Debate invitation

[Yahweh Nissi]

Greetings to all my brothers and sisters in this forum.

I have just posted the following invitation in the Non-Participent Commentary and Debate Invitations sub-forum of the Denominational Formal Debates forum, and I believe that people wishing to oppose this may be found here


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.


This is just to notify those who may potentially interested, as I do not think people brows the debate invitations very often, please do not try and debate this here, as I am not alowed to debate in this forum.

Many thanks,
God bless,
YN.

 

[J.A.I]

So in a gist, you are saying that believing the Bible is the inerrant Word of God is not Biblical ?

 

[J.A.I]

And not debating, just making sure I understand what you're saying

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

I believe that "all scripture is God breathed", but I also believe that there are factual errors. My understanding of inerrancy was that 'if the Bible says something happened, then it did happen, exactly as stated'. I am saying that I disagree with that. Of course, perhaps I have missunderstood what people mean by inerrancy, and some people in this forum do not believe that either.

I do not pretend to know the mind of god, but my guess is that when inspiring the writers He was just not that concerned about factual details that were unimportant. I do not deny the virgin birtt or the litteral resurection, or anything like that.

Hope that clarifies my point.

God bless,
YN.

 

[BarbB]

Sounds like you understand our understanding, all right, YN! Now, I'd like to volunteer anyone else, because I am NOT a debater. Any takers, fellow fundies. We need to talk the talk, I guess!

Yahweh Nissi - could we discuss our response to your arguments here? Would that be all right?

 

[EdmundBlackadderTheThird]

I would volunteer but my mod duties keep from having enough time to properly debate this issue, it requires a lot of thought and careful wording so as to not be misunderstood.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Yahweh Nissi - could we discuss our response to your arguments here? Would that be all right?

Hey - this is your forum

I was just trying to say 'please do not try and debate this with me here, as I am not alowed to debate in this forum' - I was not trying to dictate what people may or may not do in their own forums, my appologies if it ame across like that

The more people discussing the better as far as I am concerned - heck, I would like it if you convinced me I was wrong, that would make things much simpler.

God bless,
YN.

 

[ChrisB]

I'm interested but would prefer to do it as part of a team as I probably wouldn't have enough time to "go solo".

 

[PatrickM]

No! You're wrong!

OK, I'm done debatin' it

All seriousness aside, I'd be interested. "Iron sharpens iron" and all.

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

No! You're wrong!

OK, I'm done debatin' it

Dang! I guess that shows me...

All seriousness aside, I'd be interested. "Iron sharpens iron" and all.

Cool. I guess if you and ChrisB would like to 'formally accept' or something in the thread in the 'Non-Participent Commentary and Debate Invitations' sub-forum, then I will start up a thread in the main formal debate forum and we can get going.

God bless,
YN.

 

[PatrickM]

Cool. I guess if you and ChrisB would like to 'formally accept' or something in the thread in the 'Non-Participent Commentary and Debate Invitations' sub-forum, then I will start up a thread in the main formal debate forum and we can get going.

God bless,
YN.

Um, er, this may not exactly instill confidence with ChrisB (nor YN for that matter), but could you uh, say that again?

I went to the Formal Debate forum, now what???

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Sorry, that was not very clear.

If you go into the Denominational Formal Debates forum, look at the top and there is a link to the sub-forum "Non-Participant Commentary & Debate Invitations". In that forum, I have posted a thread called "Invitation to Debate: Believing in factual Biblical inerrancy is not Biblical". If you and ChrisB could go into that and say you accept the invitation and format I have suggested, and submit any guidelines you would like the debate to follow, then that would be great.

Appologies if I seem a bit pedantic, but I think the idea of the formal debates is to do things, well, formally, and so keep more of a lid on topics that tended to get a bit heated in the free-for-all debates in the old forums, so we may as well do things properly.

Cheers,
YN.

 

[KleinerApfel]

I couldn't find my way to your thread Yahweh Nissi - could you post a link for the "lost" please?!

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Never done this before, hope it works out OK....


http://www.christianforums.com/t691992

 

[KleinerApfel]

Yes, thanks!

 

[Kas]

I think that this has been the longets invitation in history! You guys should consider politics!

 

[Asar'el]

I would have liked to take up the other side, but it seems a recent rule prevents users with less than 100 posts from participating in the debates ...

Is there any further progress on this? I will be interested to see it - and should it not be taken up by the time I have been here long enough to participate, lol, I'd be happy to give it a go..

 

[Yahweh Nissi]

Still no takers. I will actually need to leave it a bit now anyway, as I have exams next week. But if anyone is interested, then please let me know by posting in the debate invitation thread (linked to a few posts previously) and then we can get started when everyone is ready.

Cheers,
YN.

 

[Asar'el]

Best wishes on the exams

And slowly getting to be able to take it up, lol - maybe by the time you're done with them