This is the thread devoted to the debate that Calvin and Dave have agreed to undertake after a bit of discussion in this R&P Challenge Thread. The resolution to this debate will be: "The Bible is the literally true and inerrant word of God." Calvin will be taking the affirmative while Dave will be taking the negative.

The rules for the debate are as follows:


1. This is a civil debate - there will be no insult hurling.
2. Calvin will present the opening post, Dave will rebut.
3. Unfamiliar terms will be defined upon request.
4. All sources will be cited properly.

Seeing as the resolution of the debate consists of showing whether the Bible is literally true and inerrant, I thought my opening would consist of defining what these terms mean. From my personal experience not many people actually understand what it means when a person says they view the Bible under such a light.

I will define inerrancy as put forth by Norman Geisler:

The inspiration of Scripture is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit who, through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors, invested the very word of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach (including history and science) and is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for the faith and practice of all believers.¹

Now let me explain exactly what is meant here.

(1) The Bible is from God.

Before I open up in detail here, let me make it very clear that all I am showing is that the Bible claims to be the Word of God. Yet, this is also true of many other books (Qur'an, Book of Mormon) so then, that in itself is not proof that the Bible is the Word of God. All I am setting up here is the proposition that if the Bible is the Word of God, then it cannot err. If I claim that the Bible is the Word of God, and Dave can show that it contains error when taken in a literal manner (modus tollens), then the Bible is not the Word of God.

So then, does the Bible claim to be the Word of God? Absolutely. 2 Timothy 3:16 claims that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, " thus we see that the Bible claims itself to be breathed out by God. This can also be looked at from other angles. When one compares verses in the Bible we see that God and Scripture are used interchangeably. For example, compare Exodus 9:16, "But I [God] have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth., " with Romans 9:17, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' " Therefore, what the Bible says, God says.

(2) The Bible was written through men.

In contrast to other holy books such as the Qur'an the Bible was not dictated to man by the Holy Spirit. Even though the Bible is inspired by God, and therefore inerrant, one must not forget that it was written by human authors. Thus, when we read the passages of Scripture we find that it uses different literary styles, forms, human perspectives, thought patterns, emotions, interests, culture, and sources.

(3) Inspiration in the original manuscripts.

Inerrancy does not apply to the Bible that we have today, but to what was penned by the original authors. However, please do not take this to mean that every issue we have today can be simply tossed aside as a copyist error, or that we do not have to answer to Scripture because who knows what the original might of said. The sheer number of manuscripts that we have allows us to pinpoint exactly what the original said. The number of copyist errors in the Bible we have today are extremely limited in number. I can only think of four that apply to this, and a case can be made to support it. The Christian who uses this reason to explain a supposed error in Scripture must demonstrate a copyist error is plausible.

(4) Inerrancy applies to history and science.

The Bible includes much more than statements about morals and salvation. Within its pages it speaks of matters that relate to history and science. Thus, when the Bible speaks of Christ's life, death, and resurrection it better have occurred otherwise the Bible is false. A consistent believer will not place the Bible in a vacuum from reality.

---

Now let me move on to what is meant by taking the Bible literally. It does not mean that every verse of the Bible is interpreted in a physically literal way. When Jesus claimed that He was a gate (John 10:9) or that He was a vine (John 15:1) it is obvious that He was not speaking literally, but using a metaphor. In addition to this (as was stated above) we should see other literary devices (hyperbole, anthropomorphism). Thus, when we read Scripture we read it from the author's original intent, we do not whimsically choose what is taken to be as historical truth, and figurative stories to communicate higher truth. For example, I personally see absolutely no reason to take Genesis as allegory. It seems rather obvious that Moses was dictating the creation of the heavens and the earth, not a story. Taking the Bible literally is the most rational and commonsensical hermeneutical position to take.

Hopefully I have given a clear, yet concise general explanation of what the terms inerrancy and literal mean. I now hand the floor over to Dave to explain why the Bible cannot be trusted as Divine truth seeing as it contains irreconcilable internal errors, and absurd writings that were penned from the original authors.

-------------------------------

1 Norman Geisler, Systematic Theolgy: Volume I, p 498.

Works Cited:

Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume I
RC Sproul, Knowing Scripture

I will not argue that the Bible is the inspired word of God, however, I will show that it is neither historically or scientifically correct. I wll argue that the bible is subject to fallibility and errancy. I am not concerned with the message just the process of translation, copying and criteria for canonization.

The Bible contains in it accounts of events, if interpreted literally, that are impossibilities, defeats of the known laws of physics, that have not ocurred again since the biblical texts were penned or at least been witnessed. These accounts are "tales" not to be interpreted literally but to have an allegorical moral gleaned from them. The moral to the story of Cain and Abel fighting is to show that people can have negative intentions without being influenced by a society. According to the story societies did not exist yet, hence the Hebrews tale which is a defense against the notion that there laws of civility will gurantee proper behavior. They are sacred stories if you will. Not one credible source has been verified in which a person has a supernatural ability of prophecy, healing the sick, parting water, enabling the blind to see or raising the dead for example.

It is written in the Bible that certain biblical characters had this ability yet that proves nothing. Many ancient texts make claims but just because it is written does not mean it was factual. How and why should one consider the Bible correct when there are many texts, some much older than even the Old Testament, that have been left to us that explain creation for example but have different accounts and details? Why should we teach our children the universe was literally created in 6 days when there are other accounts of creation like those of the Hindus, the Gnostics, the Greeks, the Egyptians, the native American Indians, the Mayans etc? On what grounds is the Bible considered true and yet the others are not?

Consider the notion that the Earth, thus universe, is only 6000 years old. Why would we believe this in spite of evidence that contradicts the young Earth premise? It sounds like a true-believer syndrome or cognitive bias to believe the young Earth premise when there is physical evidence from various sciences that refute it. Carbon dating, the fact of the speed of light and the fact that we can see stars and galaxies that are much farther away than the distance and time it would take light to travel in 6000 years.

Historians and scholars do not have the original texts that composed the Bible. Instead just copies of copies of copies that have been translated into various languages. The room for mistranslation is much. For instance, it is a mistranslation in the book of Exodus that the parting of the waters occured at the Red Sea. In the Hebrew it is "yam suph" and correctly translated is reed sea or sea of reeds- but not Red Sea. Also one can look no further than Isa. 7:14 for the mistranslation of "young woman". It was a huge mistranslation as "virgin". In Hebrew -young woman- is 'almah' and virgin is 'bethulah'.

I feel I have demonstrated, by a few examples, that the Bible cannot be considered infallible. It is a collection of books that were written by authors of which many are unknown. Contradiction occurs in the Bible which further undermines the premise of inerrancy and infallibility. The 2 lists of geneologies are not compatible with one another, thus a contradiction. Forgery was practiced 2000 years ago and I wont go into suspected forgeries now but may do so in the future.

The thrust of Dave's argument seems to be mere assertions about the Bible being unreliable with very few actual reasons why. The objections against the Bible he does attempt to raise are not developed. Thus, Dave never explains why the Bible's record cannot be taken seriously, he only hand waves it away as being untrustworthy.

The severity of Dave's half-baked argument can be clearly seen. For example, he asks why we should teach that the Earth is 6, 000 years old without connecting this claim to the Bible in any way. Perhaps he can demonstrate why exactly a Christian should teach this to his children and students. Even if we assume that the Bible teaches the earth is 6, 000 years old, what then? Is this a false teaching? Who knows. A second example of this it noted when Dave mentions that genealogies are in contradiction with each other, therefore the Bible is inerrant. What he is referring to, and how he comes to this conclusion is beyond me. Finally, this is seen in his opening argument where he presupposes his position on the Bible and then interprets Cain and Abel as being a tale of communicating higher truth. Why these events could not have happened though, is never addressed.

Dave appeals to other creation stories and asks why we should not uphold them as historical narratives as well. I find this to be completely irrelevant to the debate though. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then all other creation stories are false unless they are consistent with the Biblical narrative. If Dave would like to argue that another creation story is correct, and this story is not consistent with the Bible, then the Bible would be false. But simply pointing out that there are many other creation narratives out there says absolutely nothing about the Bible being inerrant. I say the Bible corresponds to reality, thus the Bible passes in this area as coming from a God who cannot err. Truth is not thrown into agnosticism just because there are other options.

My opponent also argues that errors have been made in translating the Bible, yet even if we assume his attacks to be true, it says absolutely nothing. As I mentioned in my opening, only the original manuscripts are considered to be inerrant. Inerrancy does not apply to our interpretations and translations. We have made errors when it comes to the Bible, with this I would agree. The inerrant nature of the Bible is untouched, and we have even confirmed yet another truth of the Bible, that is, man is not perfect. In short, even if Dave is correct it says absolutely nothing about the inerrancy of the Bible.

There are only two places where Dave actually makes a sound argument (though still lacking in content) against the Bible's reliability. First, he argues we do not have the original manuscripts, therefore we cannot trust the Bible we have today as being reliable to the originals. I will only respond by saying that there sheer number of partial and complete manuscripts we have today allows us to be extremely confident of what was written in the originals. Ironically though, Dave refutes himself by stating what the correct translation of certain passages should be. Can we know what the Bible should say, or can we not? Sticking to the context of one's own argument is vital when it comes to consistency on a position.

Second, Dave argues that we have not verified anyone today having performed miracles, therefore they could not have happened in the past. (1) Just because they have not been verified today it says nothing about if they could have occurred in the past. (2) This argument does not take into account the Biblical position on miracles. These supernatural powers were given specifically to people when God was providing new revelation. Seeing as the Bible is complete, there is no reason for God to grant anyone the ability to verify their Divine message. Thus, it is completely consistent to hold, and it naturally follows from the Biblical position on itself, that there should be no one alive today with miraculous powers.

In closing, it would seem that Dave almost does not want to partake in this debate. He merely throws out unprepared and horribly constructed arguments that say absolutely nothing about the Bible itself. If I was not already familiar with the inerrancy objections and the Bible to begin with I would have walked away with absolutely no idea what Dave was talking about in most of his arguments. In reality, I had to connect the dots for Dave, otherwise I could have simply stamped non sequitur on his conclusion that the Bible could not be the inerrant literal Word of God and walked away.

--------------------

Works Cited:

{ }

Edit for clarity. Fourth paragraph:

My opponent also argues that errors have been made in translating the Bible, yet even if we assume his attacks to be true, it says absolutely nothing. As I mentioned in my opening, only the original manuscripts are considered to be inerrant. Inerrancy does not apply to our interpretations and translations. We have made errors when it comes to the Bible, with this I would agree. The inerrant nature of the Bible though is untouched, and we have even confirmed yet another truth of the Bible, that is, man is not perfect. In short, even if Dave is correct it says absolutely nothing about the inerrancy of the Bible.

Calvin does make one good point. The fact that I did not provide a source for the contradicting genealogies written in the bible. They are: Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:21-31. You will find 28 generations listed in Matthew and 43 listed in Luke. That is just one example of innerrancy.

I will contend that contradiction whether through false information, mistranslation or poor copying shows us that the "bible" is errant. I do not fail to avoid a slippery slope fallacy here because I have never made the claim that just because there are errors in the bible.....everything in the bible is then incorrect. I have only aimed to prove that there are contradictions and errors contained there within and I accomplished that with my first post.

Calvin pointed out:
"Dave appeals to other creation stories and asks why we should not uphold them as historical narratives as well. I find this to be completely irrelevant to the debate though. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then all other creation stories are false unless they are consistent with the Biblical narrative."

Calvin's remarks are seriously begging the question. If the bible is inerrant then anything else opposed to it is wrong. I guess that would be the case once you establish for us that it is the inerrant word of God, hence demonstrate why I or the audience should accept biblical claims as truth instead of other stories that explain the same things. Until then, the bible is no different than any other collection of stories. It does not qualify to be deemed the inerrant word of God just because it is written that someone says so.


Calvin states:
"My opponent also argues that errors have been made in translating the Bible, yet even if we assume his attacks to be true, it says absolutely nothing. As I mentioned in my opening, only the original manuscripts are considered to be inerrant. Inerrancy does not apply to our interpretations and translations. We have made errors when it comes to the Bible, with this I would agree. The inerrant nature of the Bible is untouched, and we have even confirmed yet another truth of the Bible, that is, man is not perfect. In short, even if Dave is correct it says absolutely nothing about the inerrancy of the Bible."

Yes it would be very easy to claim the "original texts" are innerant when we do not have the originals to scrutinize, thus the claim is unfalsifiable which is a paper thin foundation for any argument. Calvin says innerrancy does not apply to translations and interpretations. Then let us ask Calvin to show us which version of Christianity is correct today and which Christianity was correct in the late 1st and early to mid 2nd century. How will Calvin reconcile the schizm that exists between Judaism and Christianity? I suppose that a god would be infallible, yet, Calvin has not demonstrated that this god magically inspired authors to record its intentions and that accurate records still are within our possession to this date. Perhaps Calvin can demonstrate for us the true "nature" of the bible?

"The earliest fragment of a New Testament book is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52 which dates to the mid 2nd century and is the size of a business card. Very early manuscripts are rare."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_innerrancy

Calvin:
"I will only respond by saying that there sheer number of partial and complete manuscripts we have today allows us to be extremely confident of what was written in the originals. Ironically though, Dave refutes himself by stating what the correct translation of certain passages should be. Can we know what the Bible should say, or can we not? "

If you are extremely confident then that is fine you are entitled to that opinion. You lend yourself a nice straw-man by saying I stated what the correct translation of passages should be yet I did not. I stated what the correct translation of Hebrew words into English should be. Words, not passages as you would have the audience believe.

As long as Calvin continues to beg the question his conclusions should be justifiably stamped "non sequitr".

"Three common examples of text being inserted, which are commonly footnoted in bibles, are the Pericope Adulteræ (John 7:53 - 8:11), the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7â8) and the longer ending in Mark 16 (Mark 16:9-20). For hundreds of years, biblical scholars have examined the manuscripts extensively, yet there is no consensus on what the original version may have looked like."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_innerrancy


Proverbs 30:5
Every word of God is pure.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God...

Leviticus 11: 1-6
âAll winged insects that go upon all fours are an abomination to you. Yet among the winged insects that go on all fours you may eat those who have legs on their feet, with which to leap on the earth. Of them you may eat: the locust according to itâs kind, the cricket according to its kind, and the grasshopper according to its kind. But all other winged insects which have four feet are an abomination to you."

All insects have 3 pairs of legs. I would think the infallible first cause creator would know this.


The following verses appear to be commandments of men trying to organize their Hebrew society. I have yet to be convinced by Calvin, or anyone else for that matter, that these atrocities are inspired by a "god".

"the killing of heretics (Exodus 22:20), the killing of violators of the Sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15, Exodus 35:2), the killing of children who curse their parents (Leviticus 20:9), the forcing of raped women to marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28), the killing of adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), the killing of blasphemers (Leviticus 24:16), and the killing of unchaste women (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)."

The resolution of this debate needs to be clarified before I can continue. Dave seems to be under the impression that this debate is on me proving that the Bible is the Word of God. I am under the impression that the resolution of this debate is on Dave showing that the Bible is not the Word of God because it contains errors or is unreliable. I believe that my position on the resolution was the context for the debate, and I think that this can clearly be seen from our conversation (Starting here to the end of the thread) that came before we debated.

CalvinWrote:
The resolution of this debate needs to be clarified before I can continue. Dave seems to be under the impression that this debate is on me proving that the Bible is the Word of God. I am under the impression that the resolution of this debate is on Dave showing that the Bible is not the Word of God because it contains errors or is unreliable. I believe that my position on the resolution was the context for the debate, and I think that this can clearly be seen from our conversation (Starting here to the end of the thread) that came before we debated.

Would you rather me address the interpretation of biblical literalism vs. metaphorical allegory? I have not yet fully dealt with the literalists interpretation as flawed. At least I will argue the bible was not entirely intended to be interpreted literally.

I am just addressing a couple points you made that I think confuse the resolution of the debate. That is, I am begging the question by assuming the Bible is the Word of God without demonstrating it to be such. From the context of the debate we would be presupposing that the Bible is supposed to be the Word of God. Atleast, this was the impression I was under.

"The inspiration of Scripture is the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit who, through the different personalities and literary styles of the chosen human authors, invested the very word of the original books of Holy Scripture, alone and in their entirety, as the very Word of God without error in all that they teach (including history and science) and is thereby the infallible rule and final authority for the faith and practice of all believers."

I have already shown the English versions to be at fault due to mistranslation.
I have shown contradiction in information that is not due to translation therefore it may be concluded it was copied correctly from an errant "orginal".

Historically it is errant. Here is one example:

Genesis 11:1
"The whole earth was of one language." This could not be true, since by this time (supposedly around 2400 BCE) there were already many languages, each unintelligible to the others. This is even admitted earlier in Genesis (10:5, 10:20, 10:31) where other languages are mentioned before the tower of Babel was supposedly constructed.

11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.


As far as being scientifically flawed from interpreting this next verse literally:
Deuteronomy:
33:17 His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

If one is to interpret unicorns literally as being factual then we have yet another historical and scientific anomaly.

Um.. ya.

Jesse?

Okay, I'm going to review the material so far and then make a pronouncement of whether it's on track or whether one (or both) of the participants needs to get back on the resolution. I've been busy the last few days and unfortunately have not been able to give this debate the proper attention it deserves.

I will go through this debate today and tomorrow and then make a decision. I would ask that both participants hold off on posting any new material until I've had a chance to respond. Thanks.

Okay, I've read the resolution and the thread and had some time to digest it. Here's what I think:

1. The resolution "The Bible is the literally true and inerrant word of God" seems to give the person positing the affirmative the task of showing that the Bible is: inerrant, literally true, and the word of god. In other words, all three must be fulfilled by the person taking the affirmative.

2. With that being said, I think that this does not mirror Calvin's stated intention in the thread where the challenge was mentioned. It seems to me that Calvin's intention was to defend against any claims of errancy and to provide a method for determining literalness verses metaphorical (and other non-literal passages) histories, sayings, etc in the Bible. In doing so, Calvin would be arguing that the Bible can't be said to not be the word of God because of allegations that it has errors or should be taken allegorically.

3. It should be recognized that if the intent of the resolution posited initially by Calvin is shown, this does not mean that Calvin has shown that the Bible is the word of God; it only means that one cannot say that it *isn't* the word of God because it contains errors, etc (because Calvin will have allegedly shown that it is free from errors).

Where do we go from here?

It seems to me that either the initial resolution is kept and the two participants adjust their debate strategies or a new resolution is proposed and accepted (perhaps in the commentary thread) and all posts that are irrelevant to the new resolution (or mostly irrelevant) will be deleted and the debate started anew.