture was meant to be interpreted."

Con.R2.1 - What is the textual basis for this?

@Pro.R1.2 - "Yes biblical texts do require the belief that the bible is without fault."

Con.R2.2 - What is the textual basis for this?

And also, "Therefore it is true that Biblical Texts do require the belief that the scripture is without error."
boii77

Pro

In the bible Romans 15:4 saysFor whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
This proves that the bible is without fault.

Then you asked for proof of why the bible should be interpreted. Now the bible should be interpreted but only with Godly knowledge, only wisdom from God can be used to interpret the bible. Now proof for why it is okay for us to interpret the bible is for example Jesus spoke in parables so that we would have to search deeper into his words, and so that we would be able to see what he was saying in our own way.
Debate Round No. 2
elikakohen

Con


@R2.Pro.1 - ... "Romans 15:4 says For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope. This proves that the bible is without fault."

I am assuming, "Without Fault" either means, "without typographical/copy error" and / or, "Without Injustice, and True".

And ... I am assuming that you are not defending "Accuracy in Transmission" - because I would ask you to point to a text that says, "Believe in the King James Version!" Or, "Believe in the Masoretic Hebrew!" It is prima-facie that no such passage exists.

However - I will assume that you mean, "This proves that the bible is without fault - in its general content".

R3.Con.1 - A Document Intended to be Relied on for Instruction does not Prove Faultlessness of Content :

NIV, Ezekiel 20:25 - "So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live ..."

I can easily see that this passage, and its context is very informative and profitable for instruction.

However - the passage itself, apparently spoken by God - points out internal faults - GIVEN BY GOD himself.

R3.Con.2 : Error in Content - or Error in Transmission ?

Doesn't Ezekiel 20:25 point to the plausibility that the texts were manipulated at some point?

Or, if preserved accurately - then which of the commandments in Scripture are actually good? Which are bad?

Should I believe in, and follow - those "bad commandments"? How can I KNOW which ones it is talking about? Does the text say?

It can reasonably be argued that God was justified to corrupt their law - because of what Israel kept doing. But, it does not mean that those laws were "without error".

They were faulty - evidenced by the fact that no-one could actually live by them. (And, God explicitly said they were bad laws.)

Doesn't all of this mean that God never actually wanted people to put faith in some text - but actually wanted people to find truth in an actual intimate relationship with him?

NIV, Jeremiah 31:31-33 -
“This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel ... I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. ... "

NASB, John 5:39 - You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

@R2.Pro.2 - "... Then you asked for proof of why the bible should be interpreted. Now the bible should be interpreted but only with Godly knowledge, only wisdom from God can be used to interpret the bible."

I understand your belief. I completely understand that this doctrine is shared by Catholicism and Rabbinical Judaism.

But - I am asking : is there is a Biblical Text that states that "Biblical Interpretation is Exclusive to those who already possess Godly Wisdom and Knowledge".

R3.Con.3 - But - is their a "Biblical Text" that would counter a belief that "Scripture can be read, and deeper understanding pursued - through the Plain-Meaning of the texts, and effective study" ??

R3.Con.4 - Restatement of Debate :

I am asking for a textual basis - where Scripture requires believers to accept those Scriptures as inerrant ...

For example :

NASB, 2 Samuel 22:31 - “As for God, His way is blameless; The word of the Lord is tested;

So - is Scripture supposed to be accepted "at face value" - by faith? Or, is it permissible to question, doubt, and then test it?

Note - what was written in Samuel, (and other contexts) - appears to even include the spoken, intimate word of God, (especially).
boii77

Pro

Before I start can I please ask for u to not space out your writing so much it hurts my eyes, Thank you.

So you are using that fact that the Bible talks about some of the commandments being bad to disprove my claim.
Next you asked then what commandments should you follow. Now my answer is to search the Bible. Now when I did this is what I found. Next thing are you trying to say that the KJV is wrong if so call at the people at the stores selling them, I'd love to record it. Also I'm not Catholic nor do I believe Judaism, I'm a Pentecostal Christian.

Romans 13:8 - 10
8 Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not covet,"[a] and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."[b] 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law

This is showing that all we must do in order to fulfill is love one another like we love our self (or at least as we should love our self). This is the only way to fulfill the commandments. Therefore it's not a matter of what commandments should I read its a matter of how do I fulfill the law (which is by Love).

Next I feel as if I worded it round in round 2. What I meant about it's okay to interpret the scripture is that it's okay to put some of the things in the bible into your own words (this is as long as it still has the same message). Like for example if you don't understand something or your talking to someone who probably wouldn't understand it's alright if you put it into your own words to explain what's going on. The time that interpreting the Bible is wrong is when there interpretation has a whole different message than what is in the Bible
Debate Round No. 3
elikakohen

Con


R4.Con.1 - Is there a Biblical Basis that Requires Believers to Accept Scripture as Inerrant?

In Re. R3.Pro.1 - "So you are using that fact that the Bible talks about some of the commandments being bad to disprove my claim."

I am saying that Scripture - itself - claims that it was distorted.

Perhaps in another place, Scripture claims to be inerrant - or Scripture demands believers to accept Scripture as innerant. Either way, Ithink that those two claims would have to be unsubstantiated.


R4.Con.2 - If Scripture is Inerrant - but there are bad commandments - then Which commands would believers follow?

In Re. R3.Pro.2 - "Next you asked then what commandments should you follow."

.... If both claims are true, that Scripture is inerrant AND Scripture has bad commandments - then there is a dilemma that rises where it is impossible to know WHICH commandments to actually obey.

R4.Con.3 - Even if the KJV is actually inerrant - even that translation does not require believers to accept its own inerrancy.

In Re. R3.Pro.3 - "Next thing are you trying to say that the KJV"

The KJV is a translation, of multiple, mixed, Greek Manuscripts. As a translation - it is certainly errant, (by definition) - nor did the editors ever conclude that their translation was "divinely inspired" evidenced by the many, many edits.

R4.Con.4 - "Is Love God - Your Neighbor" Truly the Greatest Commandment?

I concede that it is my fault for starting this "Red-Herring" - and it is a distraction, but you kinda brought up another objection regarding the "Inerrancy of Scripture".

As you indicated - when both Jesus and Paul spoke about these two commandments - they do so in a "Legal" context, with a very explicit "Qualification", specifically : "The greatest commandment ... OF THE LAW."

That doesn't mean the greatest commandment, "of all". There is a very emphatic qualification, here - especially given that Jesus was talking to lawyers.

The end of John has a little dialogue - where the Disciples had a dispute, and they came to a very sound conclusion : "but Jesus didn't actually say ... - rather, he only said ... (John 21:23)" ... Showing that even the Disciples understood the importance of interpreting Jesus precisely, and that they did not have authority to "Read in between the lines".

What I mean, is this : at the very least - the former commandments were incomplete, (the New Testament), and distorted, (Ezekiel 20). And, Because of the glaring omissions, distortions, and inconsistencies, those former laws cannot possibly be considered : "inerrant", (and in a context that claims moral superiority - I argue that "incomplete" IS pragmatically the same as "errant").

R5.Con.5 - Regardless, What are the Textual Bases that Demand Believers to Accept the Inerrancy of Scripture?

Regardless if Scripture is ACTUALLY Inerrant, (or not) ... is there a requirement, (derived from the texts) - that demands a believer must accept Scripture as "Inerrant" ? Is accepting the "Inerrancy of Scripture" a requirement for Salvation? Also, In the Temple Periods - what actually constitutes those "Scriptures", that are supposed as "Inerrant" (if the Bible wasn't compiled until centuries later)?

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by elikakohen 1 year ago
elikakohen
@lonely-bird - I would be interested in those contradictions, (if they are actually contradictions in view of all of the works - alleged or not). Maybe room for a debate in there. I am just learning debate, so go easy!
Posted by Lonely-Bird 1 year ago
Lonely-Bird
James states that if you violate one portion of the law you are liable for all of it. The Christ states that he did not come to eliminate the law.

Letters allegedly written and some for certain written by the man claiming to be a Pharisee and persecutor of the Jewish splinter group called Christians are loaded with contradictions. Not to mention that it is unlikely Paul intended them to be anything other than what they were, letters to groups or individuals as opposed to "the word of god."
Posted by fred70 1 year ago
fred70
Glittery, glittery dangling balls
Glittering on the tree!!!!
O how I love this time of year
So many balls to see!!!!!
Jesus!!!!!!! Jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Your birthday is almost here!
Look at all our dangling balls
And take away our fear!
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.