Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Biblical inerrancy
From Debatepedia
Revision as of 02:05, 24 August 2011 (edit) Vagon (Talk | contribs) (→Con - removed objection on the basis of definition provided) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (10:20, 3 September 2011) (edit) England4ever (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) |
||
Line 119: | Line 119: | ||
*'''There are no contradictions in the original text of the Bible.''' Given the length of time the Bible was written over, it is understandable that atheists will assume it contains contradictions. If it didn't, it would be inconceivable that such a high degree of harmony between the different authors over the ages could be explainable by any means except divine inspiration. The alleged contradictions and the refutations of them would take ages to go into detail here, so here's a link to a website which covers these topics in sufficient detail for those who are interested: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm | *'''There are no contradictions in the original text of the Bible.''' Given the length of time the Bible was written over, it is understandable that atheists will assume it contains contradictions. If it didn't, it would be inconceivable that such a high degree of harmony between the different authors over the ages could be explainable by any means except divine inspiration. The alleged contradictions and the refutations of them would take ages to go into detail here, so here's a link to a website which covers these topics in sufficient detail for those who are interested: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm | ||
- | *'''In this debate, we're defining the Bible as the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi and the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation.''' This debate does not cover any other material claiming to be Christian scripture, including the Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon. As far as translations are concerned, we only defend the original Hebrew and Greek- if we were to go purely by the translations, they would potentially contain many errors and contradictions, but we contend that these do not exist in the original. | + | *'''In this debate, we're defining the Bible as the Old Testament from Genesis to Malachi and the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation.''' This debate does not cover any other material claiming to be Christian scripture, including the Apocrypha and the Book of Mormon. As far as translations are concerned, we only defend the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic- if we were to go purely by the translations, they would potentially contain many errors and contradictions, but we contend that these do not exist in the original. |
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |
Current revision
[Edit] Is the Bible a completely accurate source and the inspired word of God? |
[Edit] Background and context |
[Edit] [ ![]() Fulfilment of biblical prophecies | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] ConThe pro side has simply engaged in unsupported assertions. There is no evidence that the prophecy regarding the restoration of Israel was intended as such nor was it considered as such. It is a post-hoc assertion by apologists. Pro has also asserted extra-biblical evidence for the divinity of Christ as well as for the accuracy of the Passion Narrative, yet has not provided it. Most importantly if the assertions that the prophecies were intended to be such, are granted a prioi, for the sake of argument, that this information must necessarily be divinely inspired. In summation Pro must provide evidence that A: The prophecies were intended as such and not simply poetic or prose in nature and simply interpreted as such post hoc B: That they directly relate to their application. That is the prophecy in question was intended to relate to Israel, the messiah etc. C: That they were not self-fulfilling. D: That they are sufficiently unusual. For example I could predict that "there will be wars and rumors of wars". This would not be a satisfactory prophecy. It is simply a valid inductive conclusion E: That meeting all other criteria they are divinely inspired to the reasonable exclusion of all other purported divining methods (channeling, psychics, tarot, astrology, auspices interpretation etc). Pro has not met any discernible burden of evedentuary standard for their assertion. While they have provided a link to an apologetics website it does not and Con has not produced the requested evidence thus far. Evidence must be provided of these "outside the bible" verifications. As the New Testament shows clear contradictions in it's narrative on the life of Christ Pro must show that these narratives are an accurate representations to show that these prophecies came true. Pro has also failed to provide a definition of biblical prophecy. While pro has updated their assertions and addressed part A of my critique they still have not addressed any of the others especially E. Given, for the sake of argument, that all these prophecies were made Pro has not made any link to these being due to revelation from a supernatural entity rather than other forms of divination. Con demands that the Pro side provide the evidence that, the Euro, the European Union, Satellite TV, and the Atomic Bomb, were prophesied in the bible and that A. They were understood as such before their alleged fulfillment(they weren't). B They could not have been man made(impossible in all four cases to prove this point) and that this knowledge must have come from God and not another source. Pro must provide the evidence or concede the point. Con has stated many times, that there has never been a biblical prophecy that was known as such ahead of time that has come true in modern times. There are only ad hoc explanations. "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Scientific knowledge of the Bible proves that it was inspired by God | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] ConAlthough Pro has not established that the claims he has made are indeed scientific knowledge. He has not linked this knowledge to the exclusion of other methods of divination. A formal statement of the premises would go like this. There is scientific knowledge in the Bible. This knowledge was not known to the people at the time it was written. This knowledge comes from GOD. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. This knowledge could be from Aliens, Demons, Deceased human souls, psychic premonition, interpretation of auspecies, remote viewing. This faulty conclusion is on top of the fact that the two examples given are NOT examples of scientific knowledge in the Bible. The premises are false and the conclusion is false. Also Pro states that the Creation Myth follows the same order that science has established. This is simply false. By any reading of the Creation Myth light is formed after the Earth. This is simply wrong. I demand that Pro retract this point. Pro has not established it's position. The earth is the only known geoid so imprecisely spherical. Can anyone define a scientific 'fact'. Ask a phycisist if Galileo, Einstein or A N Other is 'right'. They observed and came to a conclusion. Einstein said it cannot be proved so we can assume it does not exist. |
[Edit] [ ![]() No contradictions in the Bible | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con |
[Edit] [ ![]() Concerning the nature, origin, and purpose of the Bible | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con |
[Edit] [ ![]() How important is the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy for the Church? | |
[Edit] Pro |
[Edit] Con |
[Edit] External links and resources:http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm http://www.bibleevidences.com/ essay writing help |
Categories: Science | Religion | Morality | History | Philosophy | Christianity | Bible