The Instigator
WFTL
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Forever23
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

I believe the bible to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed

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 1 vote the winner is...
Forever23
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 423 times Debate No: 97362
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (35)
Votes (1)

 

WFTL

Pro

I believe the bible to be the sole authority from God, thus nothing else is needed for man to know who God is, and to comprehend his plan for us to live by(1), and what to expect after death for those who chose to become Christians(2), and for those who chose not (3).
I will prove oral traditions of men, creeds, manuals, catechism are contrary to God's word(4), as the bible alone is all that's needed.

(1) 2 Peter 1:3
(2) 2 Timothy 3:16-17
(3) Revelation 21:8
(4) Colossians 2:8
Forever23

Con

How can you listen to gods word if god doesn't exist?

First, in the bible, it says that god is omnipotent. If so, he can do anything. Can an omnipotent being create a triangle that has angles adding up to more than 180 degrees? No. Therefore, he is not omnipotent.

Can he create a rock that he can not lift? If not, he can't to everything. If he can, can he lift it? No. So he isn't omnipotent. So therefore, the god described in the bible does not exist.

And so we can not take solely the bible into account. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 1
WFTL

Pro

If God can make a rock that he can"t move then what He created becomes more powerful than the creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature.

This is what is called a category mistake to say He can make something he can"t lift. It"s like asking a bachelor what his wife"s name is? What does the color yellow taste like, color doesn"t taste, so it is not a relevant question. It"s not possible for God to make a rock so big that even he can"t lift it. If he can make it He can lift it. If he can create it, he can destroy it. God does not have any limit to His power, but everything he created has a limit. Just because He does not show His unlimited power does not mean he does not possess infinite power. Nothing God makes can be more powerful than Him, creation is never more powerful than its creator. Whatever He created is under his jurisdiction, under His control, but it can never have equality or become superior.

"Whatever implies being and nonbeing simultaneously is incompatible with the absolute possibility which falls under divine omnipotence. Such a contradiction is not subject to it, not from any impotence in God, but because it simply does not have the nature of being feasible or possible. Whatever, then, does not involve a contradiction is in the realm of the possible with respect to which God is omnipotent. Whatever involves a contradiction is not within the scope of omnipotence because it cannot qualify for possibility. Better, however, to say that it cannot be done, rather than God cannot do it." (T. Aquinas Summa Theologica p. 163-164 , Volume I, ques. 15 ans. 3)

3.Can God stop being God or stop existing? The nature of God is infinite- meaning no end, He is from everlasting to everlasting. God's unchanging moral character is a moral absolute, he changes not. This includes holiness, justice, love, mercy and truth. God is who He is forever and is the only constant thing (being) in the universe. Only created things subject to time and space which are of a non-eternal substance can change. God could not change if He wanted to (which He would not). Because He exists in the highest and ultimate state of perfection. Words fail to describe at this point the state God is in. However we do know God became a man, in that he added another nature to his deity, so He came in human flesh, we know him as Jesus Christ.

He is not free to act contrary to his nature that is permanent, that does not change. Does this mean he is not all-powerful? No- it means that as a perfect and unchangeable being His commands and actions are rooted in the ultimate good, which flow from his nature. God's moral character does not change. "I the Lord change not "(Mal.3:6). "There is no shadow of change with God" (Jm.1:17).

http://www.letusreason.org...

==================================================================================================

I ask my opponent to pay close attention to the words " perfect, throughly and all " in 2 Timothy chapter 3:16 through chapter 3:17...

16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be" perfect, thoroughly" furnished unto all good works.

I submit that this verse shows no other "anything is needed", as the bible alone is all one needs to become perfect, thoroughly furnished unto " all " good works.

THE BIBLE IS COMPLETE AND PERFECT

HOME

WHAT WE BELIEVE

Jude 3

Once for all delivered to the saints.

2 Peter 1:3

We have all things that pertain to life & godliness

Galatians 1:6-8

There is only ONE true gospel. To teach otherwise is to be accursed

2 Timothy 3:16-17

All scripture inspired...can make the man of God complete

Deuteronomy 12:32

Even under the Old Law they were not to add to God's word

Matthew 15:3-9

Jesus condemned the Pharisees for making their traditions equal with God's commands

Revelation 22:18-19

Do not add to or take away from that which God has written.

There are many who believe that the Bible is inspired but do not accept it as complete and without error. Numerous religious bodies today have creed books other than the Bible that dictate what their followers must believe. Some state the Bible is incomplete. Such attitudes are a major contributor to the religious confusion that exists today in our country and throughout the world. Let us consider what the Bible states about it being complete and without error. If the Bible is the inspired word of God (and it is), then whatever it says about God"s word must be respected as true.

A number of passages speak of the completeness of God"s word:

Jude 3 speaks of contending, "earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints." The expression "once for all" could properly be written, "one time for all time". In other words, the text indicates that there will be nothing else.

2 Peter 1:3 tells us, "as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue...". According to this verse, we now have all things we need for (eternal) life and (how to live in) godliness.

Galatians 1:6-9. Paul wrote with great concern to the churches of Galatia about the gospel. He wrote, "I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another;" (Galatians 1:6-8) Clearly Paul points out that there is only ONE gospel and at the time he wrote this text, that gospel had been revealed. Note his warning concerning accepting anything other than that gospel. He said, "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you that what you have received, let him be accursed." He was so serious about this, that he repeated the warning of verse 8 again in verse 9.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 speaks of all inspired scripture being profitable and able to make the man of God "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.". For this to be true, we must have the completed word of God. And we do!

Under the old law, they Israelites were given this warning in a straight forward manner, "Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it." (Deut 12:32). Solomon, speaking with wisdom from God said, "Do not add to His words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." (Prov.30:6).

Matthew 15:3-9. When Jesus was confronted by the Jews about refusing to follow their traditions, He rebuked them saying, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition.?" (Matthew 15:3) After giving an example of their hypocrisy, He then states, "...Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites, Well did Isaiah prophecy about you saying: "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." (Mt. 15:6-9) Jesus was condemning adding to God"s word.

Revelation 22:18-19. The book of Revelation concludes with these words, "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will ad to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book." (Revelation 22:18-19). While John had specifically in mind the book of Revelation, the principle portrays the attitude of God and it concurs with the numerous other passages we have noted on this point. Therefore, let us take these warnings seriously.

Thus we can see that the Bible IS complete, and the only source we need for our salvation.

What about creed books? Many religions have creeds that they tell you are as necessary as the Bible to be a part of their church. If a church has a creed book other than the Bible, it is not the true church. We have seen that what we have is inspired and complete. If that is true than we need nothing else. If a book says more than the Bible says, it says too much. If it omits portions of God"s word, then it does not say enough. If it says the same thing as the Bible then it is not needed in the first place. Again, consider the warnings mentioned above. They certainly apply in this instance.

http://www.roseavenue.org...

==================================================================================================

SUMMARY:

I have shown the illogical way my opponent desires to conform God into a nature that isn't possible with his rock scenario, and proven beyond doubt that the bible alone is all one needs, thus the bible I believe to be the sole inspired, inerrant, word of God, nothing else needed.

=================================================================================================

SOURCES:
KJV
Sites shown above.
Forever23

Con

PLAGIARISM

My opponet has plagiarised his first argument for this round from: https://answers.yahoo.com...

What my opponent said: If God can make a rock that he can"t move then what He created becomes more powerful than the creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature.

What Yahoo Answers said: If God can make a rock that he can"t move, then what He created becomes more powerful than the Creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature.

The next part about the bachelor was also partly stolen from: http://www.nefuri.com...

Check out those links. This is clearly plagiarism.

Therefore, since none of these arguments truly belong to my opponent, they are not valid. And therefore, this debate is not beneficial for either debator.
Debate Round No. 2
WFTL

Pro

Plagiarized, seriously? Are you not aware of the site reference I gave, thus no plagiarism was committed. You intentionally made this to appear to be an act of plagiarism by giving a reference from a different site in which that person went to the same site I did, which is above, but you intentionally ignored it to get the audience to think something that wasn't true, and here is my site that I gave which is as I said clearly seen in the above round, http://www.letusreason.org......

This will be all that I will say this round to give you an opportunity to get your act together before we go another round, so admit your fault and let's go to the next round.
Forever23

Con

I have gotten my act together since that site you said has neither the bachelor example nor the rock one. So therefore, there was plagiarism from yahoo news.

I am not willing to debate someone who cheated on the topic by taking someone elses information and using it as their own.
Debate Round No. 3
WFTL

Pro

http://www.letusreason.org...... I don't have time to deal with childish lying people like yourself, so I will just allow the audience see for themselves that I furnished the site for what was said that you deny that I didn't put up, which covers all of what you said. I'm done.
Forever23

Con

Since its the 4th round, I might as well summarize the round. The correct way to give credit is to put taken information into quotation and to provide the source.

While my opponent did quote some of the things he wrote, and properly gave credit, he did not for some of his main arguments. Looking back at Speech 1, you see the argument he made to refute my omnipotence paradox.

I quote Pro: If God can make a rock that he can"t move then what He created becomes more powerful than the creator. Then God is no longer the most powerful thing in the universe, the rock has become more powerful than God. And whatever is more powerful than God is God, for there is nothing greater. God has infinite qualities, not finite. God can only do things that are possible; he can"t make square circles (it wouldn"t be called a circle) or a two sided triangle. It is asking God to bring about a logically contradictory state to His own nature.This is what is called a category mistake to say He can make something he can"t lift. It"s like asking a bachelor what his wife"s name is? What does the color yellow taste like, color doesn"t taste, so it is not a relevant question. It"s not possible for God to make a rock so big that even he can"t lift it. If he can make it He can lift it. If he can create it, he can destroy it. God does not have any limit to His power, but everything he created has a limit. Just because He does not show His unlimited power does not mean he does not possess infinite power. Nothing God makes can be more powerful than Him, creation is never more powerful than its creator. Whatever He created is under his jurisdiction, under His control, but it can never have equality or become superior.

This is not located on the source he sited and even if it was, it was not in quotes nor was it properly sited. It was located on the source I found. He stole it and claimed it as his own.

Properly siting a source includes putting quotation marks and then giving link. He did not give correct link nor did he suse quotation marks.

Pointing out plagiarism is not childish or wrong. Plagiarism is illegal and I am doing my best at pointing it out to the voters.
Debate Round No. 4
35 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Forever23 1 week ago
Forever23
Without due acknoqlodgement. That includes quotation
Posted by WFTL 1 week ago
WFTL
Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of original creations of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment.

As you can easily see I did give acknowledgment, so no plagiarism.
Posted by Forever23 1 week ago
Forever23
In order to properly give credit, you need to quote the stuff. Did he do that? NO
Posted by UnhookedSchnook 1 week ago
UnhookedSchnook
Hahaha, well found CON, they are 100% the same. PRO, how can you say you didn't plagerise? It is word for word!!!!
Posted by WFTL 1 week ago
WFTL
My opponent has deliberately lied by stating I had committed plagiarism, which I deny, as anyone can see my comments in the debate, so with that, this debate is over. I urge everyone to comment on this to prove my innocence, thank you, In Christian love.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 1 week ago
Lonely-Bird
Sorry wftl but you fail again. If it is necessary to claim that you have to "study the Bible" and that words were "different back then" then that means you are interpreting written words to suit your pre-existing belief structure. The Bible prophesies nothing. The synoptic gospels are not synoptic. Who first was given news of the birth of the Christ? For inerrancy it must be inerrant. Why does john's gospel not mention the Christ crying out "my god, my god, why have you abandoned me? (or forsaken depending on which translation)" this is most critical point and yet the 4 gospels don't record the same thing as happening. Why do the gospels not agree on the triumphal entry? Why does John start with the temple cleansing? Why does John appear to have a 3 year ministry and the others a one year? Why are there two creation stories? How many pairs of animals were taken on the ark? Beyond these contradictions those who do and have studied the Bible including those for whom the Torah and prophets are specifically theirs acknowledge the contradictions and that these are stories designed or intended to develop and express theological points. You are free to accept and believe what you will as I stated. What you cannot do in a logical argument is point at something and say that it is factual because said thing says it is factual.
Posted by WFTL 1 week ago
WFTL
TheRealSpassky101, how pitiful you are in saying what you believe the bible says about cannabalism and death to non believers. Pick yourself up any commentary and this will help you get the true understanding of what you believe to be true is so ridiculously wrong. I'll relate your misunderstanding of the bible to your age.
Posted by TheRealSpassky101 1 week ago
TheRealSpassky101
Atheism is caused by a knowledge in the Bible, i.e. God promotes cannabalism and death to non believers. I know more about the Bible than most Christians.
Posted by WFTL 1 week ago
WFTL
Lonely-Bird, prophecy that gives complete detail hundreds of years later is a supernatural event. No man can do this, not one. Atheism is caused by lack of knowledge of the bible, and it's obvious my opponent hasn't a clue on how to even study the bible. Every prophecy has been verified to have come true, not some, but all.

You cannot accept that the bible is fact, because you prefer otherwise, which is based on pure conjecture of nothing more than a man's opinion rather than the creator's words.

I have proven that his so called handbook of contradictions is simply caused by people who don't know how to study the bible, and I proved this with two verses that the atheist handbooks say are a contradiction.

Through studying you find out the true meaning, not only that, scholars who you reject, which is absurd, because these people are from all ages of the past and present, and to insinuate they don't know what their doing is mind boggling.

You believe what you do about the stars cannot fallstatement and you haven't a clue on what's actually being said, so it shows me that you haven't studied to find out the true meaning, but tell me, where you got your information to make you believe as you do on this?

You need to look and understand how things were said and why, and understand that meaning of many words were different back then, and then there's parables, hyperbole statement's like if your eye offends you pluck it out, do you actually believe that to be taken literally, as I can tell you people that don't know the bible will say yes, and obviously they'd be wrong.

A good book on bible Hermeneutics and textual criticism is a big help, as the bible is a book that one must take there time and study over a lifetime, not in a month or a year, as if you believe you can do this, you are mistaken. I hope this helps my friend.
Posted by Lonely-Bird 1 week ago
Lonely-Bird
Mentioned nothing about bias. The problem lies in the assumption or assertion that the Bible is fact. Truth, of course, can mean something else. However using the item you are claiming to be factual to prove it is factual fails. As for commentaries or apologetics they are opinion and philosophy starting again from the unsupported assertion or assumption that said scriptures are factual or truth. Truth they might be as we do not know. Factual is something else. For instance there is no evidence that the Jewish people were held in captivity in Egypt. We also have the problem with the apocalypse of John in that stars cannot fall from the heavens to earth.

If you wish to proclaim scripture is philosophical truth that is one thing. What you cannot do is claim it us factual by saying that scripture says it is factual. Circular reasoning.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 week ago
dsjpk5
WFTLForever23Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro CLEARLY plagiarized a good chunk of his offering. Con successfully pointed this out. Pro sourced some of his argument, but not the copy and paste Con pointed out. Plagiarism is poor conduct, so conduct to Con. Also, because of the plagiarism, Con was the only one who's arguments were 100% original, so arguments to Con.