The Instigator
bluejoewho
Con (against)
Losing
23 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
46 Points

The Infallibility of the Bible

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
Con Tied Pro
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: 2/17/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,524 times Debate No: 2707
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (17)

 

bluejoewho

Con

I would like to prove that the Bible has been corrupted in part by man and therefore cannot be viewed as "perfect" without errors.
Kleptin

Pro

I maintain that the bible, comprised of Hebrew Scripture and the New Testament, is infallible where it needs to be: within the realm of the faith of Jews and Christians.

I argue that anything outside the realm of these religions would have nothing to do with the Bible, and that any outside scales of measurement in terms of truth would be not be valid for usage.
Debate Round No. 1
bluejoewho

Con

Agreed, no outside sources will be used.

1 John 5:7 (NKJV)

"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

"This text concerning the heavenly witness is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written earlier than the fifteenth century. It is not cited by any of the ecclesiastical writers; not by any of early Latin fathers even when the subjects upon which they treated would naturally have lead them to appeal to it's authority. It is therefore evidently spurious." --Benjamin Wilson

This verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible ...etc. have all expunged this verse from their pages. There is one major translation that still contains this verse, The King James Bible.

I just do not see how someone can logically get around this. This instance proves that man is capable of changing scripture to benefit their own purgative's. I mean, you do understand the implications of this insertion don't you? This insertion is direct evidence of the church's willingness to fabricate evidence in support of the trinity doctrine.
Kleptin

Pro

That aregument is irrelevant. While I agree with you, it doesn't relate to this particular debate. No one ever said that the Church was the absolute authority on Christianity. The Greek Orthodox split from the Catholic Church, I believe, just because of this issue.

Besides, the concept of the Holy Trinity doesn't contradict anything in the Bible. So who's to say that it doesn't belong? This example of yours doesn't prove that the bible has been corrupted by man, or that there is likely evidence that the bible has been corrupted by man in the past.

My essential argument is that the Bible, pertaining to faith, CANNOT be corrupted.

We can say that a politican is corrupted because he is acting against what we believe the actions of good person are. We can say that a ruler is corrupted because he isa cting against our notions of justice. The Bible in and of itself, pertaining to faith, cannot be corrupted because there is only one standard: faith.

Thus, the Bible is *never* corrupt and *never* contradicting because it validates itself.
Debate Round No. 2
bluejoewho

Con

I proposed that I could show proof that man had corrupted the bible. I show you an example of this and you even agree with me but yet you hold that my example is irrelevant. How is my example irrelevant when it is a clear example of man adding to the text his own message. And this very text that was added is used time and time again by KJV users to justify the trinity.

These subtle changes lead to doctrinal differences and in fact corrupt the bible. Now I want you to know I don't think the whole bible is corrupt. I think the overall message is still intact. Its just that when people don't admit that the bible does in fact have errors in it, they find themselves rationalizing away mistakes and sometimes even inventing doctrinal changes. Hell, wars have even been fought over subtle differences and interpretations.

Anyways, your argument that my example was irrelevant is ludicrous. It is a direct example of man inserting text, whatever the reason may of been. I would like to leave you with one scripture.

Jeremiah 8:8

"How can you say, 'We are wise, And the law of the LORD is with us'?
But behold, the lying pen of the scribes Has made it into a lie."

This quote isn't taken out of context. This is God saying that in fact the scribes have turned the law into a lie. Again how can you side step this when God himself says the scribes are responsible for writing lies within the law?

I just wanted also to respond to a statement you said about the Bible not contradicting the "trinity" doctrine. This is also crazy. I can think of one that pops right off the top of my head. Commandment number #1.....It goes something like this, "You shall have no other gods before me." There is only one God in heaven. Jesus was not God or half God or however you want to say it. When christians state anything of the sort they are blaspheming the lord. You can spin it anyway you want but I'm sorry, One means One.
Kleptin

Pro

It must have been a miscommunication. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

Your argument shows very clearly that mankind has introduced some unnecessary or extraneous information into the bible. I grant you that.

However, there are no standards by which you can say that the bible has been "corrupted".

Looking at it from my point of view, the bible is a book, and this book is open to interpretation. Interpretation that the faithful perform in relation to their faith. The Bible did not descend from the heavens as a holy relic and become perverted when people decided to add stuff in it, the Bible is and always was a book written by men of faith for men of faith. The only thing that has changed throughout the years, is the faith.

Thus, you can't say the bible has been corrupted, because no change to the bible is either positive or negative, and the bible wasn't necessarily "pure" to begin with.

So why is the bible infallible? Let's take a look at your example. The part of scripture was omitted by all but one of today's modern bibles. How did they come to that conclusion? By examining older versions of the bible. They didn't use objective evidence to invalidate a part of the bible, they used an older version of the bible to invalidate a newer version. This does not show that the bible is infallible, it shows that PEOPLE are not infallible, since they were the ones who printed the book.

The assumption here, of course, is that the original Greek scriptures are accurate and of course, also infallible. However you look at it, the basis for your example, is the total, blind trust in the bible, albeit a different version.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
I agree with you. The truth that Jesus of Nazareth is our Savior, as well as the many truths that he taught, they are eternal and infallible. You are right, and I believe that the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly.
Posted by jiao_long 9 years ago
jiao_long
While I don't think that the Bible is entirely accurate, I do believe that it does hold infallible moral truths.
Posted by bluejoewho 9 years ago
bluejoewho
If you do a search for that particular scripture you will find pages and pages of info on it. I didnt't take my research from any particular page. As far as this scripture being created in 325 AD, I'm not sure about this because it doesn't appear on the scene until the 15th century. This would lead me to believe this scripture was created much later and closer to the date of its first appearance.

If you are interested in my quotes, just do a search for either the author of the quote or the quote itself. I took the quotes word for word. (I sourced all quotes above)

Thanks for reading the whole debate. I appreciate it.
Posted by mikelwallace 9 years ago
mikelwallace
"the formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the [New Testament]."
Paul F. Achtemeier, ed. (1985), 1099; emphasis added.

I agree with you bluejoewho that that this doctrine was fabricated, beginning in the creed of Nicaea in 325 A.D. I was wondering however, if you would point me to the source of your research in round two about that scripture, I am interested if there is perhaps a website I could go to.
Posted by HandsOff 9 years ago
HandsOff
Great debate topic. But I think you guys got off on the wrong foot. You should try this again.
Posted by proof317 9 years ago
proof317
IF IN FACT it was translated into it's true meaning. Who's to even say that it is in fact what was said or written?
Posted by bluejoewho 9 years ago
bluejoewho
first of all your analogy just doesn't stand up. If, as you said, a new rule were added and it just repeated another rule I would agree with you. But this scripture does not repeat any other scripture. It actually contradicts other verses. And if it does in fact contradict other scriptures then it would be "corrupting" the text.
Posted by aceofelves 9 years ago
aceofelves
Let's say there was Book that listed the 500 (?) rules in Football, and someone copied 1 of the rules and stuck it in a random location amoung the other 500 rules. There are still 500 rules, but 1 of them is just repeated.

In the same way, IF in fact one of the verses you mentioned was "added," a verse with the exact same meaning was already somewhere else in the bible, so it's just repeated.
Posted by bluejoewho 9 years ago
bluejoewho
If a Book is described as perfect without errors, and divinely inspired, wouldn't it be safe to say that if this book was changed even the slightest, you could call this corruption of some sort. Even if the "corruption" is ever so slight. I think we can all agree that a lot of slight errors or insertions can add up to a few BIG errors.
Posted by bluejoewho 9 years ago
bluejoewho
In my first statement I state the bible cannot be viewed as "perfect" or without errors. Perfect I would think would be holding the exact original message. It would be one thing if the verse I referenced just complimented other scriptures. But It does nothing of the sort. If anything it turns Jesus into God and violates the NUMBER ONE commandment of GOd. So considering this just popped up in the 15th century, I think its obvious that this was inserted in for whatever reason. And if this is the case well, the bible has been corrupted. (Maybe you can't call it "corrupted" with this one case but I have a plethora of other examples that would further help me prove my case.)
17 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by SavedByChrist94 3 years ago
SavedByChrist94
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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: Pro is incorrect, the Greek is obviously the Original Text as Manuscripts are so old that it would be impossible for those manuscripts to be corrupted,as it would take several generations to add legends, interpolations or mistranslations. The Original Text of the Bible is Infallible, Interpolation and Mistranslations cannot be called Original/Bible Text, because they're not the original text, they're Interpolation/Mistranslations. The Mistranslations can be corrected by reading the Manscripts and doing a proper translation. remember Mistranslations usually happen when the translator relies on Older Mistranslations/Mistranslated Tradition rather than translating unbiasedly. Homosexuality is not a sin as seen here --> savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2014/01/homosexuality-is-not-sin-irrefutable.html Interpolations can be easily tracked, whatever contradicts the Majority of Text, especially Original copies, and is Minor is an interpolation. YHWH is Love as that's Majority of T
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 Logical-Master 8 years ago
Logical-Master
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by yanksfan1987 9 years ago
yanksfan1987
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by PenguinBuddha 9 years ago
PenguinBuddha
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Renzzy 9 years ago
Renzzy
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by FiredUpRepublican 9 years ago
FiredUpRepublican
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
bluejoewhoKleptinTied
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:30