The Instigator
Pro (for)
10 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The Bible Is Not the Inerrant Word of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,085 times Debate No: 75025
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




Challenge to Kylar. First round acceptance only. BoP is on Pro. No trolling/lawyering/kritiks.


I accept and thank you for this debate challenge my friend :)
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Kylar for accepting. I will use the English Standard Version (ESV) for Biblical quotes.

== Full Resolution ==

The Bible is not the literal and inerrant word of God.

== Definitions ==

The Oxford Dictionary of English defines ‘Bible’ as “the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments.” [1] It also defines ‘inerrant’ as “incapable of being wrong” [2], and ‘God’ as “the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority.” [3] ‘Literal’ is defined as “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration.” [4]

C1) Young Earth Creationism Is Improbable

Young Earth Creationism is “the religious belief that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by the direct acts of God during a relatively short period.” [5] This calls for a literal interpretation of Genesis 1:1 to 1:11, that say God (Hebrew - Elohim) created the universe, Earth and life in a period of six days, and rested on the seventh. [6]

The Big Bang

The Big Bang cosmological model is the prevailing cosmological model for the large-scale evolution of the universe, that predicts that the universe was once in an infinitely dense and high-temperature state known as a gravitational singularity, that released thermal radiation that is isotropic throughout the universe. [7] Its primary prediction is the expansion of the universe via. the stretching of space as allowed by general relativity and predicted by the Friedman equations. [8] The Big Bang states that the high-density state of the universe was about 13.8 billion years ago, and the expansion of the universe is ongoing. [9] YEC contradicts the Big Bang by stating the universe, all life and the Earth were created in six days.

There is observational evidence for the Big Bang, the first of this being the homogeneity of thermal energy in the universe, especially the Cosmic Microwave Background, thermal radiation from the high-density state of the universe. [9]

Cosmic Microwave Background - from my Big Bang debates

Age of the Earth & Radiometric Dating

“The ‘best age’ for the Earth is based on the time required for the lead isotopes in four very old lead ores (galena) to have evolved from the composition of lead at the time the Solar System formed, as recorded in the Canyon Diablo iron meteorite. This ‘model lead age’ is 4.54 billion years.” [10] This is according to radiometric dating [10], which thus reveals the likely age of the Earth to be 4.54 billion years or later, but certainly not earlier. The more specific model lead age for the age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years. [11]

Evolution & the Age of Life

The earliest undisputed evidence for life on Earth, ‘fossil’ bacteria, dates to 3 billion years ago [12], while some findings suggest 3.5 billion years ago [13], and even 3.8 billion years ago. [14] Life is supposed to have evolved over a *long* period of time by the theory of evolution via. natural selection [15], which is in contrast with the Bible’s theory of all life being created in a period of 6 days.

That evolution is likely is supported by the existence of a universal genetic code. The genetic code is the set of rules by which information encoded within genetic material (DNA or mRNA sequences) is translated into proteins by living cells. [16] The genetic code used by all known forms of life is nearly universal with few minor variations. [17] The universal genetic code is shown below. [18]

In addition, there are a variety of genetic commonalities between species that are only explained by evolution. There is a similarity of about 95-96% between the genome of H. sapiens and P. troglodytes, as illustrated in the image below. [19-20]

The below image represents the genome-wide incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) and selection between the chromosomes and genome structure of humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. [21]

The fossil record also supports evolution, as seen in the below image.

C2) Historical Authenticity of the Bible


“However, there was no record of any Israelites being in Egypt at [the time of Exodus], and hundreds of thousands of people trekking the desert would likely not have been allowed by Egypt, which tightly controlled the area. There are records of small bands passing through, yet none indicating a mass movement of people. There is also no evidence such a group camped for extended periods – including in the places mentioned in the Bible.” [22] Thus, Exodus is likely incorrect.

Roman Census

According to Luke, Jesus was born during a census ordered by Augustus through the Roman Empire. This was *also* during the reign of Herod the Great in Judaea. The problem is, Herod died in 4 BCE, which is 10 years before the census was conducted. [23]


The Bible has historical inaccuracies and creationism is false. The resolution is resoundingly affirmed.


1. Google (“define Bible”)

2. Google (“define inerrant")

3. Google (“define God”)

4. Google (“define literal”)



7. Joseph Silk (2009). Horizons of Cosmology. p. 208.













20. Ajit Varki and David L. Nelson (2007). “Genomic Comparisons of Humans and Chimpanzees.” Annual Review of Anthropology. 36:191-209.





The Big Bang account can easily be refuted. Reading Genesis 1:1 it says God created the heavens and the earth. Plain and simple, and God did not use the big bang. As Genesis unpacks, it says God made the earth in 6 days. So the Big Bang is not reliable.

Regarding Evolution there are some similarities. However, the Global flood of Genesis clearly stipulates there would be millions of fossils laid down in a very short time.

Exodus has been a hassle even for biblical sholars. It is hard to piece things together on that book. However, the records show that in 1445 BC the city of Jericho was destoryed, around the same year Joshua suceeded Moses. The encampments are not recorded because they were in a desert, think about that.

The Roman census is believed to have took place while Qurinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2). And it appears he was governor twice, because a roman official recorded a census under a man named Qurinius in 7BC but it must not have happened until 6 or 5BC the date of Christ's birth.

I rest my case for Round II and thank pro for this debate chance.
Debate Round No. 2



a) This is begging the question. I've shown that the Genesis account is not reliable and have *proven* the Big Bang. Yet to be refuted. You already assume the Biblical account is correct, but I'm saying it's wrong. I have shown there is observational evidence for the Big Bang, i.e. the Cosmic Microwave Background. This argument is *dropped*.

b) Begs the question again. Con *assumes* the Global Flood occurred while committing ipse dixit fallacy. Evolution is true, as I proved. Con must refute it, but it is *dropped*.

== Historical Authenticity ==

a) But the encampments were of *thousands* of people, thus covering the whole desert. Thus, it will have *had* to be recorded. There is *no proof* of Exodus. This argument is dropped.

b) Ipse dixit fallacy, as Con is making bare assertions with no citations or proof. Con must *prove* there was a "second Quirinus". But Luke also claims it was during the reign of Augustus, and that it was *throughout* the Roman Empire, but the only such recorded census was 10 years after the death of Herod.


Con's whole refutation begs the question. "The Big Bang account can easily be refuted. Reading Genesis 1:1 it says God created the heavens and the earth. Plain and simple, and God did not use the big bang. As Genesis unpacks, it says God made the earth in 6 days. So the Big Bang is not reliable." - I have shown how Genesis is *not* reliable via. this. The historical authenticity is based on ipse dixit.

Thus, Con commits two fallacies. The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed.


A. The Big Bang account is faulty. First there was nothing and somehow it exploded into planets and stars and everything else.
B. Global Flood can be proven through Genesis and many cultures have evidence to support it.

Historical authenticity

B. The best known conclusion is that the census was ordered 10 years prior to the birth of Christ, according to Josephus. However it was not carried out due to revolts and everything else.

The con argument is posted and I rest my case for Round III
Thank you pro for the debate :)
Debate Round No. 3


I. Young Earth Creationism

Big Bang Theory--Catastrophic Misconceptions

The Big Bang account is faulty. First there was nothing and somehow it exploded into planets and stars and everything else.

This is based off a *catastrophic* misconception. First, the Big Bang does not describe the origin of the universe, and has nothing to do with “exploded into planets and stars and everything else”. It’s a common misconception. Let me first define the Big Bang theory: “The prevailing cosmological model for the early development of the universe. The key idea is that the universe is expanding. Consequently, the universe was denser and hotter in the past. Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the age of the universe.” [1] The misconception is illustrated in the below image.

Therefore, the BBT merely states that the universe is expanding and was once in a concentrated and dense form. It also states that this concentrated and dense form of the universe began expanding 13.8 (approximately) billion years ago. [1] This contests the Bible’s theory that it took the universe 6 days to be created. The concentrated and dense form, according to scientific consensus, was caused due to vacuum fluctuations.

Additionally, Con *drops* the homogeneity of the universe and the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation. Thus, the Big Bang account is not ‘faulty’.

Age of Life & Evolution

The Global Flood is irrelevant to this and I’m not challenging it. You merely made a completely irrelevant argument about the Global Flood to ‘refute’ this, thus I addressed it. Con drops my proof of evolution via. natural selection, and the age of life, thus showing that different species have constantly been created over a period of 3 billion years. The below image shows the *evolution* of adaptive characteristics of species.

The above shows the modifications in beaks of finches (specifically, the Galapagos or Darwin finches) via. natural selection. [2]

II. Historical Authenticity

Structured Defense of My Case

a) The birth of Jesus is irrelevant to the inaccuracies regarding the census. As shown, there exists a historical consensus that the census conducted by Augustus Caesar took place 10 years after the end of Herod the Great’s reign [3-4], but the Biblical account says it took place during Herod’s reign. [5] Josephus’ account is also irrelevant as this concerns the authenticity of the *Bible*.

b) Con *drops* Exodus. Thus, I shall further strengthen that Exodus is likely inaccurate. Most archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus [6] and most archaeologists have therefore abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as “a fruitless pursuit.” [7-8]

Further Historical Inaccuracies in the Bible

There are a few more major inaccuracies in the Bible, as illustrated in the image below.

III. Con’s Logical Fallacies

Con frequently commits the ipse dixit fallacy. “Ipse dixit, Latin for ‘he, himself, said it’, is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement, which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.” [quoted from 9, sourced from 10-11] Another source refers to it as the “fallacy of bare assertion”. [12] Con’s claims are bare assertions and are unsourced, and, thus, are logically fallacious.

A Note on the Origin of the Universe

According to physicists today, the universe originated due to vacuum fluctuations that emerged out of the eternally existent energy of the absolute vacuum, via. the zero-energy universe hypothesis. This is to further defend an argument against YEC.

This assumes the absolute vacuum existed *forever*, which is possible via. eternalism which is entailed by general relativity.


I have successfully defended the Big Bang theory and the historical inaccuracies in the Bible. Con drops Exodus and evolution, and has unsourced arguments that frequently commit ipse dixit. The resolution remains resoundingly affirmed. Vote Pro.






5. Luke 1:5.

6. Carol Meyers. Exodus. p. 5.


8. William Dever. What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? p. 99.


10. William Dwight Whitney. The Century Dictionary & Cyclopedia. pp. 379-380.

11. Robert B. Westbrook. John Dewey and American Democracy. p. 359.



I rest my case for this debate, and thank my friend for it. I gained a lot of knowledge.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
Kylar and I agreed on the resolution.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Well, you did put the resolution in the second round..
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
@tschuk, read the *full* resolution. The Bible is the LITERAL and inerrant word of God. So creationism is the ONLY interpretation if it's literal.
Posted by tschuk 3 years ago
I wish I could've accepted this debate.

CON. Old Earth, Evolution, and the Big Bang are all compatible with the Genesis account.

Regardless of what you think, you should at least try to refute each of PRO's points. PRO is making mistakes already by ignoring other interpretations of the Genesis Account.
Posted by tejretics 3 years ago
The BBT already shows Genesis is unreliable, so why beg the question? That's a very poor argument.
Posted by canis 3 years ago
The never ending story...Well it ends with us.. And there will be Peace..Or just buisness as jusual..
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by creationtruth 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: While I certainly do not believe Pro's arguments hold up to careful, scientific, historical or logical scrutiny, Con failed to present a case. Con also failed to adequately rebut Pro's case. Pro provided many arguments, evidences (though faulty), and references.
Vote Placed by Chaosism 3 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct was good by both participants. Spelling and grammar was even. Pro presented thorough, well supported arguments to support his position. Con provided rebuttals that were unsupported and bare assertions and committed logical fallacies, as noted by Pro. Con ignores or pays no heed to the majority of Pro's arguments. Con's weak rebuttals are soundly refuted by Pro, and Con opted to provide no further argument in the final round. Arguments to Pro. Con cited no sources, while Pro provided a myriad of sources, many of which are very reliable. Sources to Pro.