The Instigator
kasmic
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
GoOrDin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 732 times Debate No: 62216
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

kasmic

Pro

Resolve: The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture.

Time to argue: 72 hours
Argument max: 10,000 Characters

Definitions:

1: Bible: "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1)

2: Canon: "an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture."(2)

Pro will argue in favor of the resolution.
Con will argue that the Bible supports a closed canon

Format as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance and a brief statement of position. (no more than 100 words.)
Round 2/3: Arguments and Rebuttals.
Round 4: Rebuttals and closing statements. (No new arguments.)

This debate is intended to be serious, please no trolling. Good luck to whomever accepts.

Brief Opening Statement

There are many Christens today who say "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."(3) It has become the dominant belief in Christianity that the Bible constitutes a closed canon of God's word. I will show that the Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture.

(1)http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2)http://www.merriam-webster.com...
(3)https://www.lds.org...
GoOrDin

Con

The Bible as chronicled by the Roman church, is chronicled exactly as it was intended to be. Which is the Bible. The Roman church however does not determine how sacred this chronicle is* So. although the Bible was intended to be a closed chronicle. Does that even ring as a relevant discussion?
Debate Round No. 1
kasmic

Pro

Thank you GoOrDin for accepting this debate! Good Luck to you. I am not sure by your first round post that you understand what I am arguing. It should be very clear after reading my argument.

It has become common place for "Christians" to believe in a closed canon of scripture limited to the Bible. Ironically this idea is not to be found in the Bible. Therefore, as this idea of a closed canon is not presented in the Bible, and when applied limits God, it should be discarded as a baseless doctrine in the Christian world.

The idea of a closed canon comes from a misapplication of Scripture:

Revelation 22:18 (KJV)

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

Often advocates for a closed canon will say that this verse says as plain as can be, do not "add" to the Bible. There are two simple reasons why this verse cannot be applied this way.

First: "there is now overwhelming consensus among virtually all biblical scholars that this verse applies only to the book of Revelation, not the whole Bible. Those scholars of our day acknowledge a number of New Testament "books" that were almost certainly written after John"s revelation on the Isle of Patmos was received. Included in this category are at least the books of Jude, the three Epistles of John, and probably the entire Gospel of John itself. Perhaps there are even more than these."(1)

Second: " But there is a simpler answer as to why that passage in the final book of the current New Testament cannot apply to the whole Bible. That is because the whole Bible as we know it"one collection of texts bound in a single volume"did not exist when that verse was written. For centuries after John produced his writing, the individual books of the New Testament were in circulation singly or perhaps in combinations with a few other texts but almost never as a complete collection. Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000." (1)

The above quotes illustrate that Revelation 22:18 cannot feasibly be applied to mean that the Bible as we have it today is all there can be.

To really drive this point home, I will cross reference this verse to Deuteronomy Chapter 4:2(KJV)

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you."

Deuteronomy is the fifth book in the Old Testament. If we were to apply this scripture like many so called "Christians" apply Revelation 22:18 we would have to reject the entire New Testament and a large portion of the Old Testament.

The Nature of God:

The Christian view of God includes the belief that God is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. This idea of a God Unlimited in knowledge, power, and influence does not mesh with the idea of limiting God to the text of the Bible. These two ideas oppose each other. Who are we to say God could not speak to us today? I echo the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Christians should "Teach that God is, not was; that He speaketh, not spake."(2)

The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop.

Mathew 4:4 (KJV)

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."

Timonthy 3:16

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

Every word that "proceedeth out of the mouth of God" is scripture and is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." As was already mentioned due to the belief that God is omniscient, it would not make sense to limit the things he could say to what we call the Bible.

Contrary to teaching a closed canon, the Bible presents how to recognize true Prophets and Revelation:

Mathew 7:15-20

"15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep"s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

Christ does warn of false prophets. I ask the question, why would he warn of false prophets if there were to be no more "true" prophets? Simply put he says "by their fruits ye shall know them."

Conclusion:

The belief of a closed canon of scripture is not found in the Bible. The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop. In fact the Bible does contain instructions on how to distinguish true prophets/revelation from false. This implies the idea of continued revelation. The Christian world has no reason to accept the idea of a closed canon of scripture. This doctrine should be dismissed by Christians.

(1)https://www.lds.org...
(2)http://www.goodreads.com...
GoOrDin

Con

Thank you Kasmic.

When discussing the book of Revelations. I do agree. The Book of revelations is likely only making reference to itself.
I have never been in the belief it was a reference to the entire Cannon, and in fact have argued with is with devote Christians.

However. The Bible is not a term used to describe Holy scriptures. It is a term which is defined and described as the current cannon of scriptures.
Many bishops and Popes, and disciples have added to the philosophy and message of Christianity. These things were accepted. But they are not biblical. Because the Bible is a closed Cannon.

Anything added to the Bible would be, the "Bible and this", or "this, with quoted biblical contents"
Debate Round No. 2
kasmic

Pro

Con says "The Bible is not a term used to describe Holy scriptures. It is a term which is defined and described as the current cannon of scriptures."

I resubmit the definition presented in round one for Bible. "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1)

Con says "Many bishops and Popes, and disciples have added to the philosophy and message of Christianity."

I agree with this statement.

Con says "Because the Bible is a closed Cannon."

Again I resubmit a quote used early in the debate. "Of the entire corpus of 5,366 known Greek New Testament manuscripts, only 35 contain the whole New Testament as we now know it, and 34 of those were compiled after A.D. 1000."(2)

Cons comments do not seem to be directed at the resolution which reads "The Bible does not support the idea of a closed canon of scripture."

Therefore the resolution stands.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...
(2) https://www.lds.org...
GoOrDin

Con

GoOrDin forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kasmic

Pro

Extended arguments

"The belief of a closed canon of scripture is not found in the Bible. The Bible contains zero references to God saying that his words and revelations and interaction with men would stop. In fact the Bible does contain instructions on how to distinguish true prophets/revelation from false. This implies the idea of continued revelation. The Christian world has no reason to accept the idea of a closed canon of scripture. This doctrine should be dismissed by Christians."

My opponents comments did not address the resolution. Also as per rules, Round 4 cannot contain any new arguments. So as my opponents arguments did not address the resolution, and he can no longer make new arguments, The resolution stands.

Thanks for reading,

Vote pro!
GoOrDin

Con

I repeat my "Round 2 argument.",

The Bible IS the current accumulation of Bibical scriptures cannoned by the Catholic and then Christian church.

Bible is not a term designated to holy scriptures, but instead to this very Book, and nothing else.

There is no indication hat the Bible is sacred or holy or blessed in omnipotency as God's word. And thus the debate has been founded on a disputable principal, "that the Bible was intended to be The Bible and not more or less. meaning, the Bible, which is intended to be as such, in itself supports the claim that it can not be an Open cannon. It would thus be the "Bible + some", or "some + the scriptures."

However I agree that holy texts should be in continual accumulation and inspection. The Bible is not indicated within itself saying, "The Bible is holy, sacred or true." . However much I believe in the Bible, which I do;

The Bible is as I indicated in round 2, The current cannon of Scriptures. The Bible was not the Bible prior to the new testament*** nor would it be the Bible if it were expanded, for if this were to happen, then the Past generation were not reading the Bible and you would have high-jacked the term from them unto a blasphemers end.

Please forgive me for missing my last round, and explaining my 2nd Round point more thoroughly here and now.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I understand that Pro was questioning whether or not the Bible said within it's pages there were scriptures indicating it should be a closed cannon, insisting there were not.

However, the Sky is blue. The sky being blue indicates it should be as such. It turns tope at dawn, and is orange and purple at dusk. varying in it's quality. But the Sky being blue is it's natural state.
The Bible likewise is The BIBLE only in it's current state, and as being itself supports it's existence as a closed cannon.

Scriptures however were never closed off to being kept or regarded. The history of the Jews is by mandate required to continue until the end of the world.

But Pro's debate was not, "should scriptures continue being written", it was, "should the Bible be redefined to accompany new text?"

in which case No. obviously not. If the Iliad's were changed now, would they truly be the Iliad's?

The Bible as an entity is a self sufficient argument to claim the BIBLE was intended to be a closed cannon. whether by God or man. This is not an argument to support the idea all other older or newer texts and documents should not be regarded by the church.***

So I dispute, "I win". and that Pro did not understand my stand point as CON: Which is factual condition of the Bibles existence.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
My only argument stands. The Bible is the scriptures which constitute it. Every definition of the Bible is, "the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments."(1) as quoted by you. If it has more or less, These are not the Old or new testaments.
The Bible is the BOOK, as it often refers to in definitions, that has exactly what it does have in it.

The Various forms of the Bible indicate that the Book is as flesh, and each individual is different. However to create a division int eh church is a sin, and thus any new form of the book is not a Bible, because it is not Holy and acknowledgeable by the generations.

I intend to copy and paste this argument into the debate, however I will first allow myself time to resolve my conclusion and respond to your remarks.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
ooo. you're right. you caught me. This will be a tough hole to dig out of.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
The bible says that by the great and precsious promises we partake of God's divine nature.I believe the bible has every promise that pertains to life and godliness.Like I ask the Mormons. Are there any promises in the book of Mormon that are not in the bible. They always say , " not that I can think of. It takes well over a lifetime to study God's word to understand it . And never come to the full knowledge of its wisdom When I have exhausted all the knowledge and wisdom in God's word , then maybe I will go to more texts. But anything that goes against God's word I will reject.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
I said that kind of rash and hastily. butt eh statement is there. It is intended to be Closed. The Bible is defined by this chronicle, and that is what this chronicle is.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
u already win. The Bible is a history of the jewish people. it is to never stop being written.
okay correction. The source of all holy scriptures is a history of the Jewish people that is to never stop being written.*
Most the Bible is a historical record.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
kasmicGoOrDinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round, and conceded many of pros points. I think pro was right to question if con understood the resolution.