The Instigator
Con (against)
21 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 5/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,808 times Debate No: 54359
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (27)
Votes (3)




Pro should present his or her arguments in Round 1 and cannot argue in the final round so we each have an even # of rounds [since I'm not arguing in this round].


I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. It will be quite an interesting debate indeed.

First off, I'd like to state a few things. Firstly, this is not a debate on whether God exists or not. If anything, this debate starts off with knowing God is real. The only task that is now at hand is to determine whether or not the Bible is God's word. So with this, there are a few problems. Which Bible are we taking about? Specifically, I would go with the most accurate, and most reliable Bible - the King James Version 1611 Bible. I say it is the most accurate and reliable due to it's creation and history.

Moreover, I am not a Catholic or picking other denominational Bibles. I picked the King James Version because of the history of the Bible's creation. If you'd like to raise questions on that, I understand.

Lastly, I need to comment on the term "inerrant". With "inerrant" I am not saying specifically every single word of the Bible is correct. What I am saying is that the interpretations and meanings are correct. If you want to ask questions on that subject, it is understandable and we can talk about that.

Now with all of that out of the way, let's get this debate started.

My first job before I even prove the Bible is the word of God is to prove it's legitimacy. Since within the Bible it is noted as the word of God, how can it be the word of God if it has no legitimacy? Basically, if there is nothing factual within the Bible, why even believe it's claims? To start off, I'd like to talk about Rehoboam. He is the son of Solomon and grandson of David.

Rehoboam can be understood by reading 1 Kings 14:21-31(1) and 2 Chronicles 11(2). I suggest you read it before we continue. After reading you should understand two things:
Firstly, the reason Rehoboam upset God is because he was disobedient to God and worshipped other entities.
Secondly, the king of Egypt Shishaq invaded during his reign.

To prove this from an alternative source than the Bible, I'd like to talk about the Bubastite Portal. To summarize quickly what this place is, "This Bubastite Portal gate is located in Karnak, within the Precinct of Amun-Re temple complex, between the temple of Ramesses III and the second pylon. It records the conquests and military campaigns in c.925 BCE Israel of Shoshenq I, of the Twenty-second Dynasty.[1] Shoshenq has been identified with the biblical Shishaq, such that the relief is also known as the Shishak Inscription or Shishaq Relief.[2]"(3).

So this place is in Egypt. They were well known enemies of Israel. If the Israelites were telling a bias or an illegitimate account of the events that happened, then they would have a different story than the Egyptians.. However, the same story is told, "...among which I found, as it should be, in full, Ioudahamalek, the kingdom of Judah, or the Jews. This matches the commentary in 1 Kings 14, which recounts the successful arrival of S"sonchis at Jerusalem: the identity that we have established between the Egyptian Sheschonck the S"sonchis of Manetho and Schesch"k or Shishak of the Bible, is confirmed in the most satisfactory manner.

"Jean-Fran"ois Champollion, Lettres ecrites d'Egypte et de Nubie en 1828 et 1829[4]"(3).

Basically, in Egypt as well as in the Bible there are accounts of the same event happening. This just proves that there is legitimacy within the Bible. I can always go to the fact that Jerusalem exists and Egypt, or other such things as that. However, my main goal was to prove that events within the Bible are legitimate, not so much as landmarks.

Moreover, there is another interesting thing found at this location, "Another scene shows Sheshonq grasping a group of captives by the hair and smiting them by his mace. Behind and below him, there are the names of Canaanite towns in several rows. Many of these are lost, but originally there were 156 names and one of the most interesting names which were mentioned is 'The Field of Abram'"(3).

The interesting thing about this is that "The Field of Abram" is a Canaanite town. So, what is a Canaanite? Basically a tribe of people to simplify it. The reason it's interesting to be called "The Field of Abram" is because of Genesis 13:11-16(4), Genesis 12:5-7(5), etc. I think you get the point. Abram had inheritance to the entire land, so there being a place called "The Field of Abram" as one of the towns in Canaan is very interesting. Moreover, the fact that it talks about Canaan in the first place is interesting since they practically no longer exist, and they are mentioned within the Bible.

Lastly, a question for my opponent which will make this debate easier for me. Do you claim, within the context of this debate, God to be 1 entity on his own or a collective group of entities? Basically, is God like a government or a president?

To conclude my opening, all I am doing is proving there is legitimate claims within the Bible. I don't think there will be much of a refutal by my opponent, but more of an attack which I will try to prepare myself for. Moreover, I would like to thank my opponent again for this debate. I am learning a lot as I go and study things I should know more on. Regardless, this will be interesting and I have a lot I'd like to address in further rounds. God bless you all and thanks for reading this.

Debate Round No. 1


== Definitions ==

"Literal" means "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or allegory." [1]

"Inerrant" means "incapable of being wrong." [2]

== Resolutional Analysis ==

My opponent says, "I am not saying specifically every single word of the Bible is correct. What I am saying is that the interpretations . . . are correct." However, for the Bible to be the "literal" and "inerrant" word of God, it must be correct *without* interpretation (which would treat the Bible as a metaphor or allegory). "Literal" means non-metaphorical. No interpretation required.

== My Case ==

(1) Young Earth is False

If you trace the age of the Earth from Genesis to 1 Kings, the Bible -- taken literally -- places the age of the Universe at around 6000 years. [3] However, using various radioactive dating methods to test sedimentary Earth rocks and meteorites, scientists have estimated the age of our solar system at 4.5 billion years. [4]

In addition, the Universe is 13.7 billion years old -- which is established by measuring how fast other galaxies are moving away from us and is confirmed by the redshifting of light [which is much like the Doppler effect of an ambulance siren sounding different as it moves away from you because the sound waves are shifted]. [5]

(2) It took more than the 5 days in Genesis before humans emerged

It took 4.4 billion years for humans to evolve. [6] By measuring mutation rates in the Y and X Chromosomes, scientists have confirmed that our first ancestors existed in Africa about 200,000 years ago. [7] In addition, there are clear intermediate species between humans and apes -- we know they were human-like because they walked upright on two feet (unlike modern chimps) and had bigger brains than chimps -- but we know they weren"t Homo sapiens because their brow ridges were much bigger than ours and their brains were much smaller than ours (but bigger than a chimps). These intermediate species lived millions of years ago. [8] You can see from the picture that Homo habilis looked distinctly humanoid. [8]

(3) The conflicting genealogies of Jesus

Both the gospel of Luke and that of Matthew claim to trace the ancestry of Jesus with absolute certainty, yet the Gospel of Luke says there were 54 generations of people between Abraham and Jesus and the Gospel of Matthew says there were only 39 generations of people between Abraham and Jesus. [9] Not only does Matthew contain more generations, but it also claims Jesus is descended from entirely different people. [9] The Bible cannot be inerrant if it is not even consistent.

(4) There are no mythical creatures

The people who wrote the Bible thought that mythical creatures existed. They said that there was a fire-breathing leviathan in the ocean and unicorns that came out of Egypt. [10] These creatures do not and have never existed, so the Bible is wrong.

(5) Archeology disproves the Old Testament (OT)

Archeological disproves four stories from the OT.

#1: The Patriarchs

The Bible tells many stories about Abraham and his descendents. However, it includes accounts about camels, Arabian goods, and Philistines co-existing in one place, which did not happen until hundreds of years after Abraham and his descendents were claimed to exist. [11]

#2: The Exodus

600,000 Jews trekking around Egypt for 40 years would have left telltale signs. Archeological evidence shows no such large group existed, and no historical Egyptian writings mention such an astonishing event. [11] Nor did any Egyptian historian record the 10 plagues that God supposedly visited upon the Egyptians.

#3: Conquest of Canaan

The OT says the Jews conquered many specific regions of Canaan, yet archeological evidence shows that those areas were *uninhabited* at the time the conquests were claimed to have occurred. [11] Whoever wrote the Bible (hundreds of years later) must have set it in *modern* times or assumed those cities had just been around forever.

#4: A United Kingdom of Israel

The OT says Saul and David ruled over a united Israel that included both the northern and southern territories. However, archeological evidence shows that the two territories were only united much later. [11] In addition, in spite of the Bible"s assertion of their *immense* wealth and power, "neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known Egyptian or Mesopotamian text." [11]

(6) Noah"s Ark is impossible

The only way that ocean levels can rise is if ice caps melt. Rain comes from evaporated water, so there is no way that rain can raise water levels. Rain could not have caused a mass flood that covered all land.

(7) Contradiction of free will

Deuteronomy 30:19-20 says that human beings have free will.

However, God is also said to be omniscient, which means he has *infallible foreknowledge* about all events that are going to happen. Therefore, if a person has a choice between two options, God already knows which option will be chosen, so that option *must* be chosen [because if a person chose the other option, God"s omniscience would be disproven]. Therefore, omniscience requires that whenever a human has a choice, it is a *false* choice and only an illusion of free will. Humans *must* choose the option God has foreseen. Also, the people who will enter Heaven are already pre-determined by God"s omniscience. Free will and an omni-God cannot co-exist.

(8) The problem of evil

God is omnibevolent. -Psalm 145:17

However, an omnibenevolent being must always do the most benevolent act possible. It is possible for God to end all suffering because he is omnipotent. Yet suffering exists in the world. Therefore, either God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent.

In addition, the God of the OT is anything but omnibenevolent. He murdered the innocent first son of every Egyptian.

(9) Near non-adoption

The King James Bible cannot be inerrant because Revelations was nearly not included in it. [12] Its inclusion was extremely controversial. [12] And Martin Luther essentially un-canonized Revelations because it "portrays God as inflicting horrendous punishments on humanity." [12] Therefore, the Bible cannot be inerrant because it is disputable which books should be included as canon.

[1] Google "define: literal"
[2] Google "define: inerrant"


Oh, so this is going to be on the easier side? See, I thought you were going to go the route that I had to prove the Bible different from other religious texts. If we are starting it out that the Bible is the word of God, and then going from there, then that makes things much easier for me. Unfortunately, I can't really add much upon refuting because of the lengthy post you provided, but I digress. I will do my best to conserve space (there is very few characters for this debate too, unfortunately).

Literal does not mean specifically what you claim. It can also mean what I am stating:

"1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words."(1).

Therefore, it does not have to be word for word, as long as it keeps the same meaning (with definition #1).

Moreover, lets go to inerrant:

"1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors. "(2).

So as long as the Bible sticks to it's original meaning, and has no errors, it is the literal and inerrant word of God.

As for literal meaning non-metaphorical, that isn't it's only meaning. I have cited the definition above and quoted from it to disprove your accusation.

I will now go and explain the Biblical things that bluesteel has mentioned.

(1) You forget about something when talking about Genesis to Kings. There is a Bible quote you should keep in mind:

"2 Peter 3:8
King James Version (KJV)

8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."(3)

Therefore, it is almost impossible to accurately figure out if in Genesis it is 7,000 years that pass, or if it is only 7 days. Moreover, what you cited is only theory, and not fact.

2) Okay, first of all, you shouldn't treat a theory as a fact. If you want to get into an evolution debate, that is fine. Since you quoted a source pro-evolution, I would like to ask a question, "Has it ever been witnessed?" If it has never been witnessed or can never be reasonably applied, it is not scientific whatsoever (4). Also, if you can claim it's scientific theory, then I'd request you look up heliocentrism (5) or even geocentrism (6). They were scientific theories that we know now are false. Lastly, I will request you check out link (7) and link (8). Link (7) contains an experiment that proved evolution false, and link (8) completely debunks evolution entirely (if you are curious as to why, just ask in the comment section to save space and I'll send you the information). Also, go to link (9) which quotes scientists stating how humans have become dumber and weaker over time. That is the opposite of what evolution and natural selection is supposed to do. I would ask you do not turn this into an evolution debate, because we are debating on facts and not theories.

3) I'd like to quote from your own resource, "...such as that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's follows the lineage of Mary."

4) Due to lack of characters, I am going to be lazy with this one and just state that because it hasn't been discovered or proven yet, does not mean it doesn't exist. We can get more detailed into this if you really want to though.

5) Alright so these each have a number, so I'm going to number my answers to each as well.
#1 - I read the part in the link that states this but there is no evidence. Can you supply a link that proves this instead of a link that just states it as true?
#2 - This is interesting. it claims this again. I just ask, where is the proof? It's claiming all these things, but can I see the evidence or no?
#3 - Same as above.
#4 - Same as above.

At least I have cited the archaeological site that has been verified to prove what has happened in the Old Testament. Can you at least prove what is claimed there? It's just a bunch of claims with no evidence. Can you cite the evidence please?

6) Are you sure it was only caused by rain? Pretty sure the Bible says the Heaven's opened up and water came to the earth. Also, if you read Genesis, Heavens can mean space (since there is no word for Heaven in Hebrew). For all we know, God could of just created water and brought it to earth through space. It is possible, not necessarily by rain. If you want to further debate on this, that's fine. I'm just running out of characters.

7) I can easily disprove this. However, this is irrelevant to the debate. The debate is if the Bible is the word of God. This is not an Atheism versus Christianity debate.

8) The flaw in your logic is putting a word to God that is not stated. It just says he is righteous and holy in all that he does. Can you prove that his works were not righteous? No, because I can easily just say that your opinion is subjective.

9) This is your best point. We can get into a huge discussion on this, but I am out of characters. I will gladly comment on this on the beginning of my next argument because I have under 100 characters left. Thanks for the debate and God bless you.

Debate Round No. 2


First, I'd like to remind my opponent that he cannot argue in the last round because we each got 2 rounds for arguments. He should just post "thanks for the debate."

== Definitions ==

My opponent cites a definition that he says allows him to argue that the Bible is metaphorical. However, his definition says that "literal" means "upholding the *exact* or primary meaning of words." A metaphor is not a primary meaning. For example, if I say, "I just saw an ant. And by ant I mean a tiny person" -- that is *not* the primary meaning of the word ant. It is metaphorical.

== Young Earth Creationism ==

My opponent"s response is to agree that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Universe is 13.7 billion years old, but to say that each day with the Lord is like a thousand years. However, the *primary* or *exact* meaning of "day" is "a period of twenty-four hours." [1] Even under my opponent's definition, the "literal" meaning of the word "day" cannot be "1000 years."

In addition, reading 2 Peter 3:8 literally, each day is like 1000 years, so in Genesis -- at most -- it took 7000 years to create the Earth, which makes the Earth 13,000 years old. This still doesn't result in an accurate Earth-age or age for the Universe. It"s not even close.

== Evolution disproves Genesis ==

My opponent says I shouldn't treat theory as fact, but most of us treat gravity as a fact every day. A theory is treated as fact until it is disproven.

My opponent claims evolution is false unless I observe a species evolving into another species. However, the time scale necessary to observe this is longer than a human life span. We *can* observe genetic mutations leading to variation within species, like with the breeding of dogs. We can *also* observe all the fossils that prove there are extinct intermediate species. In addition, under the same logic, God is false unless we observe Him with our own eyes.

My opponent claims that because heliocentrism was disproven that all theories are presumptively false. However, that"s not how science works. Theories are presumed true until disproven. Heliocentrism was disproven by subsequent observations. Evolution has not been disproven.

The experiments my opponent cites are unexplained inside the debate, so you can't vote on them. Regardless, they are pretty laughable [they claim that because a fish was found with human-like teeth and because fruit flies haven"t evolved into a new species, evolution is false].

Lastly, my opponent claims that because humans are smaller and weaker today than in the past, evolution is false. My opponent is falsely assuming that evolution is always in the direction of making a species stronger, but this is only true if this trait is *selected* for because it increases survival chances. Today, humans don't need to be as strong to survive [because we no longer have to capture our own food or fight off wild animals]. If anything, this proves natural selection true because the absence of selection has resulted in an un-selected for trait [strength] becoming less common.

My opponent never responds to the fact that there are intermediate hominid species and that we have dated humans as being at least 200,000 years old. Genesis' version of creation cannot be true.

== Conflicting Genealogies of Matthew and Luke ==

My opponent states that one genealogy traces Mary's parentage and the other traces Joseph's. There are two problems with this: (1) it doesn't explain the wide disparity in the number of generations [unless Joseph lived hundreds of years before Mary], and (2) genealogies are supposed to trace genetic descent ["blood lines"] and both Matthew and Luke claim that Jesus was born of a virgin. There would be no reason to trace the genealogy of Joseph because Jesus was in no way related to Joseph. The goal of the genealogies was to show that Jesus was the Jewish messiah, which required proving that he was a blood relative of Abraham and David.

== Unicorns don't exist ==

My opponent claims we just haven't discovered one yet, but we've investigated all of the known Earth [except the deep oceans]. Unicorns would live on land, so we should have found one by now.

== Archaeological evidence ==

My opponent's only complains about my source, which is a summary of the findings in an archaeology book. If my opponent wants to peruse all the archaeological digs, he can read the book. The most damning evidence is that the Biblical account of the conquest of Canaan has to be wrong because those regions were uninhabited at the time. It is also suspect that no Egyptian or Mesopotamian text mentions the Exodus, the plagues of Egypt, or the uber-wealthy and powerful King David.

== Contradiction of free will ==

My opponent drops this point, saying it is irrelevant to the debate. However, the Bible claims both that humans have free will and that God is omniscient. Yet both things cannot be true. I win on this dropped point alone.

== Problem of Evil ==

My opponent claims the Bible never calls God omnibenevolent, but this is obviously false. The Psalm passage says God is "kind in all his works." Yet Isaiah 45:7 says that all good and bad things that happen on Earth are caused by God ["I make well-being and create calamity, I am the Lord, who does all these things"]. Creating "calamity" means doing un-kind "works." The Bible contradicts itself on God"s omnibenevolence, which means it is not inerrant.

== Near non-adoption of Revelations ==

I"m glad that my opponent agrees with me that this is my strongest point, since my opponent drops it entirely. The "Bible" is composed of whatever the early Catholic Church regarded as canon and could easily have contained a few additional works or could have had some included works (like Revelations) be *excluded* instead. The fact that Martin Luther could essentially un-canonize Revelations proves that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God. My opponent's own first round proves this by admitting that different sects of Christianity worship different versions of the Bible. Non-universal adoption also proves the Bible is not inerrant.

[1] Google "define day"


Well then, since I am not allowed to debate anything, that is rather unproductive.

Basically, I started this debate trying to prove the Bible is the literal and inerrant word of God. Since I am not allowed to refute my opponent's arguments, I guess that means I am not allowed to post what I couldn't fit in the last round?

I think this debate could of been better if it was at least a few rounds longer, and didn't focus mainly on the Bible and my opponent's opinions on it. Moreover, bringing up topics like evolution within this debate was irrelevant to the topic at hand.

There are ways to prove the Bible is the word of God, yet I never got a chance to really show them. Unfortunately, this debate is at it's end now. I'd like to redo a debate similar to this with bluesteel if they accept with a different structure. My personal opinion is that the current structure is a bit unfair, but I did accept the debate.

So basically, thanks for the debate. I hope we can debate this again with a different structure and with more characters and rounds. That way I can have the chance to really outline more of my arguments that I never had the chance to outline here. Moreover, I can't even refute your arguments like I did in Round 2.
Debate Round No. 3
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Christian_Debater 7 years ago
Sagey, why do you follow me on all my debates and post your opinion?

I have shown you many times answers to your statements.

I have no problem talking to you or debating you on these topics, but come on man.

On a side note, expect my argument tonight on our debate.
Posted by Sagey 7 years ago
Every argument for Creation becomes Fallacious in the long run.
It is not supportable by rational argument in any form.
Whether you consider Genesis, which is extremely Errant and simply Wrong or any other Creation myth.
I prefer the Amun Ra myth where all life on earth was seeded by him masturbating onto the earth.

Infinitely more practical than Genesis.

Posted by Christian_Debater 7 years ago

I've heard of things like that, they are really good arguments too. That wasn't the direction I was trying to go at though. My main problem with this debate it seems, especially the more I think about it, is that I thought we were going to debate the Bible versus other religious texts.

For example, I thought one of my opponent's arguments was going to be, "The Bible claims its' the word of God but so does the Qu'ran...", etc. Oh well, you learn from your mistakes.
Posted by Wylted 7 years ago
You can prove the 7 day creation and address all the young Earth things relatively easily. Time is determined by the Earth's relationship to the Sun, but if you look at how the universe would keep track of time, you'd see we were on the 7th day. It's a complicated argument and I won't get into it, but it's pretty interesting.
Posted by Christian_Debater 7 years ago
Seems to me the main problem is my lack of focus on each question. I should of focused evenly on everything, instead of wasting time on specific points. Moreover, this further shows why I want to do this debate again, and I'd gladly do it again bluesteel.
Posted by bluesteel 7 years ago
bladerunner, thanks for the detailed RFD :)
Posted by bladerunner060 7 years ago
RFD 1/4:

Full disclosure: I was asked to vote on this debate by Con. His asking did not impact my vote in any way.

R1 was for Con to outline the terms, and for Pro to jump right in. Pro gave some support for his own contention here, but made the curious argument that inerrant didn't have to mean that "every single word of the Bible is correct", but that rather, "the interpretations and meanings are correct." In the first place, that's not what inerrant means...inerrant quite literally means without error. But in the second, as Con points out, there was another modifier on the proposition: literal. Combining literal and inerrant, as Con notes, means that the plain reading is without error.

Con expounds on these modifiers in his R2 rebuttal, and brings up some arguments for contradictions and errors.

Pro opens the next round by trying to argue that literal "doesn't have to be word for word". It's a *very* curious gambit that I really don't think succeeds any more than trying to argue that "inerrant" doesn't mean "without error". He tries to summarize his position: "So as long as the Bible sticks to it's original meaning, and has no errors, it is the literal and inerrant word of God."--except in R1 he said, as already noted: " I am not saying specifically every single word of the Bible is correct". This seems patently contradictory.
Posted by bladerunner060 7 years ago
RFD 2/4:
He moves on to attempt rebuttal of Con's case.

His rebuttal of 1 seems to miss Con's point entirely regarding the timeline.

His rebuttal of 2 and 4 are really just the "you didn't see it, therefore my assertion is correct" school of argument. Pro, *you're* the one who has to prove his case. I will note that Con did not explicitly note that the BoP was on Pro. However, it seems pretty obvious that was the intention, here. Pro presents a case, Con rebuts it. Con is against the motion in the title, and doesn't open with argument. Therefore it seems pretty obvious that the burden is on Pro, here. And Con brings up some evidence to the contrary of what the bible asserts. The way to refute that is with evidence of your own. You can't simply handwave evidence away as unimportant or not harming your case when it goes unrebutted. I will note that, in 4, he makes the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument. Still, in keeping with the presumption regarding the burden, it at least certainly doesn't *help* his case if there's an absence of evidence.

Pro's rebuttal of 3 is weak, but I don't think Con sufficiently capitalized on it in the final round. It should be noted that the disparate genealogies are, from a literal standpoint, both attributed to Joseph. The idea that one of them actually is that of Mary is a non-literal interpretation. But Con didn't make that argument. Instead, Con argued that there was no reason to trace Joseph's genealogy if she was a virgin. While it may be true that there was no reason to do so, that doesn't make the tracing backwards wrong necessarily.

Pro tries to object to Con's historical sources in 5, looking for the "primary data" as it were. But it's Pro's job to present evidence for his motion. He should be doing the research to FIND this evidence. If it contradicted Con's, then trying to get to primary information would be important, as there would be a conflict. But again, Pro can't handwave away his
Posted by bladerunner060 7 years ago
RFD 3/4:

Pro tries to argue that because science has changed in response to new evidence, therefore science can't be trusted, with the obvious attempt at a corrolary that therefore the bible is right. But this is a failure as an argument in support of his motion. Science changed in response to new evidence--and Con is bringing in evidence. Pro, here would seem similar to the geocentrists that he references, arguing that though the evidence seems against geocentrism, there could always be more evidence that supports it...therefore it's right. That's clearly absurd, and it's just as absurd to argue that the lack of evidence for Pro's position doesn't reduce support for Pro's position.

In 6, Pro raises a good point regarding where the water came from. Unfortunately, though, he doesn't offer evidence to support this. Without evidence, the assertion "it could have come from space" is no better than the assertion "it never happened at all".

In 7, Pro explicitly drops the point, claiming he "can easily disprove" the point, but that it's "irrelevant". Pro tries to claim that the free-will debate is irrelevant; this is a curious tack--there are plenty of theologists who have tackled *this very issue*. Pro could have referred to any of them. But by trying to argue that it was "irrelevant" despite Con showing how it was part of the claims of the bible (which Pro is arguing is "literal and inerrant"), it stands and on that point alone loses Pro the debate. By dropping the point completely and trying to claim "irrelevance", he hurts his case immensely. If you're going to argue something's irrelevant and should be discounted, you better really support that, because if the gambit fails you have dropped a point.
Posted by bladerunner060 7 years ago
RFD 4/4:

In 8, I think Pro makes a good point to some extent, although Con shows how Pro's rebuttal is just as wrong as Con's initial statement and, in responding to Pro's rebuttal, shows that the original contradiction point he was making still stood.

As to 9, I find Pro's dropping of what he calls Con's "best point" to be particularly curious, even more so than his dropping of 7, which he at least claims is "irrelevant". I guess Pro didn't realize until it was too late that he wasn't going to GET another round of argumentation. Unfortunately, by dropping it, it stands.

In the final round of argumentation, Con clarified those points to which Pro had responded. Con used bible verses to support his arguments regarding contradictions and problems with evil and omni-ness. I don't think Con is correct in saying that it's "obviously false" to say the bible never calls god omnibenevolent. However, Con *does* show where there's an apparent contradiction, and one which is almost synonymous with the "omnibenevolence" issue. Con is right to point out that "kind in all his works" seems pretty similar to omnibenevolent, and that "creat[ing] calamity" would seem to belie that. It does weaken the argument against omnibenevolence Con makes in R2, in that there IS a functional difference between being "kind in all [your] works" and being obliged to "always do the most benevolent act possible". Unfortunately, Pro's attack on the omnibenevolence point alone left the door open for Con's response here in the last round.

In the end, I don't think Pro *really* wanted to defend the bible as truly literal and inerrant. He wanted to defend it as generally true. But that wasn't the resolution under consideration and, honestly, he didn't even defend THAT particularly strongly.

With all that, points to Con.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by annanicole 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins, not because of superior arguments, but because of the word "literal" in the proposition. Nobody should affirm a proposition that every word in the scriptures is to be taken literally, else Jesus would be a literal lamb, literal lion, literal door, literal way, and literal light - all at the same time. Herod would have been a literal fox. Con utilized exclusively unscholarly sources expressing the opinions of mere smatterers: I'd as soon cite MadCornish or Dogknox as sources. The scriptures were written in Hebrew or Greek, yet the number of Hebrew/Greek scholars cited was .... zero.
Vote Placed by Wylted 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never really addresses con's arguments about the Earth being more than 10,000 years old as well as a few others. You can't prove the Bible is the I inerrant word of God without proving a young Earth and disproving or addressing how evolution ties in.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 7 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.

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