The Instigator
InquireTruth
Pro (for)
Winning
81 Points
The Contender
ILoveCheese
Con (against)
Losing
60 Points

The Bible is not inerrant.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,326 times Debate No: 4511
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (23)
Votes (29)

 

InquireTruth

Pro

Quite simply, the Bible is not inerrant, nor does it make any such claim. For this debate my opponent must be familiar with the conservative doctrinal position of Biblical inerrancy. That is, the Bible is totally without error, and is free of any contradictions. It is not to be confused with Biblical infallibility. It should be duly noted that I am a firm believer of the Bible and am not arguing against inerrancy because I believe the Bible is inauthentic - I merely believe Biblical inerrancy is an unnecessary doctrine.

Argument: The Bible never claims to be inerrant. There are geographical errors, minor contradictions, and approximations (more specific examples forthcoming).

Dare ye disagree?
ILoveCheese

Con

There are three ways to prove something:

1. Logic
2. Empiricism
3. Faith

My argument is:

The Bible is inerrant because I have faith that it does not.
Debate Round No. 1
InquireTruth

Pro

With rebuttals like this, it seems this debate will be over rather quickly. My opponent thinks he is being sly by purporting that there are three ways to "prove" something. Most probably not in order, he states (1) logic, (2) empiricism, and (3) Faith, are the means by which we may acquire proof.

My opponent has forgotten the very definition of faith:
Merriam-Webster's:
"Firm belief in something for which there is no proof"
Dictionary.com
"Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."

The very definition of faith excludes proof. One cannot presume to have proof that the earth is flat because they merely believe that it is. Even logic, though my opponent marks it as number one, can be absent of proof. I could use logic to show that since cows eat grass and we eat cows, thus it is beneficial for humans to eat grass. However, as empiricism shows us, human stomachs have difficulty digesting raw leaves and grasses. And the nutirtion in grass is nonexistent and will do more harm than good.

Empiricism and Logic are most often acceptable forms for acquiring proof in a courtroom, but Faith is most definitely not. If such were the case, many people would be convicted of crimes merely because they were believed to have done it.

My opponent did not substantiate his claim, and in fact was very wrong in it. Therefore, it behooves all who read to vote PRO.

P.S. "The Bible is inerrant because I have faith that it does not."
It does not what? Make errors?
ILoveCheese

Con

The bible is inerrant because I have faith. The bible is inerrant because I have faith. The bible is inerrant because I have faith.
Debate Round No. 2
InquireTruth

Pro

The Bible is not inerrant because I have proof. The Bible is not inerrant because I have proof. The Bible is not inerrant because I have proof.

Does spamming the same thing over and over again improve my argument? It is a strategy I am unfamiliar with. If this were a vocal debate, I would find it somewhat annoying if my opponent consistently repeated himself and then sat down. Such repetition seems unfruitful.

Since this is my closing argument, I might as well include some of the specific examples I said was forthcoming in my opening statement.

The sign above Jesus' head is phrased differently in every single Gospel (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The order of events in the Gospel of John could not have geographically occurred in the amount of time specified. Peter's denial is recorded differently in the Synoptics - was his denial before or after the rooster crow?

As is abundantly clear, I need not waste time nor space with more examples or even specific reference to them. Just know that I can prove they exist while my opponent has faith that they do not.
ILoveCheese

Con

The bible is inerrant because I have faith.

/////////////////////////////////////////////

This is not my argument below:

If I am a person of faith, logic and empiricism are irrelevant. I can not use logical arguments or actual text to prove my point. If I am a person of faith all of your arguments are irrelevant. Any outside consideration is irrelevant. The story of Job, defines the context for which those of faith are to adhere to. Regardless of boils, misfortune in business etc. faith requires no logic, evidence or greater understanding.

*IF* i'm a person of faith, the only argument I need is: The bible is inerrant because I have faith.
Debate Round No. 3
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Zetsubou 6 years ago
Zetsubou
Fideist. Fideist. Fideist.
Posted by Freeman 6 years ago
Freeman
It's funny; I was actually thinking about challenging you to a debate on this subject after I started reading "Jesus Interrupted" but I guess that wouldn't be necessary since you don't think the Bible is inerrant.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
ad Nauseam
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
"there is such a thing as dialogical communication. Given that this is not a formal debating site, you may communicate in whatever way you please."

Then you should have taken that stance earlier rather than insulting me over spelling issues. It's funny, when I don't spell something correctly your all over it but when you use improper grammer you justify it.

"That is a pretty sophomoric distinction. The intent of my statement is so obvious that it is sad that you even said anything at all."

Indeed it is, but it was typed out to make a point to you. Given your love of semantic arguments on the other post concerning the morality of god, you clearly have no problem with this level of distinction, as the point on that thread was very obvious as well. I'm pointing out your contrary debate style. Why is it when you do something you justify it but when I do the same thing you insult it?
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
"Perhaps you view spelling as more important than grammar?"

I know this may be hard for you to grasp, but there is such a thing as dialogical communication. Given that this is not a formal debating site, you may communicate in whatever way you please.

"Of course not. As any English professor will point out books don't claim anything, their authors do."

That is a pretty sophomoric distinction. The intent of my statement is so obvious that it is sad that you even said anything at all. If you are unfamiliar with colloquialisms, I would recommend Alder's fascinating and timeless classic, "How to Read a Book."
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
"The Bible never claims to be inerrant."

Of course not. As any English professor will point out books don't claim anything, their authors do.
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
"The was the quickest debate ever."

Inquirelies, I find it interesting you felt the need to insult me for spelling on the other thread yet here you forgo proper grammar. Perhaps you view spelling as more important than grammar?
Posted by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
"In Mark's recording of Peter's denial, Peter denies once, a rooster crows once, Peter denies twice more, a rooster crows a second time. Clearly, each author is consistent within his own Gospel. It seems most logical that Jesus' statement was that there would be two crows of the rooster and that Mark is just the only one who recorded that much detail. I'm not sure that one author recording more detail than the others constitutes an error of any kind."

Nick, it seems just as logical that jesus was simply wrong. None of his own predictions actually occured; the rooster example is just one of many examples of jesus' own predictions not comming to pass as claimed.
Posted by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
Ooooooh I would love to reply to what you said but I think there is enough here for a full debate, so I will save my replies for now.
Posted by InquireTruth 7 years ago
InquireTruth
The problem, Nick, as I see it, is that though a common denominator may or may not exist, it is really inconsequential. The fact that there is disagreement among the Gospels at ALL, is a significant blow to the doctrine of inerrancy. What did the sign REALLY say above Jesus' head?
Moreover, Matthew, Luke and John state that Peter's denial will happen before the rooster crows. If the rooster truly crowed before Peter's three denials, then Matthew, Luke and John were wrong about what Jesus REALLY said. Furthermore, given the preponderance of evidence for Markan priority, Matthew and Luke were not only aware of Mark's gospel, but they were probably corrective of his account.
29 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by humanistheart 7 years ago
humanistheart
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by PwnzorDebaterLyncher 7 years ago
PwnzorDebaterLyncher
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by Youngblood 7 years ago
Youngblood
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Gmoney 7 years ago
Gmoney
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Steven123 7 years ago
Steven123
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Agnostic 7 years ago
Agnostic
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by tribefan011 7 years ago
tribefan011
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Its-you-or-me 7 years ago
Its-you-or-me
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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 
Vote Placed by LB628 7 years ago
LB628
InquireTruthILoveCheeseTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60