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

The Bible is inerrant

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: 10/28/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 39540
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




The Bible contains no errors. It's inerrant.It doesn't have contradictions.




To win this debate, I only have to present an error/contradiction that is not effectively refuted by my opponent.

In other words, if the Bible said "Cats are dogs," my opponent is not allowed to use back-flipping apologetic such as "this means that both cats and dogs can be domesticated," unless he supports his alternative explanation with scriptural or external sources that make his apologetic convincing. If he doesn't do that, then his refutation is only a weak response that doesn't refute anything.

Furthermore, both debaters will not claim that an original word was mistranslated in English unless they provide trusted dictionary sources.

I'm going to present only 5 errors (out of 22 I know) to give my opponent the ability to have almost 2000 characters to respond to each error per round. This should be fair as it would give us the ability to go into detailed refutations.


Bible: Old testament + New testament.

Inerrant: Containing no errors whatsoever.

Effectively refuted: Conclusively shown to be mistaken beyond a reasonable doubt.


E-1.1 God's name "Yahweh" was or wasn't known to Abraham

Exodus 6:3(ESV): "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

This verse clearly states that God appeared to Abraham and others but didn't make himself known to them by his name "Yahweh".

In contradiction with an earlier verse...

Genesis 15:7(ESV): 'And he said to him [Abraham], "I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."'

In summary, one verse says the Lord God saying that he didn't make himself known to Abraham using his name "Yahweh" while an earlier account in genesis proves otherwise.

E-1.2- Tyre will be destroyed and never rebuilt again

Ezekiel 26:7-14 (ESV): "For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock.You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God."

1- Historically debunked. The Biblical God's prophecy is wrong as Tyre was not invaded or destroyed to become a bare rock by Nebuchadnezzar. The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1978 states: "In 585-573 (B.C.) [Tyre] successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II." If Tyre withstood the siege, then it is reasonable to assume that mighty pillars and towers were not all destroyed, that the streets of Tyre were never conquered and that its people were not massacred and looted under Nebuchadnezzar's attack as the biblical verse states.

2- Tyre will never be rebuilt again after Nebuchadnezzar's attack, really? As a Lebanese resident, I was walking yesterday in the location that biblical verse described permanently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, observing the historic towers still standing and enjoying the vibrant, touristic island which is connected to the the whole town of Tyre thanks to Alexander the great[Diagram below from NAT GEO].

This well-sourced diagram from National Geographic shows how the Island was connected.

It's impossible for me to draw exactly the borders of the ancient Island of Tyre as the geography changed, so I'm going to display a red area that encompasses the modern-day region roughly.

As we can see clearly, most of the Island of Tyre has been rebuilt and now has modern houses, schools and universities. The regions that were not rebuilt were not rebuilt because of their important ruins. However, 85%+ of the Island was rebuilt.

The Bible committed an error in saying that the Lord God promises that the Nebuchadnezzar's attack would destroy Tyre permanently, as the attack was unsuccessful and nothing more than a temporary siege and because Tyre's Island stands today as a populated, vibrant town.

E-1.3- Contradictory accounts on King Josiah's death

Kings 23:29-30(ESV): "In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father's place."

This verse clearly states that he was killed instantly and carried dead.

In contradiction with...

2 Chronicles 35:23-24(ESV): "And the archers shot King Josiah. And the king said to his servants, "Take me away, for I am badly wounded." So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah."

This suggests that he was carried to his chariot while wounded while the previous verse clearly says that he was carried to his chariot after being instantly killed. It can be also argued that the second verse says he died in Jerusalem as opposed to Megiddo.

2 Chronicles 35:24(NIV): "So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him."

In summary, there are at least two contradictory accounts of King's Josiah's death.

E-1.4 Plants created before the sun and the moon.

Genesis 1:11(ESV): 'And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.'

We are told here that God created vegetation, plants yielding seeds and fruit trees that bear fruits. Then we are told that the sun was created later...

Genesis 1:14-16(ESV): 'And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.'

The sun actually formed about 4.5 billion years ago, whereas "land plants" arose about 450 million years ago. One has to believe that land plants survived for almost 4 Billion years without light, even when their creation without light doesn't make any sense to begin with, not to mention that an omniscient God wouldn't have made such a silly mistake.

First it is historically erroneous as we know that the sun comes before the plants by billions of years, then it is logically erroneous as an omniscient God is supposed to create the sun before the plants and finally it is scientifically erroneous as land plants can't bear fruits and survive without light.

E-1.5 The last words of Jesus of Nazareth

Luke 23:46(ESV): "Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last."

In contradiction with...

John 19:30(ESV): "When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit."

Both apostles attempted to tell us exactly what Jesus said and yet ended up with different accounts.


I left about 1400 characters since the diagram I offered had some passages within it and I didn't want to be accused of exceding the character limit.

Finally, If I was in Pro's place I would consent the debate given that he has no chances of winning.

Debate Round No. 1


radz forfeited this round.


I'm not sure why Pro forfeited. I extend my points.
Debate Round No. 2


radz forfeited this round.


I extend my points once again.
Debate Round No. 3


radz forfeited this round.


Sigh. I extend my points.
Debate Round No. 4


radz forfeited this round.


And so it ends.

Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
@radz, you made a good job by admitting you lost, most people can not do this. sanx.
Posted by radz 3 years ago
To all brethren who acknowledges the inerrancy view....... it's false haha! Unless of course a Christian apologists could refute Con.

Well, the early church did not speak of it.

What matters most is the message of the Scripture which was recorded.

Con did win...Con won the debate and I'm glad!
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
well, it made me smile, great work Niqash.

I also hae read both the bible and the quran, I also found several errors or contradictions but christians always excues and they do not understand maybe they want not to understand. this was great.
Posted by 2-D 3 years ago
Nothing Radz, did Con change your mind on this issue? The inerrant view is very difficult.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
I wasn't going to take this debate due to the fact that I could not win because I am not versed in the Historically debunked assertions of the bible. I actually heard of the failed prophecy first in another of radz's debates. Of course, we all know the Genesis contradiction, but some Christians claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. Fortunately, Mr. Radz is not a Creationist.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
That was fantastic!!!!!!!! I couldn't even do better than that, even though I use that same argument virtually all the time when I speak to a christian, it amazes me how the topic is immediately changed or they really try to excuse that away by saying "well it was eventually conquered by Alexander the Great" and I respond with "Well that's a weird way to spell Nebuchadnezzar"
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Jakeross6 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 Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: FF