The New Testament is Textually Reliable.

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)

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.

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).

I apologize; I misunderstood the original intent of the debate. I urge the voters to abstain from voting, just this once. Thanks.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vote 0.