The old testament has essentially no errors
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: | Open | Point System: | 7 Point | ||
Started: | 7/8/2014 | Category: | Religion | ||
Updated: | 7 years ago | Status: | Post Voting Period | ||
Viewed: | 1,292 times | Debate No: | 58682 |
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (2)
The old testament has no errors. An error is simply a change affecting doctrine. An error can also be a contradiction within the text that cannot be reconciled.
first round is acceptance |
![]() |
It is commonly claimed that the Old Testament is full of errors and contradictions and doctrinal changes.
Looking at the existing manuscripts available, there are many methods for why it's essentially flawless: 1. The scribes were professionals and used accurate methods of preservation to ensure God's Word is transmitted properly: "[The Masoretes wrote] with the greatest imaginable reverence, and devised a complicated system of safeguards against scribal slips. They counted, for example, the number of times each letter of the alphabet occurs in each book; they pointed out the middle letter of the Pentateuch and the middle letter of the whole Hebrew Bible, and made even more detailed calculations than these." (1) 2. A body of manuscripts known as the DSS were found in Qumran dating thousands of centuries before the Masoretic texts. Only 3 spelling mistakes were found (2) 3. The Old Testament has such small mistakes that the entire message isn't affected at all as we are about to see: There are intentional changes and unintentional changes. Bad eyesight was common as the manuscripts were copied in places poor lit. Words may be replaced for a similar sounding word. Scribes would read words outloud so that others could hear. While slightly different words in spelling can be used, they are just that (3). Sometimes scribes made a mistake of conflation and combined multiple readings into 1 (4). This shows that the Old Testament has been accurately preserved Sources: 1. F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltc., 1963), p. 117. 2. Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. The Old Testament Documents: Are They Reliable and Relevant? (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 45-46. 3. Metzger, The Text, 191. 4. Metzger, The Text, 200. farm3r forfeited this round. |
![]() |
It appears my opponent has forfeited, i will wait...
farm3r forfeited this round. |
![]() |
I'll keep waiting..
farm3r forfeited this round. |
![]() |
I pretty much win this one, vote for me
farm3r forfeited this round. |
![]() |
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 7 years ago
Truth_seeker | farm3r | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | ![]() | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 6 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by Zarroette 7 years ago
Truth_seeker | farm3r | Tied | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Agreed with before the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
Agreed with after the debate: | - | - | ![]() | 0 points |
Who had better conduct: | ![]() | - | - | 1 point |
Had better spelling and grammar: | - | - | ![]() | 1 point |
Made more convincing arguments: | ![]() | - | - | 3 points |
Used the most reliable sources: | ![]() | - | - | 2 points |
Total points awarded: | 6 | 0 |
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Take the biblical timeline, for instance. I could point out that the idea of 6000 year old earth doesn't comport with scientific evidence. If a religious denomination teaches it anyway, then that biblical passage had zero impact on doctrine.
That's just an example of something I'd run if I were debating you on this.