The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

The Bible is Reliable regarding Israel's Covenant and Prophecy

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
LearnerLogic has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Judge Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 5,035 times Debate No: 100413
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (169)
Votes (0)





My argument as Pro will be that it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is a reliable, adequate, factually, logical source of information concerning prophecy in regards to covenant Israel. Historical evidence other than the biblical accounts will also be included in my proof. In my attempt to establish this beachhead of reliability my aim is to show that in this area - Prophecy and Covenant Israel - those who reject the Bible are being unreasonable with the evidence available because it is reliable. Thus, if it is reasonable in this area it leaves open the question to the skeptic that other biblical claims can be trusted and reliable (perhaps these other biblical areas could be demonstrated in other debates as to their reasonableness).

Con's burden will be to demonstrate that prophecy related to covenant Israel, as one aspect of the Bible's content, is not a reliable, accurate account, or reasonable to believe.

My argument will cover such topics as:
1) Introduction to Israel's covenant with God
2) The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and what it means
3) The predicted promised Messiah as it relates to OT Israel
4) The unity of prophecy regarding Israel in the Olivet Discourse
5) Historical verification of the end of the OT economy
6) Israel in covenant prophetic pattern and shadow/type as it relates to the greater New Covenant
7) Addition proofs that may come to mind


My burden of proof will consist of showing the reasonableness of prophecy as an accurate account of historic events written before they actually took place. It is reasonable to say these accounts are beyond the scope of anything man is able to predict or foretell. What the Bible prophesied would happen comes about as it is said it would happen without failure. This will be backed up using the unity of the Bible and history regarding both of these evidences where this can be reasonably and factually demonstrated.

Cons burden of proof will be to demonstrate this is not the case using these same arguments and any others he chooses to use regarding prophecy related to Covenant Israel.

Rules of the Debate:

Burden of Proof is shared.

Con can work out additional details in the Comment section and we can iron them out there before he accepts the conditions.

Round 1 - Outline of the debate, fine tuning, and Con's acceptance.
Round 2 - Introductory Statement and laying out the argument - for and against.
Round 3 - Support and Refutation
Round 4 - Support and Refutation
Round 5 - Support, Refutation and Summary

Judging the Debate:

I request that this debate is judged by any or all of the top 10 active judges of debates as listed above (see Judges Leaderboard).

I leave this debate open to the first person accepting the offer in the Comment section.




As con, I will be arguing that that bible is not a reliable piece of evidence regarding the prophecy in regards to Convenant Israel. Additional biblical evidence may only be used if they are shown to be true. Sources that have been used are to be quoted, so to ensure that the conclusion drawn is conclusive, has been peer reviewed, repeated, by people of no bias. If this has not been substantiated, then the Burden of Proof will not have been satisfied by pro.

Due to the fact Pro is making the claim, the Burden of Proof will lie on him to prove that "The Bible is Reliable regarding Israel's Covenant and Prophecy" and it will be mine to show why these claims are false, and thus we will be focusing around on the same arguments.

What is also to be requested is a civil, educated, and informed debate, where there is no ad hominem, as I have seen in the comment section.

Another thing I would like to make sure to be affirmed is that this certain prophecy and nothing else is going to be what debated about. Therefore, other arguments on say Noah's Arks, Revelations, and so forth are to be prohibited in the debate. If pro would like to change this, he is to remind me, but reading his Acceptance, am very firm that he does not want to change.

Finally, what is to be proven here is not to indicate the whole bible is true, but only that part of it, unless only the bible could produce those results.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank Con for accepting the debate!

Opening statement

Is it reasonable to believe that if God chose to reveal Himself to mankind then prophecy would prove effective? A prophecy foretells things before they actually occur and thus provides evidence for us to trust that He is and that He tells the truth. Biblical prophecy, if proven, is unique because it is reasonable to believe that no human being can continually predict what will happen with 100% accuracy before it happens unless aided by God. If Con believes otherwise, then it will be his burden to demonstrate that such a person does exist who can predict the future with 100% accuracy.

Introduction - Israel, The Covenant People

The theme of salvation is present throughout the Bible starting in Genesis with Adam’s choice, his disobedience, and alienation from God (spiritual death). Heaven (the spiritual) and earth (the physical) were separated on the day he sinned. God no longer “walked” (in a close intimate relationship) with Adam. Adam was left to find out what life separated from God would bring, as are we.

God’s plan to restore that relationship (overcome spiritual death and separation) is revealed as another theme. The OT is not about world history but about God distinctly choosing a covenant people [Deuteronomy 7:6], starting with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel, to bring about this salvation, first to them, then through them to the rest of the world. Specifically, through Covenant Israel God would send the Messiah [Genesis 49:10 ], the Savior of mankind [Matthew 1:1-17]

God rescues these people from bondage and captivity in Egypt, then in the desert sets up this covenant relationship with them, through the Law or Torah, in which they agree to be His people and He agrees to be their God [Exodus 24:3].

The covenant relationship is an “If/then” agreement. If Israel will obediently follow God’s decrees and laws then He will shower them with the blessings of the covenant and cause them to prosper as a nation [Deuteronomy 28:1-14]. If they disobey He will bring the covenant curses upon them to the point of eventual destruction [Deuteronomy 28:15-64].

The historical OT witness of these covenant people is mostly one of disobedience. God brings prophets to warn them to turn away from their sin and unbelief. They continue in unbelief. He brings covenant sanctions against them by employing other nations. The northern kingdom is conquered first, then the southern kingdom, destroying its holy city and temple, its house of worship. In Babylonian exile God (through the prophet Daniel) delivers a timeline for these OT people to end their transgressions and bring in everlasting righteousness, seventy weeks of years (70 x 7 = 490), during which time their city and temple will be rebuilt. Near the end of the timeframe the Messiah would come and everything prophesied to them would be accomplished/fulfilled. The end of that seventy sevens would be marked by the destruction of the city and temple once more [Daniel 9:24-27].

Jerusalem’s Destruction - Significance

Fact: The NT deals with God’s prophetic promised coming Messiah to these covenant people, that nation, then it looks forward to the Messiah’s Second Coming and final judgment (in which He would bring both reward and punishment) [Matthew 16:27-28].

Fact: The whole of the NT speaks of the soon, near, coming kingdom that the Messiah would set up [Matthew 4:17, Matthew 10:6-8].

Fact: The whole NT speaks of two ages, the one that is and the ONE to come [Matthew 12:32].

Fact: It speaks of a soon coming judgment and reward [Matthew 3:7, Luke 3:7, Luke 21:23].

Fact: It speaks to a 1st-century relevant audience about things that would happen in their lifetime (that generation) [Matthew 23:35-37].

Fact: The NT builds on OT themes concerning these people and their Messiah. It tells of the fulfillment of these prophecies either then or in the NEAR future [Matthew 2:17, Luke 21:22, Luke 24:44].

Fact: Jerusalem and the temple are central to these prophecies. Jesus gives the timeline in Matthew 24, especially in verse 3 about when all the things that would take place - that generation.

Fact: The whole NT deals with warnings of the imminent destruction of this temple in which not one stone would be left unturned.

Fact: Revelation is John’s account of the same Matthew 24 discourse. The significance of the destruction of the city and temple is that God is divorcing these apostate people, the unfaithful wife, punishing them by these OT curses, and taking for Himself a new Bride. With this faithful bride, the New Israel, the spiritual kingdom, the relationship that was lost in Eden (where heaven and earth were separated) is now restored.

Fact: God is abolishing the Old Covenant and replacing it with a new and better one [Hebrews 8:13].

Fact: The NT deals with the complete fulfillment of that old covenant in the Messiah, the making of a better covenant that would be fully put in place at the Second Coming of the Messiah within the lifetime of these people [Matthew 5:17-18], a complete fulfillment of the Mosaic Law and Prophets.

Fact: It deals with the way in which God has chosen and planned from the beginning of humanity to restore the relationship lost in the Garden by ushering in the new spiritual heaven and earth in the Messiah.

Reasonable to Believe!

1) The destruction of the city and temple theme makes no sense after A.D. 70.

2) Why would the NT authors never once mention the city nor temples destruction, of which their OT relationship with God depended on? Their whole OT economy, their system of worship according to the Law, was no longer able to be administered after A.D. 70. The Law depended on them making atonement for their sins through animal sacrifice, the priesthood, and temple worship (bringing the sacrifice to the altar). This is reason to believe the NT was written before A.D. 70.

3) The OT prophet spoke of the Messiah coming to these OT people before the destruction of the city and temple. Happened!
The coming Messiah would not be applicable after A.D. 70.

4) The Law of Moses stipulated curses, wrath, and destruction for disobedience. The Prophets foretold of God divorcing His unfaithful bride for her adultery and idolatry. It speaks of Him choosing a new bride and establishing new heavens and a new earth. None of this can happen after A.D. 70.

The Olivet Discourse – Its Unity

The theme of the discourse encompasses much of Scripture. It deals with the fulfillment of all OT prophecy yet unfulfilled up to the Second Coming of the Messiah. It prophesies the completion of prophecy with the end of the age and start of a new age, the better covenant. It deals with God’s covenant wrath against these apostate OT people for continually breaking this binding covenant and ignoring and/or killing the prophets He sent to them.

Historical Verification

Fact: History verifies the end of the OT age with the destruction of both the city and temple in A.D. 70.

Fact: No NT writer makes mention of an already destroyed temple!

Fact: Historians from the period mention themes of the Olivet Discourse, and destruction of the city and temple in A.D. 70.

Fact: None of that means anything after A.D. 70 because these OT people do not exist in covenant relation after A.D. 70.

Fact: None of the prophecies concerning their Messiah mean anything after A.D. 70. He was prophesied to come to an O.T. people.

Fact: The NT writers quote or cite OT prophecies as fulfilled or soon to be fulfilled in the NT.

Fact: The NT writers frequently convey information that applies to an OT people, that loses meaning after A.D. 70.

Fact: The time indicators throughout the NT address events that were near.

Unity of Scripture – Covenant Type and Fulfillment

Jesus spoke of all Scripture (the OT) referring to Him [Luke 24:17-27].

In the OT the physical history of Israel and its people is a type, shadow, pattern, of what was coming, promised redemption, the spiritual truth being Jesus Christ and the New Covenant.

For instance:

OT - God brings a deliverer to Egypt to free a people from bondage and captivity.

NT - God sends the Messiah, the One like Moses, as the Deliverer Moses prophesied about [Deuteronomy 18:15], who would rescue His people from their bondage to sin.

OT – Resistance of Pharoah

- Moses warnings to release the Israelites

- God’s curses on Pharoah and his people.

NT – Resistance of the Pharisees

- Jesus’ and John’s warnings to apostate Israel to repent.

OT - A final warning in which God strikes down the firstborn of Egypt. God’s provision for His people is by the sacrificial lamb’s blood applied to the doorposts and top.

NT - The spiritual significance of that OT sacrifice points to Jesus Christ, the Lamb without spot, sacrificed upon the cross. The Firstborn is raised from the dead.

OT - Crossing from this land of bondage through the Red Sea

- 40 year Exodus in the wilderness to the Promised Land

- God supplying their food and drink

- temptations and failures

- the promise that those who look upon the serpent would be saved

- the covenant God made with these people at Sinai

- The deliverer, who struck the rock, was unable to accompany them into the Promised Land. He just saw it from afar.

NT - Spiritual significance of the second Moses, the second Exodus, the people crossing from sin to freedom

- Jesus’ 40 days in the wilderness (like Moses)

- His resistance to temptation

- the NT peoples 40-year Exodus to their heavenly Promised Land

- a Deliverer - who provides spiritual bread and water for the New Israel (His word)

- who makes a new covenant with the people of God at Calvary

- who is lifted up so that whoever looks at Him and believes will not perish

- who is able to bring them into the Promised Land. He enters that land first.

Are these similarities coincidence?

Do these prophecies meet their fulfillment in the Messiah?

It is reasonable to believe the answer is yes, they do!

God speaks through these prophets to this particular generation and people [Hebrews 1:1-2].

This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
169 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA : "And, the burden of proof is shared, as always in any debate I have with anyone. 10,000 characters. Five rounds. 1st round for proposed debate and acceptance. No new arguments in last."
Amoranemix: "Given the weakness of your position, it is understandable you want to discourage opponents with superior positions, or if they are so bold to accept anyway, benefit from those conditions."

Discourage opponents with superior positions. That is something you have yet to determine.

Amoranemix: "In addition, as I have told you several times, God's necessity is not enough. His (lack of) sufficiency is a topic that for some reason you want to hide from attention.
PGA : "Lack of sufficiency? I claim He has given His word which is sufficient because it is a verification that what is said is true. Again, prophecy would be a demonstration. So would trying to make sense of morality without an objective, absolute Being."
Amoranemix: "Great. I have pointed out God's lack of sufficiency several times in our threads and you ignored it (a wise decision). Address it where that is on topic (which is not here)."

No, you have not demonstrated, you have asserted. Your threads are too complicated. You use all kinds of notations and referrals to previous posts instead of including the complete argument in one post.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
Amoranemix: "You on the other hand are hiding behind excuses that you can't honour your burden of proof."

I have already offered the very debate, thus evidence, you turned down with another debater. He never came through after agreeing to it. I spent a couple of days preparing my first round opening statements and he never responded, as you can see by opening the 'Debate Rounds.' How reasonable is that?


Amoranemix: "Since apparently you believe, like me, that the moral argument does not demonstrate God's existence, we can't debate the moral argument. I know in fact of no argument that demonstrates God's existence and neither do you apparently."
PGA : "I never said I did not believe the objective moral argument demonstrated God. I believe it does.
Amoranemix: "Great, I challenged you to a formal debate on it :"

Not checking this commentary for a few weeks I did not accept in time but we have now agreed to this debate as long as we work on the details. I have a debate happening this weekend if all goes well. It will take two to three weeks before it is finished so that should work out well.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA : "Now, these are just two. I also challenged you to a debate (twice) on the reliability of the prophetic evidence that you said I did not have (or you charged - I would have presented it to you) and you declined the challenge. Why would you do this (except for the fact that you have very little knowledge of biblical prophecy so it would expose this lack of knowledge)."

Amoranemix: "I claimed you don't have any prophetic evidence ? Really ? Please show where I made that claim."

I constantly said I have evidence and that I chose to show it by prophecy. You kept denying I had any evidence. I asked you to commit to the discussion and you would not give me that commitment. That ended me wasting my time on showing you the reasonableness of something that you did not want to commit to understanding.

Amoranemix: "You are mistaken again. I already admitted my lack of knowledge on prophecy, so I am not hiding it. You even tried to use that admission to discredit me."

Exactly, you admitted to your lack on knowledge on prophecy. I asked you to commit and I would present the evidence. You would not. End of discussion.

Amoranemix: "You on the other hand are hiding behind excuses that you can't honour your burden of proof."

There is no excuse. There is an unwillingness on your part. If you commit I will show you. I don't want you backing out of the discussion. I want you to argue on the reasonableness of the evidence of prophecy. You keep saying I have no evidence. I point to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Is that an historical fact?
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
Amoranemix: "I notice you again decline my invitation to debate the reliability of the Bible. It turns out that debating my true beliefs (rather than the ones you want me to have (made)) is not something you are confident doing. With good reason."

Declined your invitation to debate the reliability of the Bible?

So how would that work. I claim the Bible is reliable and offer my proof and what do you do? What are you going to debate? That it is unreliable or that there is no evidence that it is reliable?

Amoranemix: "You were again unable to demonstrate my burden of proof. Understandable you don't want to formally debate whether it was reasonable of me to decline your formal debate challenge."

If you are going to dispute a claim you have the burden to prove your arguments are more that just assertions.

I'll debate you anytime on whether or not the Bible is reliable. My proof will be prophecy. My position will be that it most definitely is reliable and prophecy demonstrates this. That leaves you, as the antagonist/Con with the task of showing it is not reliable.

Since you have admitted you know very little about prophecy it leaves you in a rather undesirable position. I understand why you would not want to debate it.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA : "Of course you do. You do it in many assertions, including a few of which I have documented in this comment section about the biblical God being an "imaginary deity." If you think He is imaginary then how can anything revealed in the Bible that claims to be from Him be reliable? It keeps making the charge that it is His word."
Amoranemix: "You have not documented anything of the sort. Show in what comment you documented me claiming the Bible is unreliable. Your continued failure to point to where I claimed the Bible to be unreliable, makes me doubt I have even made that claim."

Your posts are so bogged down in notation and references all over the place that they become complicated. I have no desire to sift through them to extract pertinent information.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA : "If anyone wants to do that they are free because the thread is there to do so. I want you to debate your claims that I have no evidence, which you repeatedly asserted.[10]"
Amoranemix: [10] Claims that you repeatedly supported. I don't want to discuss them, especially since you will remain vague about the exact nature of the claims to cause confusion (the sceptic's enemy).


PGA: "I will lay down the evidence to the contrary which concerns prophecy. Are you game?[11]"
Amoranemix: [11] I already told you : I don't care. You may lay down all the evidence you want where that is on topic. I want you to retract the claims you can't support and apologize for them.

Exactly, you don't care. Why should I then lay out my position to you? You continually showed you were not interested.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
If anyone wants to do that they are free because the thread is there to do so. I want you to debate your claims that I have no evidence, which you repeatedly asserted.[10] I will lay down the evidence to the contrary which concerns prophecy. Are you game?[11]

PGA : "Now you want to turn the debate into something else, a he said, she said debate.[8]
Amoranemix: "[8] [a] You are mistaken as usual, for I don't want to change 'the debate', whatever that is.
[b] Your worldview has what is necessary to be mistaken."

[a] So you are willing to debate that the Bible is unreliable then, are you?
[b] So does yours. I contend when correctly interpreted the Christian worldview is accurate.

PGA: "I have no desire to do this, to go back over countless posts digging up such statements.[9]"
Amoranemix: "[9] Of course you don't want your lies exposed in a formal debate."

Lies? That you continually berated the Bible as reliable? That you continually would not commit to an in depth discussion of the evidence? You kept denying there was any.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
Amoranemix: "I am getting many 'unexpected' errors as well when posting."

Frustrating, isn't it?

Amoranemix: "I understand you don't want to formally debate you claim. I wouldn't want to see my lies in a formal debate either."
PGA : "Almost any fool can understand that someone who constantly argues over/against the Bible and constantly states that there is no evidence of the Bible being God's word is convinced that it is an unreliable source of information.[5] That is what it claims. And on top of that to make the claim that the biblical God is an imaginary deity would also confirm that he thought the information on the pages of the Bible is unreliable. I don't know how many times I made the statement that the evidence I was prepared to show you was in prophecy.[6] That, I argued, confirmed the claims and if you would agree to commit to that discussion I would lay it out. You refused to do so yet continued to attack that there was no evidence.[7]
[5] Almost any fool can understand why you refuse to defend your claims in formal debates.

I am most willing to debate the reliability of the Bible that you question.

[6] Too many times. You repeatedly chose that over doing the honourable thing : retract the claims you can't support and apologize for them.

I can by prophecy. You refused to comply to my challenge - to commit to the examination. How many times did I ask you?

[7] You are again equivocating the word evidence to give the false impression that I claimed that there no evidence for prophecy exists. Why are you trying to deceive people ?

No, I am not equivocating. Look up the definition of evidence. Evidence is proof. There is evidence I am willing to discuss with you if you will commit. You will not. I have charged the biblical position is logical.

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA : "So, do you now believe the Bible is reliable and that God is a true deity? Yes or no?"

Amoranemix: Dude, use your brain when talking to me.

More of your intellectual snobbery. As if you are the only one using his brain.

Amoranemix: What is the point of answering your questions ? You have kept accusing me of claiming the Bible is unreliable, something you have so far been unable to prove. You have even claimed I have the burden to prove that claim and now you don't even know what I believe ? Barring humour and analogies, If I say something then it is true and I then I believe it.

When I first engaged with you I tried to present points to you that you kept dismissing as unwarranted. I became apparent to me very early your motive. You were not interested in a discussing but in undermining whatever I said.

I continually asked you for a commitment to examining and discussing my evidence. I could not obtain that commitment from you. Why should I waste my time?
Posted by PGA 3 years ago
PGA : "This is very dishonest of you.[1]
Amoranemix: [1] Really ? Let us test whether that is an honest mistake or a lie.
Are you prepared to defend that claim in a formal debate ?

Yes, a formal debate on the reliability of the Bible. I laid out two different formats and you turned both down.

PGA: You spend post after post attacking the Bible and God (who you call an imaginary deity)[2], Amoranemix: [2] No, I don't. Are you sure your god approves of lying ?

You do. You attack the claims of the Bible whether directly stating such or indirectly insinuating it.

PGA: stating over and over I have no evidence, then you claim that this does not imply the Bible is unreliable [3]
Amoranemix: [3] I don't claim that, but I agree with it.

Sure you claim it. You have repeatedly said I have no evidence or else I would have presented it. You never agreed to my conditions so I did not waste my time with presenting it.

PGA: and I can't demonstrate it is reliable? If there is no evidence, as you claim, then how can the Bible be anything but unreliable?[4]
Amoranemix: [4] I don't know. Please enlighten me where that is on topic. Your question is ambiguous as you are again equivocating the term evidence to cause confusion (the sceptic's enemy).

Well, there would be no logical reason to believe if there was no evidence. There is evidence so it is reasonable to believe.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.