The Instigator
ReformedArsenal
Pro (for)
Tied
21 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Con (against)
Tied
21 Points

The New Testament is Textually Reliable.

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: 1/11/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,537 times Debate No: 14357
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (10)

 

ReformedArsenal

Pro

The New Testament text that we have is essentially the same as its original authorship. That is, we can be reasonably confident that the text we have is the same as the text that was written by the original author.

Definitions:
New Testament = 27 Books recognized by the Christian Church
Essentially the Same = The content of the text conveys the same message and content as the original author intended

Out of Bounds:
The truth of what the documents claim. We are not debating the theology of the documents, rather the actual textual reliability of the documents.
Translations. Some translations are good, some are bad. Lets not get stuck on a given translation being inaccurate.
The first round shall be for accepting the debate. I will make my opening argument in round 2, as will my opponent. Round 3 will be for rebuttals (New Arguments Allowed). Round 4 will be for responses to those rebuttals (No new Arugments), and Round 5 will be for closing remarks (No New Arguments)
m93samman

Con

I thank my opponent for this debate.

I accept, and will begin by defining a phrase my opponent neglected.

Textual reliability: To be within the scope of the debate, textual reliability will mean that the general content between the leather bounds of the New Testament is of authorship in which we can confidently believe.

That being said, I'll make a few observations.

1) The resolution will be negated if CON can either:

A. prove that the content of the New Testament (NT from here on out) is inconsistent,

B. prove that the authorship of the NT is unreliable, or

C. prove that the NT itself is too questionable in terms of compilation to be trusted.

2) PRO's burden is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the NT is textually reliable (disprove 1A, 1B, and 1C as argued by CON).

3) The NT cannot validate itself through its own consistency. E.g. if the NT says in passage 'a' that 'x', and in passage 'b' that 'x', 'a' and 'b' do not reinforce each other and then substantiate the NT.

That's all I have for now. Good luck to PRO, and I thank the readers for their time.
Debate Round No. 1
ReformedArsenal

Pro

Firs I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. However, before we begin we need to clarify the terms of the debate.

The points that Con has stated will negate Pro's argument are outside of the scope of this debate. This debate is concerned simply with debating if the text we have is the same text that was written.

1A) Deals with the content of the document, rather than the text itself. My resolution is regarding the transmission of the document rather than the content. If Paul contradicts James (I don't believe he does... but that is a different debate) that does not prove that the document has been altered or come to us in a different form than it was original drafted.

B) Deals with the consistency of the Author. Again, the original Author's consistency or reliability.

C) Deals with the production or compilation method. Once again, the method that the text was crafted does not impact if it does or does not come to us in the form it was originally crafted in.

What I am burdened to prove is that the text that we have is essentially the same in form as it was when it was originally written.

What Con is burdened to prove in order to achieve victory is that the document that we have (For this argument, the Greek New Testament) has been changed in such way that the text we read is not the same as the text that was written by the original author.

If this is different bounds than what Con originally assumed, he is welcome to withdraw and we will do a no-vote tie.

Con: Please let me know your decision (if you will continue with the debate as it is described) in round 2. If so, we will begin opening arguments in R3, Rebuttals in R4 (No New Arguments), and closing arguments in R5 (No New Arguments).
m93samman

Con

I apologize; I misunderstood the original intent of the debate. I urge the voters to abstain from voting, just this once. Thanks.
Debate Round No. 2
ReformedArsenal

Pro

My apologies if the original bounds of the debate were not clear. I urge the voters to abstain from voting and let this go to a tie.

I would like to invite m93samman to a debate more along the lines of what he thought the debate was in the future.

Perhaps something along the lines of "There are no significant contradictions in the New Testament" with some clear boundaries.

What do you think.
m93samman

Con

Again, I urge the voters to either not vote or go down the line with a zero vote.

And I wouldn't mind debating the contextual merits of the NT.
Debate Round No. 3
ReformedArsenal

Pro

Thank you everyone for taking time to read this. Again, both Con and I urge you to abstain from voting, or to submit a 0 vote.

I will be challenging Con to a debate regarding the inner consistency of the New Testament, and would like to invite all of you to participate in that vote.

Pro: The New Testament does not contain any inconsistencies or conflicts that change or have significant impact on the meaning of the text.

In order to win the debate, Con will need to fulfill one of the following conditions

A) The New Testament contains irreconcilable inconsistencies or conflicts in terms of facts or dates.
B) The New Testament contains inconsistencies or conflicts that significantly alter the meaning of a given text
C) The New Testament contains inconsistencies that invalidate explicit teachings in other portions of the New Testament.

Off Limits:
This debate is only concerned with the INNER SELF CONSISTENCY of the New Testament. As such the following Out of Bounds topics will be assessed.

Science - Con will not be able to argue that because the New Testament contains accounts that are contrary to modern notions of science or philosophy (specifically Miracles), that it is inconsistent.
History - Con will not be able to argue that because the New Testament is (I don't believe it is) inconsistent with outside Historical accounts, that it is inconsistent.
Other Religious Texts - Con will not be able to argue that because the New Testament is inconsistent with other religious texts from the time that it is inconsistent. This includes but is not limited to Gnostic Texts, Jewish Texts, Roman Religious Texts, Etc. For the sake of this debate, we shall take the New Testament to mean the 27 recognized books contained in the New Testament.
Translation Inconsistencies - Con will not be able to argue that because Translation A says something this way, and Translation B says something another way, that the New Testament is inconsistent. For the sake of this Debate we will use the English Standard Version of the Bible which is available at ESVonline.org
Other External Inconsistencies: I may be forgetting other topics of external inconsistency, if Con brings these to the discussion, I will hold the burden of proof to show that they are not pertinent to the debate at hand.

If Con agrees to the terms of this debate, I will allow him to create the debate. I propose that the debate last 3 rounds. R1Con=Opening Arguments, R1Pro=Opening Arguments, R2Con=Rebuttal/New Argument, R2Pro=Rebuttal/New Argument, R3Con=Rebuttal/Closing Arguments (No New Arguments), R3Pro=Rebuttal/Closing Argument (No New Argument).

If you accept this debate, please create the debate and challenge me. I'll allow you to begin with your opening remarks.
m93samman

Con

Again, a zero vote is urged. As for the debate to be instigated, I prefer we deliberate on the parameters so that there is no such confusion.
Debate Round No. 4
ReformedArsenal

Pro

Fair enough, send me the paramaters that you wish to see, and what about the parameters I listed previously you would like to change and we will go from there.

Thank you to the voters from abstaining from voting.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
It really doesn't matter either way. As long as it's a tie, we have what we want.
Posted by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
ReformedArsenal,

I understand that this debate should not be voted upon, but I am annulling a vote, even worse, a case of votebomb. If Dimmitri cancels his vote, I will cancel mine. Fair game.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
There are a lot of debates that need to be deleted from the site, including this one. I think we should petition the mods for an option that, if both parties agree, debates can be removed. But whatever, it is what it is.
Posted by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
Well, it seems that this debate should not have been voted on. Sorry to see that a couple of debaters didn't catch up on that, though...
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
m93samman,

There is no need for name calling.

Mirza and Dimmitri, can you please return your votes both to tie, as that was the agreement m93samman and I had.
Posted by m93samman 5 years ago
m93samman
Lol @ Dimmitri fvckin fagg
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
It's fine like that. The plan was for us to tie anyways
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
If he reverses his vote to tie, I will be happy to reverse mine.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
It's not me, it's my brother. I told him not to. So stfu
Posted by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Really dude... you're going to get an alternate account and vote bomb yourself this far after the fact.

For Shame.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
Zarroette
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: It's my right to vote.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Freeman 5 years ago
Freeman
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter. Both debaters agree on this.
Vote Placed by GMDebater 5 years ago
GMDebater
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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: Coon forfeited the debate. Pro deserves to win
Vote Placed by Mirza 5 years ago
Mirza
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Greetings. This is Officer Antivotebomb. Please correct your votes or else...
Vote Placed by Dimmitri.C 5 years ago
Dimmitri.C
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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: Con has lost this debate as a result of non-argument.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 6 years ago
ReformedArsenal
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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: Con obviously vote bombed himself, so I'm responding in turn.
Vote Placed by S98-SAMMAN 6 years ago
S98-SAMMAN
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
ReformedArsenalm93sammanTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00