The Instigator
harrymate
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
djdipretoro
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Is the Bible entirely true?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
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 2 votes the winner is...
djdipretoro
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/3/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,988 times Debate No: 62372
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (65)
Votes (2)

 

harrymate

Con

If you want additional rounds, please comment or send me a message. Please do not forfeit. I want to debate this not because I actually believe what I am writing, but because I am a Christian and I am struggling and I am not sure if I am a true Christian or not. I have doubts about whether God is real of not. Please use sources. Thanks!

I look forward to a great debate. After this debate ends I will take the Pro side. Thanks to everyone who commented (You guys started the debate without me!!! Can I join the party???)
Debate Round No. 1
harrymate

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.


First of all, we have no evidence that the Creation is completely true. The Bible claims God was never created, he just exists. How is that possible? Everything has to be created or formed, and you can’t step out of time. Scientifically, it is impossible that plants could exist without the sun. How could the universe be created in one day? If God is really powerful, why couldn’t he just create it in a second? The world can’t be created in a week.



Also, we have no witnesses that saw John the Baptist have a vision about the end of the world. Could we believe everything that he and the other writers wrote? How do we know they are not lying? How do we know “The Holy Spirit” guided them? We have no evidence that the writers of the Bible are completely true.



Finally, let me remind you if one fact in the Bible is wrong, the Bible is not completely true. Even if many things in the Bible are true, it may not be perfect. The fact that the Bible is in some parts historically accurate does not make it completely true.



Thank you everyone for reading my argument and good luck to pro.


djdipretoro

Pro

Thank you Con for the debate.

Before I begin, I will make a preliminary remark that somewhat sums up my position. When we ask questions such as, "how do we know that the creation account is true?" or "how do we know that John the Beloved (not John the Baptist) was given a revelation?" the simple answer is "Well, because the Bible said so." If the Bible is God's Word, and God never lies or makes mistakes, then the Bible is entirely true. So first and foremost, my argument in the truthfulness of Scripture is rooted in the truthfulness of God.

I would like to address some foundational issues.

1. We are here dealing with an ultimate standard. That means, we are speaking of what the ultimate standard of truth is. Some claim that rationalism is the standard for truth while other claim empiricism is the standard of truth. Any epistemological method that is the starting point for a person, the "yardstick" by which they measure all truth, is their ultimate authority. But the Bible boils it down to only two options. We can either rely on God's Word for the ultimate standard of truth, or we rely on autonomous human thought.
2. Now, there are two ways to handle this. We can either subject our autonomous reasoning to what Scripture says, or we can subject Scripture to our autonomous reasoning. In John Frame's Systematic Theology, pg. 598, he says,

"Think...of a personal conversation between you and God. If there is any disagreement between his words and our own ideas, his must prevail. And if we are so arrogant as to judge what he says, he must prevail in that judgment. One who takes this posture before God should not have any difficulty saying that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.."

Note: Frame uses the American Heritage College Dictionary to define "inerrant" and "infallible."

Now, my position is this: Scripture, the Word of God, is the highest authority and the ultimate standard of truth. So I agree with philosopher and theologian John Frame as he says,

"When we have a settled view that Scripture teaches "p", then we must believe "p" over against any claim that "p" is false (Frame, 721)."

Therefore, Scripture is my highest authority, as reason is the highest authority for the rationalist and sense data is the highest authority for the empiricist.

So far, I have only dealt with acknowledging my highest authority. I have not given any evidence to the truthfulness of Scripture. However, since God's Word is the ultimate standard of truth, it cannot appeal to any other court for justification. Indeed, an ultimate does not appeal to anything else, otherwise it would not be ultimate. Thus many of my arguments will come from Scripture itself. For, the highest authority must be self-authenticating. But that does not mean we cannot look elsewhere for evidence to the truthfulness of Scripture. Here are reasons:

1. To say that Scripture is true because it makes correct claims about the world and the creative order is to say that the ultimate authority has bearing on the world. If the ultimate authority is not applicable to the situation in which we live, then it is useless. This does not compromise it as the highest standard, but rather upholds it by saying that all claims that Scripture makes about the world, are true.
2. Another way to testify to the norm of Scripture is to point to the existential aspect of it. For, what good is truth if it has not application to ours lives and the greatest needs of our souls? So Scripture is true because it was written "that our joy may be complete." The truthfulness of something must not only be normative and apply to the situation we live in, but it must also be existentially relevant.

So, to summarize:

1. Something is true if the Bible says it is true.
2. The Bible is true because God is true and cannot lie or be mistaken (Num. 23:19; Ps. 33:13-15).
3. The Bible is the Word of God (2 Tim. 3:16) and God's Word is truth (John 17:17)
4. Either God's Word is the ultimate standard for truth, or autonomous human thought is.
5. An ultimate authority cannot appeal to a higher court.
6. Scripture has bearing on the world/ universe.
7. Scripture is existentially relevant because it deals with the deepest needs of the soul and gives revelation of the Gospel, which is "the power of God to save."

I would also like to address some of the philosophical assertions Con makes. He says, "everything has to be created or formed." But this leads to an infinite regress of causes which is impossible. Rather, everything that begins to exist has a cause. God did not begin to exist, therefore he has not cause nor was he created.

Also, to the question about God's timing in creating the world. My answer..... I don't know. He does what he wants.

Finally, about the inspiration of the Bible. We know that the Bible is inspired because it is self-authenticating. I mean this in a different sense than above. Here, I use this term to say that we know the Bible is inspired in the existential sense. It authenticates itself by showing us the God behind the human authors. This may be brushed away as subjective experience, but the Bible claims about sin, salvation, grace, redemption, God, and eternity are unparallelled. The Bible gives us internal witness.
Debate Round No. 2
harrymate

Con

I am sorry I got the fact about John wrong.
However, your argument has many faults.

Pretend you were accused of murder. The judge asks: "Why should I believe you? How can I be sure everything you say is completely true?" And you say: "Because I said so."
How do we know if what God says is completely true (considering the fact He exists)? Because the Bible said so?

You have not given me any evidence the Bible is completely true except for the assumption that God exists.
You have not shown me evidence the Bible or God is the highest authority.
You have not given me any historic or scientific evidence that the Bible is completely true.
Almost everything you wrote is based on the Assumption the Bible and God is perfect.

Let me again remind you if one thing is incorrect in the Bible, it is not completely true.
Thank you to all the people who read our arguments and I encourage you to vote for con.
djdipretoro

Pro

No worries about getting the John fact wrong. I get things mixed up all the time.

On your analogy: This is a false analogy. If I were accused of murder, I would not be able to simply say "Because I said so." Why? Because I am not the ultimate authority, in this case the Supreme Court and the U.S. law. There is a higher authority than me, and only when that authority gives a verdict am I guilty or innocent.

But, who does the Supreme Court appeal to (of course, there is the system of checks and balances, but that not in view here)? No one. This is analogous to the Bible. The Bible acts as the Supreme Court of all truth, with nothing above it( this analogy s not perfect, so don't stretch it too far).

So then, the Bible is the standard of truth. It is the norm that distinguishes between fact and reality.

Also, the Bible is true, inerrant. But that does not mean it is precise down to the minute. For example, if I told you I was 18 years, would be true. But, it is not the most precise answer. I could give you the exact month, day, minute. Both answers would be true, one would just be more precise.
Likewise, the Bible does the same thing. It makes general claims, but they are truthful. So to claim that the Bible is without error does not mean that the Bible is accurate down to the most minute detail. Inerrancy is about truthfulness, not precision.

Moreover, I have told you that the Bible is the highest authority. But, you say that I have not given you any evidence for why that is so. You must note that if something is the highest authority, then the only way to justify it as the highest authority is to appeal to itself. If I asked a rationalist why reason is his highest authority, he would give me a reasonable answer. He would appeal to reason. So it is with the Bible. If I am going to tell you why the Bible is the highest authority, I must appeal to the highest authority, the Bible.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God" and "[God's] word is truth. (2 Tim. 3:16; John 17:17)"

That is valid justification for the truthfulness of Scripture. Norman Geisler, in the Baker in Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, gives this following argument for the truthfulness of the Bible.

1. God cannot err.
2. The Bible is God's Word
3. Therefore the Bible cannot err.

That is a logically sound argument.

Now, you have said that my whole argument is based on the assumption that the Bible and God is perfect. In a sense, that is true. But it is not "blind faith." Why do I think the Bible and God are perfect? Because God wrote a book. He told us so. Before I go to the Bible, I do not assume that it is true. I believe it is true because it says so. That is different that believing without any warrant. It would be blind faith if I went to the Bible, believing it was true, before I had any reason to believe so. But I do. The God who does exist (which is attested to by many arguments, but I think the most persuasive is the transcendental), has spoken.

Now, everything you have written is based on the assumption that the Bible and God are not perfect. I have given justification for why the Bible is the highest authority. But you have only made unwarranted claims against the Bible. Bring up the charges you have against the Bible!
One final note regarding history and science. If the Bible cannot err, then anything the Bible says that touches science or history must coincide with the truth. So, when the Bible makes historical and scientific claims, it is making true claims.

To my opponent: If you have any charges against the Bible's truthfulness, then bring them up. I have given you arguments or why the Bible is true, why it is the standard of truth, and why it is the highest authority. Until you can bring up evidence that proves the Bible is false, it is innocent until proven guilty.

To the voters: my opponent has not brought up any evidential charges against the truthfulness of God's Word. He has made unwarranted claims. I have given reason to trust the Bible as an ultimate authority.

For my opponent to win, he must show why the Bible is not a justified ultimate standard and he must erect another ultimate standard in it's place. He also must bring up charges against the Bible that cannot be refuted. If he does not, then I have won.

Thank you Con and thank you voters and readers.
Debate Round No. 3
harrymate

Con

First of all, you have not given me evidence the Bible can't err. The only proof for that is the Bible itself, therefore we do not have proof that God and the Bible is perfect.

Second, if the Bible is ENTIRELY TRUE, then it should be precise doen to the minute. Even though "18" is not precise to the minute, it is completely true. It does not make it false. However, with all the scientific errors, they are not true, even generally.

According to your logic, I would believe in Mohammad and the Quran because it claims to be true and the highest authority. According to your logic, all religions would be true because they claimed it would be true. You have not given me evidence that God is perfect. You have not given me evidence that the Bible is completely true. Do we have evidence that God made the world except for the Bible? You need more proofs and scientific evidences that God made the world. Therefore, your argument is not only illogical, but it is also unprovable.

I have evidence that the Bible is not entirely true: there are hundreds of scientific errors in the Bible. My ultimate standard is logic itself; for if the Bible is truly perfect, it must logically and scientifically make sense. Since that is not the case, we cannot say the Bible is perfect.

For my opponent to win, he must prove logically, scientifically, and in every perspective the Bible is truly. Since that cannot be done, he is unable to prove his case and therefore loses. To all the voters: what do you trust: logic or assumption? Evidence or errors? According to my opponent, all religions can be justified. If you believe what he says is true, then you agree with many religions. No matter how logical his argument seems, he does not have any scientific evidence. Therefore, I urge you to vote con.

Thank you pro and thank you to all voters and readers. Good luck pro on your final argument.
djdipretoro

Pro

I think the best way to end this debate is to take my opponents closing remarks and answer them, piece by piece.

1. "First of all, you have not given me evidence the Bible can't err. The only proof for that is the Bible itself, therefore we do not have proof that God and the Bible is perfect."

a) I have addressed this over and over again, and I am not sure how to make this any more clear. I have given an argument that the Bible can't err. My opponent has failed to see that evidence and argument are not exactly the same. An argument is evidence, but evidence is not always argument. For, a valid and sound argument shows the logical consistency of a position, and that constitutes as logical evidence. I gave a valid and sound argument, though he does not find it persuasive.
b) As I have said, the only way to justify an ultimate authority is to appeal to the ultimate authority. If the Bible is the standard for truth, then I must appeal to the Bible. My opponent says logic is his ultimate standard. The only proof he could give for logic as his ultimate standard is a logical argument. The highest authority must appeal to itself in order to justify itself. Therefore, this is not fallacious. It is consistent.

2. "Second, if the Bible is ENTIRELY TRUE, then it should be precise down to the minute. Even though "18" is not precise to the minute, it is completely true. It does not make it false. However, with all the scientific errors, they are not true, even generally."

a) my opponent is inconsistent in his response. He says that if the Bible is entirely true, it should be precise down to the minute detail, but then he goes on to say that simply stating that I am "18" is completely true but not precise. How can he hold both statements as true. Either a) The Bible is not true because it is not precise and neither is simply stating that I am eighteen because it is not precise or b) I can be completely true when I say I am eighteen without being precise and so can the Bible. He must choose a side. Because he has not, he has decided on inconsistency.
b) Moreover, the Bible was written in plain speech from the writers' perspective. The Bible speaks of "sunrise," but so does Neil deGrasse Tyson and Richard Dawkins. Are they wrong and fallacious? No! Because, from our human perspective, there IS a sunrise and a sunset. To say the Bible errs because of prescientific phenomenological description is to beg the question.

3. "According to your logic, I would believe in Mohammad and the Quran because it claims to be true and the highest authority. According to your logic, all religions would be true because they claimed it would be true. You have not given me evidence that God is perfect. You have not given me evidence that the Bible is completely true. Do we have evidence that God made the world except for the Bible? You need more proofs and scientific evidences that God made the world. Therefore, your argument is not only illogical, but it is also unprovable."

a) To say that my logic requires belief in all religions is to stretch what I said in Round 2 far beyond it's limit. Remember, I said that the ultimate authority will both have bearing on the world/universe we live in and will have existential relevance for our lives. No other religious text does these things.
b) My argument to the truthfulness of the Bible necessarily rules out the truthfulness of other religions. If the Christian message, the Gospel, is true, then "there is no other name (Jesus) under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)" If something is true, that necessarily means anything contradicting it is false.
c) Two things here: I have given you evidence that the Bible is completely true, you just have not found it persuasive. Secondly, there is tons of evidence that God made the world outside of the Bible. The cosmological, teleological, ontological, transcendental arguments give good reason to believe that God exists and created the world. But God's existence is not the question we are dealing with here. Nor are we dealing with evidence outside of the Bible. We are dealing with the Bible itself and whether or not it is true. So to try to bring up another topic is a red herring and totally diverts the discussion.
d) To say that I need more scientific evidence is to beg the question. You say that the Bible is unscientific, but you ask me for scientific evidence. You assume that the Bible cannot possibly be true and you therefore work from that assumption. That is why you ask for external evidence. You too, have assumption, Con. And you work from them.

4. "I have evidence that the Bible is not entirely true: there are hundreds of scientific errors in the Bible. My ultimate standard is logic itself; for if the Bible is truly perfect, it must logically and scientifically make sense. Since that is not the case, we cannot say the Bible is perfect."

a) Simply stating that there are hundreds of scientific errors in the Bible does not count as evidence. That is simply a naked assertion. Con has failed to provide any evidence to support his arguments.
b) Con says that logic is his ultimate standard. But on what basis is logic justified? For if there is no God, and this world is simply time and chance acting on matter, then what in the world is logic? If my opponent and I are just bags of meat and bone made up of stardust, then logic is of no consequence. According to his position, if God did not exist and did not create the world, then we are not really debating. Our brains are just fizzing. There is no basis for objective logic in the naturalistic world.
c) to continue on my previous point. In order for my opponent to use logic as his standard, he must ASSUME the intelligibility of the universe and the logical thought of human beings. But those things are not possible in a non-theistic universe. Therefore, he presupposes the truth of my position in that God exists and has revealed himself. On this point, my opponent has conceded a great deal of the debate.

5. "For my opponent to win, he must prove logically, scientifically, and in every perspective the Bible is truly. Since that cannot be done, he is unable to prove his case and therefore loses. To all the voters: what do you trust: logic or assumption? Evidence or errors? According to my opponent, all religions can be justified. If you believe what he says is true, then you agree with many religions. No matter how logical his argument seems, he does not have any scientific evidence. Therefore, I urge you to vote con."

a) Again, my opponent says that it is impossible for the Bible to be true, so I therefore lose. But that is begging the question and fallacious. He simply asserts the conclusion and draws the curtain on the debate without giving any valid arguments of his own.
b) Con tries to pit logic and assumption against each other, but this is impossible. For, before even engaging in logical thought, you must assume that logic is possible and will apply to our lives. Everyone brings assumptions/presuppositions to the table. Without any assumptions thought and life would be impossible.
c) "Evidence or errors?" What evidence? Con has simply asserted that there is evidence but he has not given any! I have asked for the evidence but he has failed to produce anything.
d) For "all religions can be justified" see point 3.

To the voters: Con has made unsubstantiated claims and naked assertions throughout the entire debate. He has not provided any evidence to challenge the Bible's truthfulness, yet he was asked to do so. On the other hand, I have given valid and sound arguments for the truthfulness of Scripture that were not refuted but were only accused of being illogical, without any justification. On this basis alone, you should vote Pro.

Thank you Con for the wonderful debate and thank you readers for sticking with us.

Blessings.
Debate Round No. 4
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whitesworstnightmare 2 years ago
whitesworstnightmare
John 1.In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2.He was with God in the beginning. 3.Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
Hebrews 1.Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2.This is what the ancients were commended for.
3.By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God"s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
4.By faith Abel brought God a better offering than Cain did. By faith he was commended as righteous, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith Abel still speaks, even though he is dead.

l now want to comment on a comment commented below it reads"Endlessly in the scriptures the Psalms are David worshiping God for destroying his enemies instead of giving them enlightenment, '. Why would god destroy a people or call them an enemy. Because in the beginning God created a RACE a blackman Adam,a black African in his image he created him,ln the garden of Eden in Ethiopia Africa he put a black man there..In the present day or the latter days His people have been subjected to humiliation,slavery, torture,disease and poverty and so on! Did you know the black Americans are the biblical israelites
And did you know the face of Jesus has been changed to white from black to support white supremacy to rule over the world!

Who is the enemy?Lets see what the bible says? Genesis 15:13 Then the LORD said to him Abraham, "Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there...Does it click to you now.For four hundred years black american were enslaved in America and experienced so much suffering for years! Africans and black american are gods chosen people,the real lsraelites. Other Races are the other flock written in the bible Jesus is going to save! Are you enemy of the black people white
Posted by djdipretoro 2 years ago
djdipretoro
GoOrDin,, interesting thoughts and perspective. I think you could make a debate based on the thoughts from the second paragraph in your comment. I would love to interact with you in discussion.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I couldn't bare to read this debate. The fact of the matter is, that the Morals indicated in the Bible are true and flawless, however not everything said in the Bible can be taken literally or simply because it was said.

Endlessly in the scriptures the Psalms are David worshiping God for destroying his enemies instead of giving them enlightenment, and this is completely contradictory to Jesus who did not change the law when he said pray fro your enemy. I this way we see that there was false worshiping of God since the beginning of Jerusalem and it's second King, who was selected by God to demonstrate, after giving man the King they had desired, that even the best man from his own selection was a failure in his standards as the ruler of Jerusalem next to Himself, God.

In this way the Bible is true, but is it ultimately all truth? Translation leads to no issues, but understanding of God must be received prior to deciphering the texts, not during or after..

This can be considered when there are quotes of saying, "God said," , God is physics the Manifest, as God says the physical laws of reality already exist, and as God says, "Let the dry land come forth," they were to come forth fro the energy had no place to go next after molecularized the sky and sea but into the dry depths of the earth's foundations which held no energy at all yet, because energy clings and leaps and would not consume the infinite darkness of space in opposition of the earthly materials without energy in them yet. So truly God has spoken, for God is God whom we as faithful servants know him to be as prescribed to our faith form the Bible, But when God says something, truth is not what we decide it is, it is the Truth.

People do not seem to acknowledge the truth of the Bible and continually claim it has been changed. What need has any person of changing the Bible? There si nothing to change. Simply put. The Bible is the Bible, it was not written by God, It was written by man because God
Posted by rockcityboy 2 years ago
rockcityboy
The bible is true
Posted by Rightwing15 2 years ago
Rightwing15
Parts of it are up to interpretation, Genisis is a poem. The bible is not a linear book, its a book that has a lot of parts that are supposed to be determined by the reader.
Posted by harrymate 2 years ago
harrymate
My mistake, sorry.
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
holy crap con your typing is small wtf?
Posted by leoghakj 2 years ago
leoghakj
Some scriptures are symbolic. Not taken literally.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Whenever I saw Con confuse John the Baptist as the author of the Book of Revelation, I quit reading lol.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I want to have this debate again. But first define: Entirely True.

The Bible is entirely flawless yes. But truth can be found in something that is hidden, metaphorical or conspicuous.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
harrymatedjdipretoroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's rebuttals/constructions were quite short, and I felt they were insufficient to defeat pro's showing of con's examples of the Bible's fallacies.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
harrymatedjdipretoroTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: An interesting debate, to be sure. Fundamentally, though, Pro's argument boiled down to circularity, and in response to Con's charge about "because I said so", Pro's only argument is one of special pleading that begs the question--that the bible is special BECAUSE it's entirely true and the word of god. Since that's the motion, Pro's argument fails. He needs to prove the motion, and asserting that it's proved because he asserts its true doesn't cut it. That said, Con didn't specify who was expected to have the BoP, and Con made some unsupported assertions himself (he didn't, for example, provide the errors he claimed existed). Pro did not prove the motion. But Con didn't prove the opposite, either--so I'm nulling my vote on this debate. Con, had you placed the BoP explicitly on Pro, you'd have stood a better chance of winning (though, to be honest, there were still problems in your case). As always, happy to clarify this RFD.