The Bible is not the infallible Word of God
Debate Rounds (5)
I will begin by explaining the difference between an "infallible" Bible and an "inerrant" Bible. If the Bible is infallible, this means it is a" ...completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose."
For the Bible to be "inerrant" is to say that it contains absolutely no historical, statistical, scientific, etc. errors.
I will be arguing for infallibility not inerrancy.
I will now present the following verses that claim infallibility of Scripture.
2 Timothy 3:16 - "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness..."
Psalm 12:6 - "And the words of the Lord are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times"
Proverbs 30:5 - "Every word of God is pure"
2 Peter 3:15 - 16 - "His [Paul's] letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction"
Now regarding the first verse, if we assume God is perfect, how can the work He inspires be filled with lies about His nature, the nature of His people, and the nature of His kingdom?
Furthermore, when this particular verse was written, it had to be talking about Old Testament Cannon since the New Testament had not been fully written and put together yet.
Now for Psalm 12:6 and Proverbs 30:5, I have not quarrel with those verses. In fact I will agree that parts of the Old Testament do claim to CONTAIN God's Word. In fact it usually starts off with, "Thus saith the LORD..." However, the Bible was not written all at once. I would also like to point out that those verses are not evidence that the entire Bible is God's Word. The Catholic Church (earliest church) didn't believe in Sola Scriptura. There is a romantic notion about the Bible. I swear, some people believe it fell down from heaven and was the giant book that we have today. Actually, it was voted on by bishops in 367 AD. (http://www.churchhistory101.com...) They decided by VOTE which books made it in and which one did not. The Protestant Church didn't agree until 1647 at the Assembly of Westminster. I would like to know what you believe qualified these men to vote on this matter in the first place. This would have obviously been THE MOST important vote in the history of the world. After all, we are talking about (according to your view) what was God's Word and what was not.
2 Peter 3:15-16 are very interesting verses if one does not read the verses above them. It is easy to misinterpret the if one does not read ALL of them together. If we look at the words used in the New Testament for "Scripture", "writings", and "epistle/s" (graphe, grammata, and epistole) we can see that the writings and epistles of the New Testament were never considered Holy, Inspired, or Divine but were considered Tradition and to have wisdom useful for faith and practice. The word "graphe" refers to the Old Testament Writings and is modified by the terms "Inspired", "Holy", and "Prophetic." This cannot be said of the epistole which were never describe by such terms but were describe by the terms "wisdom" and "tradition." Graphe is used 50 times in the New Testament and only one time (II Peter 3:16) speaks of New Testament writings. II Pet.3:16 refers to Paul"s letters as epistles (epistole) while referring to the rest of the writings as (graphe) " both of which were subject to being twisted. 2 Peter 3:2 says, " I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." You will see that Peter was talking about what he Prophets said as to what Paul also wrote of in his epistles.The Apostles considered the writings of the Prophets to be directly from God because they said,"Thus Saith The Lord". The author is comparing Paul's epistles to the OT as being abused by unlearned men. In this case Paul's epistles are not seen as 'Scripture' but as abused and twisted by unlearned and unstable men. If the author was not comparing, in this manner, Paul's epistles to the OT why didn't he just say the rest of the epistles? There are two categories - the Scriptures and the epistles - both were being twisted but both were not thought of as Scripture. The writer just says that Paul was given wisdom in his writings but does not think of them as Scripture.
You asked me the following in your closing statement, "If we assume God is perfect, how can the work He inspires be filled with lies about His nature, the nature of His people, and the nature of His kingdom?"
We would first have to ask the question, why do you assume His "inspired work" IS the ENTIRE Bible? My opponent has failed to do the following:
1) Show evidence that ALL 66 books are God's infallible Word.
2) The New Testament is referred to as "Scripture"
3) The apostles make the claim that they were writing "Scripture" or God's Word
I will now show that Paul actually goes out of his way to show that everything he is writing is NOT from God! In fact, he makes it clear that what he is writing is HIS judgment and it is NOT from God. How does my opponent reconcile 1 Cor 7:12, "But to the rest I speak, I, NOT THE LORD, if any man hath a virgin..." 1 Cor 7:25, "Now concering virgins I HAVE NO COMMANDMENT OF THE LORD, yet I give MY judgment..." 2 Cor 11:17, "That which I speak, I SPEAK NOT AFTER THE LORD, but as in foolishness, in the confidence of his glory."?
If just ONE verse says that it is not from God, ALL of it is in question. I have given 3! Furthermore, I asked my opponent to show where ALL the books of the Bible claim to be God's infallible Word.
I have one last question; John 1:1 and verse 14 tells us what the "WORD" is. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God. And the Word was God." verse 14 "And the Word became flesh (Jesus) and dwelt among us.." Here the "Word" is defined and I see no mention of the Bible or even Scripture. If the Bible or Scripture is the Word, then why don't you worship the Bible? After all, the "Word" is called "God" in John 1. That is one of the strongest arguments from Christians that believe in the deity of Christ; it's because the "Word" is called "God" and Jesus is called the "Word". Again, if the Bible is the "Word", why is IT TOO not God?
Hopefully I will be able to re-challenge Pro some other time.
All votes please go to Pro.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||4||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con Forfeited. Pro wins arguments and conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.