The Instigator
Romanii
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
theultimatetroller
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is God's Word

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 3 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/18/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,425 times Debate No: 42618
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

Romanii

Con

This is one of my favorite subjects to debate, and I have actually done this 3 times before, but I didn't really find it fulfilling any of the times because my opponents either avoided my answering my contentions or responded with a barrage of insults and condemnation.
Hopefully this debate will go better.

Please go ahead and present your argument first, since you have the burden of proof in this debate.
Good luck!

P.S. I will be requesting that you do not post any arguments or rebuttals in the 5th round, to ensure that we have the same number of rounds to debate
theultimatetroller

Pro


1) If you are depending on the Bible’s alleged inerrancy (strictly interpreted as no mistakes however minor) to believe the Bible’s theological message (gospel truth), you are in deep trouble from the start.


First, common sense says that a person or book does not have to be flawless in every detail in order to be true and authoritative in its main subject. Hardly any textbook meets the standard of strict inerrancy. Probably none do. And yet some, at least, are considered authoritative and trustworthy. My wife loves me; that I do not doubt. However, she sometimes does things that seem inconsistent with true love. So what? In the whole and in the main, for almost forty years, she has shown me love. Am I to doubt her love for me because occasionally during those years she has said things or done things inconsistent with perfect love? Not. (I should really turn this around and talk about my love for her in spite of doing things inconsistent with love. I’m the one much more guilty of that than she! But the point is the same.)


Second, everyone knows and admits that if the Bible is inerrant, it was only in the original autographs, not in any existing Bible (even the best reconstructed Hebrew and Greek manuscripts). Therefore, any existing Bible is untrustworthy as to its entire content? Hardly.


Third, and this will lead into the second question and answer, belief in the Bible’s inerrancy requires faith precisely because only the original autographs can be believed to have been absolutely, technically inerrant. So, it is possible, even easy, to have faith in the truth of the Bible’s theological content, its “Sache” (theological message), even if one does not believe in its inerrancy. Both require faith. Faith in one does not depend on faith in the other.


2) There is no proof of the Bible’s supernatural inspiration, absolute truth, authority other than “the demonstration of the Spirit and power” (Lessing). Without the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, doubts about the Bible’s truth and authority will always arise because there is no rational proof. There are, of course, internal and external evidences, but they do not add up to proof. If you base your belief in the truth and authority of the Bible on its internal and external evidences, your belief will always be shaky and vulnerable to new discoveries in historical and archeological research. As I like to say, you will have to await each new issue of Biblical Archeology to know whether you can still believe the Bible to be God’s Word (apart from faith).


As I said above, belief in the Bible’s inerrancy requires faith—faith in the inerrancy of the original autographs that do not exist.


I challenge anyone to provide a knock-down, drag-out, absolute, air tight proof of the Bible’s status as God’s Word without any appeal to anything “subjective” such as the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit and (which is the same thing) faith.


Finally, if you base your belief in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord on the truth status of the Bible rather than the other way around (basing its truth on its power to transform through relationship with Jesus Christ), you are risking idolatry. Jesus is the “Sache” of Scripture. Luther knew it as did Calvin. But fundamentalists and neo-fundamentalists put Scripture over Jesus when they try to make belief in him as Savior and Lord dependent on the inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible, then, becomes the gift in place of Jesus Christ. It should be (and is) the other way around—Jesus is the gift. The Bible is simply the Christmas-wrapped box that delivers him to us. I believe in the Bible’s truth and authority because of him. But that in no way requires belief in absolute, technical, detailed accuracy of every statement of Scripture.


It seems to me that people who insist that Christian faith depends on the inerrancy of the Bible and/or rational proofs of its inspiration ought to sing “My hope is built on nothing less than Scripture and its inerrancy….” Or “My faith has found a resting place in evidence that demands a verdict….”


Having said all that, I will go on to say that there is a vast difference between the Bible and other so-called “holy books.” The difference between the Bible and others book people claim to be inspired is a difference in kind, not just in degree. The Bible only is supernaturally inspired and authoritative for Christian belief (doctrine). Other books for which people make that (or similar) claim are, in opinion, unworthy of it as they contain not only errors but simple nonsense. Of course, I can’t prove that to their adherents, but to anyone open-minded enough to investigate them objectively, their lacking the normative dignity of the Bible is easy to show. That is the role of apologetics—not to prove the Bible is the Word of God (let alone inerrant) but to show its superiority to competitors. Emil Brunner called this “eristics”—the task of comparing world views with the aim of showing that Christianity (and I would add the Bible) is superior in addressing the human condition and revealing God’s solution.


Debate Round No. 1
Romanii

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate.
You seem to be very knowledgeable on the subject, unlike my past 3 opponents, so I look forward to a great debate!

"...common sense says that a person or book does not have to be flawless in every detail in order to be true and authoritative in its main subject. Hardly any textbook meets the standard of strict inerrancy."
This is not a debate about the historical/scientific validity of the Bible. If the Bible was simply a history textbook, then you would be right in saying that minor variations between different stories wouldn't invalidate it, but you are not just claiming it to be a source of historical information; you are calling it the WORD OF GOD. God is a perfect, divine being, and his word must be perfect as well. Inerrancy MUST be a characteristic of the Bible.

"...only the original autographs can be believed to have been absolutely, technically inerrant."
Translation errors could have resulted in the details being changed up over the ages from the original manuscripts; however they could not have resulted in the blatant contradictions and inconsistencies between the Bible's various stories. Several examples of such contradictions and inconsistencies are presented in the two videos I have posted; I realize that not all of them are valid, and that some of them do not matter that much, but there are still many of the examples that hold up, proving that even in its original form, the Bible could not have been inerrant (unless the translators were really, really stupid, and in that case, you would think that God could get some better guys to translate his words).

"If you base your belief in the truth and authority of the Bible on its internal and external evidences, your belief will always be shaky and vulnerable to new discoveries in historical and archeological research."
I agree that internal/external evidence shouldn't be the sole reason some one believes in the Bible as God's word; however, it should definitely play a factor in it. You can't continue "having faith" when the internal/external evidence obviously contradicts the validity of the Bible as a source of truth. If the Bible was God's word, it would at least sort of match up with known truths, yet the Bible has two major clashes with proven information:

-Genesis directly contradicts the theory of Evolution, which DOES have valid evidence behind it.

-The events portrayed in Exodus should have been a HUGE incident in Egyptian history, yet Egyptian historical records do not mention those events even ONCE, despite the fact that the Egyptians DID record their defeats, such as the invasion of the Hyksos and the Ramses the Great's losses in Canaan.

"It seems to me that people who insist that Christian faith depends on the inerrancy of the Bible and/or rational proofs of its inspiration ought to..."
I am not saying that Christianity as a whole is based on a literal interpretation of the Bible; Christianity is much more than the Bible, which is why I don't understand why Christians are so attached to the Bible.
Common sense reveals that the Bible is NOT God's word. It cannot be taken literally word for word because, at its heart, the Bible is a collection of ancient Hebrew folklore and early Christian propaganda written by MERE HUMAN BEINGS.

"Other books for which people make that (or similar) claim are, in opinion, unworthy of it as they contain not only errors but simple nonsense."
You're right. Someone could probably make a contradictions video about any other "holy scripture" out there. However, what you fail to notice, is that THE BIBLE IS JUST AS BAD in that sense. NO holy scripture can be taken literally because they are ALL like that. A book written by mere humans can never be perfect representation of God's word!
Only God himself can deliver his word through spiritual experiences and direct contact.



;
theultimatetroller

Pro

theultimatetroller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Romanii

Con

Extend all arguments.

In addition:
I would like to thank OtakuJordan for pointing out to me that Pro copied his entire argument from the following site:
http://www.patheos.com...
theultimatetroller

Pro

theultimatetroller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Romanii

Con

Extend all arguments.
theultimatetroller

Pro

theultimatetroller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Romanii

Con

Romanii forfeited this round.
theultimatetroller

Pro

theultimatetroller forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
CynicalDiogenes, don't you take a non-literal interpretation of the Bible, though?
Posted by CynicalDiogenes 3 years ago
CynicalDiogenes
Romanii I would like to debate this with you sometime.I hope I can adequately meet the points you are raising.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Wow, dude. Seriously?
I thought you were really smart or something because of how tough it was to counter those arguments -_-
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
OMG, Pro seriously copied that entire article for his argument!!!
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
@Okatujordan:
Sure, that would be great!
Posted by theultimatetroller 3 years ago
theultimatetroller
fick both of you
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
"i was the writer of that artice i didnt plagarism."

The grammar in that sentence alone proves you are not intelligent enough to have written that.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
"i was the writer of that artice i didnt plagarism."
lol! ... Sorry, the grammar is just too terrible. Anyway if true, prove such inside the debate.
Posted by theultimatetroller 3 years ago
theultimatetroller
i was the writer of that artice i didnt plagarism.
Posted by OtakuJordan 3 years ago
OtakuJordan
@Romanii No problem. Sorry I couldn't debate this with you. Perhaps some other time?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cygnus 3 years ago
Cygnus
RomaniitheultimatetrollerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins by default as Pro forfeited rounds 2-5.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 3 years ago
Buckethead31594
RomaniitheultimatetrollerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious plagiarism and forfeit.
Vote Placed by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
RomaniitheultimatetrollerTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: FF's, Plagiarism... Heck, this guys account was even deleted. Full points for Con.