Formal Debate Invite: Believing in strict, factual Biblical inerrancy is not Biblical

[Yahweh Nissi]

Greetings all.

I propose the motion that "Believing in scrict, factual Biblical inerrancy is not Biblical" - or, in other words, the Bible is not factually inerrant - and would like to debate this with someone who opposes this. Ideally, I would like a one-on-one debate, but if a small team of two or three would prefer to oppose this together then that is fine and I will find one or two people to team up with.

Important points:-

By factuall inerrancy, I am not meaning totally 100% literal. Obviously, when Jesus said "I am the door...", He did not mean that he was a sheet of wood with hinges and a handel - no-one thinks that, everyone realises He was being metaphorical. What I mean, which is how I believe the term inerrancy is generally used, is that accounts in the Bible that do not seem to be metaphorical, that seem to be straight forward history/accounts, are definately, totally true - they happened exactly as stated. I believe that this is not the case.

Also, I totally afirm that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2Tim 3:16-17) [NIV]. I think that factual errors are probably there because when God was inspiring, He was not particularly bothered about correcting small factual errors in the memories/understanding of the authors. Or, it could be that God deliberately put the factual errors there for some purpose that He in His wisdom knows. However, this second proposition is dangerously close to saying that God is lying, so I do not think that this is the case.

When the debate starts, I would like to post a quick abstract of my position, and then the main arguments for it. The person(s) opposing may do both, although are very welcome to just do one post if they wish, and then we will go to alternating rebuttal posts, up to six per person/team if needed, and then a concluding post for each person/team.

So, any takers :)

[Mary_Magdalene]

you mean facts like the parting of the red sea? just trying to understand further.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Well, that was a pretty major event and is mentioned in several other places, so I believe that did happen. I was thinking on a slightly small scale than then.

Basically, I am going to start (and quite possibly end) by showing that different accounts of the death of Judas, Peter's denials and the calling of the disciples flatly contradict each other - therefore at least one of each of these accounts must have errors in it. Therefore, the Bible, by its own account, is not inerrant.

[Serapha]

Well, that was a pretty major event and is mentioned in several other places, so I believe that did happen. I was thinking on a slightly small scale than then.

Basically, I am going to start (and quite possibly end) by showing that different accounts of the death of Judas, Peter's denials and the calling of the disciples flatly contradict each other - therefore at least one of each of these accounts must have errors in it. Therefore, the Bible, by its own account, is not inerrant.
Hi there!

:wave:


Would you define "inerrancy" in relationship to oldest manuscripts or to various translations. Identify the translation you wish to use and identify if you will be varying from that translation. I will be using a translation of formal equivalency, probably the King James.


Do you want to establish a baseline source for word text so we are using the same foundation in Hebrew and in Greek, aka BLL, a particular interlinear, or say Vine's or Robinson's?


I want us on common ground so we are not guilty of "grasping at straws" aka the "pick and chose" method.

If there is going to be a presentation of problematic passages on your part that you want reconciled, then I would prefer that the number of responses remain open, but that the text of each post be limited to under 5,000 characters excluding direct quotes, therefore, no posting will be so long that it cannot be addressed, and no problematic passage will be unaddressed.

I would submit reliable archaeological evidences as well as historical evidences in rebuttals; archaeological evidences are artifacts or verified strata informatoin and historical ranges from inscriptions to manuscript evidences.

My opening statement would include this passage.

John 10:35b

... and the scripture cannot be broken;

as well as God's promise to preserve His Word.

If you want a "team" effort, let me know...

~serapha~

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I will stand for Biblical inerrancy. Jesus Himself said scripture cannot be broken. I will side with Him. I will use the Vulgate and maybe the NIV.

[Serapha]

The person(s) opposing may do both, although are very welcome to just do one post if they wish, and then we will go to alternating rebuttal posts, up to six per person/team if needed, and then a concluding post for each person/team.


Hi there!

:wave:


I accept your invitation and also accept Bizzlebin Imperatoris as a team player. If you want to set a particular number of members involved, do so now, and set a plan for posting.


~thanks~

serapha

[Yahweh Nissi]

Great :)

Let us just keep it to two a team then, and I will see if I can find someone to debate with me.

I will open a thread in the main forum and post an abstract and opening post next Sunday (the 20th), after my exams have finnished. My partner may wish to post an opening post also, or may be happy to leave that to me. You can post your opening, and the teams can then alternate, deciding amoungst themselves wether they wish to do a post each in response, or just one per team. Either is fine, and you can change which you do throughout the debate. How about we say that each team should try to post within three days of the previous post, but if they cannot then we can trust each other that there was a good reason and be patient until a reply does come. I am not in a hurry.

God bless,
YN.

[Serapha]

Great :)

Let us just keep it to two a team then, and I will see if I can find someone to debate with me.

I will open a thread in the main forum and post an abstract and opening post next Sunday (the 20th), after my exams have finnished.
God bless,
YN.



Hello Yahweh Nissi,


I would like to post a rant thread here in the "non-participant" area for anyone wanting to make comments and to keep this thread for discussing any rules or posting problems. I'm really looking forward to this discussion.


~serapha~

[Yahweh Nissi]

Good idea.

I look forward to it myself :)

[Serapha]

Great :)

Let us just keep it to two a team then, and I will see if I can find someone to debate with me.

I will open a thread in the main forum and post an abstract and opening post next Sunday (the 20th), after my exams have finnished. My partner may wish to post an opening post also, or may be happy to leave that to me. You can post your opening, and the teams can then alternate, deciding amoungst themselves wether they wish to do a post each in response, or just one per team. Either is fine, and you can change which you do throughout the debate. How about we say that each team should try to post within three days of the previous post, but if they cannot then we can trust each other that there was a good reason and be patient until a reply does come. I am not in a hurry.

God bless,
YN.Hi there!

:wave:

I was curious to see if you had found a partner for your side of the debate.

If you don't have a partner, then are you wanting/willing to debate both of us (BI and myself) independently, or as a team.

If you do have a partner, let's decide on a format (order) for responding, and set a couple of rules.

I did ask this earlier...

Would you define "inerrancy" in relationship to oldest manuscripts or to various translations.
Do you want to establish a baseline source for word text so we are using the same foundation in Hebrew and in Greek, aka BLL, a particular interlinear, or say Vine's or Robinson's?

I want us on common ground so we are not guilty of "grasping at straws" aka the "pick and chose" method.

If there is going to be a presentation of problematic passages on your part that you want reconciled, then I would prefer that the number of responses remain open, but that the text of each post be limited to under 5,000 characters excluding direct quotes,
That was 5,000 characters, not 5,000 words, excluding direct quotes (The Bible is not to be considered direct quote, but rather quotes outside the Bible to be excluded from character count )

In other words, "original work" and Bible passages are to included in the character count.


And, one last question.... Are we going to use the "edit" function in our statements?






~serapha~

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Please start the thread Team 1.

[Yahweh Nissi]

:bow:

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

I have been at a theology summer school (The Doctrine of the Great Commision btw, it was excellent :)) for the past week and I was unexpectedly without computor access. Not a good start to the debate :( My appologies, hopefully we can get up and running now.

Seraph

I have not got a partner yet, but I am happy to start as we are and try and find one as we go on - it does not matter too much.

Technically I am defining inerrancy in relation to the ancient manuscripts. However, as I know no Hebrew or Greek I shall be assuming that the major translations (NIV, KJV, NLT, etc - I will be using NIV as my basic text) are acurate. The points I wish to make to not turn on disputed interpretations or very subtle points, so I think it is reasonable to assume the teams of Bible scholars were sufficiently accuate for our purposes.

I was not wanting to use a baseline source - as I said, I think it is reasonable for our purposes to assume the major translations are accurate. Feel free to use one to make points if you wish although please make these understandable to a layman.

Unlimmited responses but a 5000 character post limmit is fine.

Appologies once again for the delay.

Right - let us get going :)

[Serapha]

Please start the thread Team 1.

I concur.


~serapha~

[Serapha]

Hello Yahweh Nissi....

:wave:


(1000 words, less direct quotes - I do not have a character count function, but if I stick to a thousand word limmit, that should be about right)


Close enough. I will get back to you after I talk to BI... He's been offline for several days. But If I don't hear from him by Sunday evening. I will have time to post then.

~serapha~

[Serapha]

:bow:

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

I have been at a theology summer school

Hi there!
:wave:

and my apologies, it has been a holiday weekend and I have been busy with family. I will be posting today in a second rebuttal to the calling of the apostles, however, it will have to be a concise posting to get it under 5,000 characters.



At the end of the posting will be several references which I am not including in the word count, but which will reference you to the entire article for your reading and total understanding of fishing practices on the Sea of Galilee. Mendel Nun is the foremost expert on Galilean fishing practices. He fished the Sea all of his life (until recent years) and as an archaeologist, he has published the most accurate information on Galilean fishing practices, the fish species in the Galilee, etc. and he applies all his knowledge to the Bible. I am a big Mendel Nun fan.

If you have questions... ask, okay, I think you will find it all very interesting.


~serapha~

[Serapha]

Yahweh Nissi,

It was such a complex explanation to reconcile the synoptics, that I was unable to address the "Peter as the rock" point. If you want to grant me further characters, I will address that, but I felt it more important to reconcile the synoptics than to address the "rock" issue.


It took all my characters to post... so much so that the system edited my signature!

<grin>


~serapha~

[Serapha]

My appologies for my patchiness in responding, I am currently on a Jews for Jesus mission in Manchester and will be for the next two weeks - I will try to get to an internet cafe as often as possible, and I should be able to have a long session tomorrow and post the next major point in my argument.

I would greatly appreciate both of your prayers for this mission - that God would send His spirit on Manchester so people's hearts would be softened and ready to recieve the Gospel and that many would be saved, particularly the Jews, to whom the Gospel was first sent.
By the way Biz - I do understand the scriptures, I use them to reason with people (see the 'A metaphorical gospel?' thread in the Liberal Theology forum, where I am of course arguing against this view) and will be on this mission. I consider them "God breathed, and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - just not inerrant on minor factual details, for reasons some of which have been posted, and the rest of which will come out in the course of this debate (the strongest ones have not yet been posted).

God bless,
YN.


HI there!

:wave:

I will be praying that God Holy Spirit go before you, beside you, and behind you to lead, guide and direct you, and that the Spirit will open many doors and hearts for Christ.


~serapha~