Formal Debate Peanut Gallery: The Bible Is Not the Inspired Word of God

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Preamble...

The topic of this formal debate is against the rules of Christian Forums, but after consulting with the Advisers and the owner of Christian Forums, it was decided that at this time, we would allow this topic to be debated by the members who proposed the debate.

Because we are allowing this here, in these forums, does not mean that the rules have changed, nor does it mean that this topic and others that are at odds with our rules may be discussed elsewhere in Christian Forums.

Stipulations regarding this peanut gallery thread are as follows...

1. This thread is only for the discussion of the formal debate; this is not a debate thread, so the topic may be discussed but not be debated here.
2. This thread is moderated, which means that each and every post made will have to be reviewed and approved by a moderator.
3. I work a lot of hours, but will review this thread and approve the post at least once per day.
4. All of the posts in this thread must comply with all of the rules of Christian Forums which may be found here: Community Rules
5. Posts which do not conform with the above rules will not be approved and will be deleted by the moderation staff.

The formal debate thread may be found here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7822814/#post65621617

Blessings and peace,

Mark
Staff Supervisor

 

[BL2KTN]

Hello all,

Just wanted to drop by before the debate begins and wish Pshun2404 the best of luck. I also want to thank Christianforums.com, their owners, and moderators, for allowing this debate. I hope everyone enjoys and learns from it, regardless of what position you take. I'm looking forward to a very robust dialogue.

I've submitted my first post to Mark, and as soon as it's accepted we'll be off to the races.

=)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Hello all,

Just wanted to drop by before the debate begins and wish Pshun2404 the best of luck. I also want to thank Christianforums.com, their owners, and moderators, for allowing this debate. I hope everyone enjoys and learns from it, regardless of what position you take. I'm looking forward to a very robust dialogue.

I've submitted my first post to Mark, and as soon as it's accepted we'll be off to the races.

=)

BlueLightening's opening post is up: #2

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

BlueLightening's opening post is up: #2

Pshun's reply is up.

 

[pat34lee]

Since this gallery is not for debate, I can only say that BlueLightningTN is totally misreading or misunderstanding several items in his first post especially.

 

[pat34lee]

If posts get deleted, it would be nice to know why. How else will we know whether we need to change something or complain?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Since this gallery is not for debate, I can only say that BlueLightningTN is totally misreading or misunderstanding several items in his first post especially.

Hi pat34lee, Not for debate with the participants, not for debate with other members; but feel free to share your impressions of the debate, and your reasons why.

If posts get deleted, it would be nice to know why. How else will we know whether we need to change something or complain?

Your post was not deleted; it was moderated, awaiting approval; they have now been approved

From a Christian POV, this is a very controversial topic to allow in a Christian website. Moderating posts is one way that we can keep a bit of control over threads where we see a potential for things getting a bit out of hand.

Please know that you can speak freely.

 

[AMR]

The "debate" is taking the usual tactic that there is some sort of neutral ground between the believer and the non-believer, where none exists, for the non-believer

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

Any discussion with the non-believer must start with the believer's premise that presupposes God in any apologetic argument. Why? Christians believe that the very meaningfulness of rational discourse depends on God, as everything depends on God. Indeed, it is Christ “in whom all things hold together” (Col. 1:17) and “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col. 2:3). It is the “fear of the Lord” that is “the beginning of knowledge” (Prov. 1:7) and “the beginning of wisdom” (Psm. 111:10, Prov. 9:10).

There can be no compromise between the wisdom of God and the wisdom of the world. Unbelief leads to distortion of the truth, exchanging the truth for a lie (Rom. 1:25). Only by trusting God’s Word can we come to a saving knowledge of Christ (John 5:24, 8:31, 15:3, Rom. 10:17). And trusting entails presupposing: accepting God’s Word as what it is, the foundation of all human knowledge, the ultimate criterion of truth and error (Deut. 18:18-19, 1 Cor. 14:37, Col. 2:2-4, 2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Pet. 1:19-21). So the apologetic argument, like all human inquiries into truth, must presuppose the truths of God’s Word.

Until the opponent to God's word can demonstrate he or she is not borrowing from the epitemological intellectual capital of the believer for declaring this or that to be "truth", no fruitful discussion is possible. Of course that cannot be done, for it is only the existence of a Truth-Maker that truth is possible.

The debate is a classic example of the basic bankruptcy of evidential apologetic tactics. Such debates quickly degenerate, as has this one, into minutia.

For an example of presuppositionalism at its best see:

http://www.bellevuechristian.org/fa...PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

Better to have started with the following:

1. Either there is truth or there is no truth.

2. Assume there is no truth.

3. Yet, if there is no truth, then either this statement is true or false.

4. Assume the statement is False.

5. The statement is that the statement is false, and the statement indeed is false. Therefore, the statement is true.

6. #4 has been shown to lead to a contradiction.

7. The statement is true.

8. A contradiction has been reached against #2.

9. Therefore, there must be truth.

10. If there is truth, then there must be a ground of Truth, and we call the Truth God.​

 

[pat34lee]

Sorry about the second post, but I'm not used to moderated threads. I thought the first had been deleted instead of just being unavailable until approval.

I hate typing long posts, so I'm going to refer to BlueLightningTN as just Blue when I need to use his name. No insult intended. And I think he is wrong about how many still believe the full account of creation, but numbers do not matter. Truth is not affected by belief or consensus.

I agree with 4 of the 5 original points he made, with the exception of #5. The bible is not only about God, but mankind's history. It is not pablum, to make us feel good, but the bitter truth; that we cannot help ourselves. We need God. He desires us to serve him, not for his benefit, but to fulfill our own needs.

The picture of the cosmology of the bible is a bad medeival interpretation of biblical text. Blue finds fault with how the author describes several things. I could blame it on poetic license or loose interpretation, but nothing in Genesis is that hard to understand. Just remember that it was not written in English, and that our translations are only approximate. Take any well-known book, such as Dickens' "Oliver Twist". Have one group translate it to German or French and another translate that back to English. Chances are the new English version will hardly be recognizable. This is why there are so many English bible versions today, notwithstanding that many words in the bible can only be guessed at, as the exact meaning is long lost.

Blue makes the classic mistake of most scholars, in suggesting that mythology of other cultures predates the God of the bible. For centuries after the flood, knowlege of Yahweh was taught directly by Seth until after Abraham's death. From Adam to Enoch to Noah to Seth to Abraham, there is an unbroken line needing only four teachers and centuries for each to learn. Writing would only become necessary as the lifespans shortened.

Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west? Does the moon give off light? That depends on your point of view, doesn't it? Of course, neither is a scientific description of what is happening, but they correctly describe what is seen. Yahweh set the stars in motion from the relative view of earth. No mystery, as that is where we are and what we see.

Enough for one night. As I said, I hate typing.

 

[Resha Caner]

The "debate" is taking the usual tactic that there is some sort of neutral ground between the believer and the non-believer, where none exists ...

This is very likely true.

Such debates also presume much knowledge of God that we simply don't possess.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Blue is doing a fantastic job. I am always intrigued by the traces of polytheism that appear in the Old Testament, and Blue has made a great presentation of them.

 

[charliehcf]

Blue is putting forth the strong, specific, positive debate. Pshun is not nearly so focused, often lacks specificity, often makes statements without support (the very nature of debate is the presentation of support for assertions, not the mere assertions).

I'm trying to remember the title of a book I read recently. The author made the case that Christians (mainline Christians) have always been about rationality, logic, and science. Witness the many colleges founded by the Church. The author goes on to point out that Atheism loves to argue with Fundamentalism, because Fundamentalism makes such irrational assertions. He points out that Atheism would have a far more challenging opponent in the mainline Church than in Fundamentalism.

And pshun seems to be coming from this long tradition of Christian rationality. He just fails to back up his assertions sometimes.

As a devout Christian, and critical thinker, I very much appreciate Blue's rigorous arguments. Perhaps it will turn out that it is not rational to believe that scripture is the inspired word of God. But here's the thing about Christianity, and the thing comes about because we posit a being outside of "everything". Call it a catch 22, or call it divine. Because our God exists outside of "everything", we have no ability to fathom His workings. Maybe in the end of the debate I'll conclude that it is not rational to believe that scripture is inspired by God. But I'm not God. I am utterly unable to judge God's workings. Reference the book of Job.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

More posts up!

 

[Achilles6129]

Since this thread is for comments on the debate, I will post my impressions so far:

I think that pshun2404 needs to interact with some of the things that his opponent is saying, because his opponent has leveled many accusations against theology. I say this because one of the common themes that I see when Christians debate antitheists (or atheists) is that they don't refute or interact with their opponents' criticisms of Scripture.

I would have to say my impression is that BlueLightningTN has the better of the debate so far

 

[Achilles6129]

As a devout Christian, and critical thinker, I very much appreciate Blue's rigorous arguments. Perhaps it will turn out that it is not rational to believe that scripture is the inspired word of God. But here's the thing about Christianity, and the thing comes about because we posit a being outside of "everything". Call it a catch 22, or call it divine. Because our God exists outside of "everything", we have no ability to fathom His workings. Maybe in the end of the debate I'll conclude that it is not rational to believe that scripture is inspired by God. But I'm not God. I am utterly unable to judge God's workings. Reference the book of Job.

Actually I think there are very easy answers to nearly everything BlueLightningTN has said; I just don't think that pshun is interacting with them. The reason why atheists usually trounce Fundamentalists in debates is not because the Bible is irrational but because Fundamentalists just don't know much about Biblical theology or because they just fail to challenge and interact with their opponents arguments.

Also, for pshun: I would consider maybe formatting your posts in a more readable fashion so they look more clear-cut and crisp. This will help people understand your points better.

 

[pat34lee]

From Blue's first post:

"El Shaddai" (meaning "El of the Mountain")

'Shad', or 'shadayim', does not mean mountain. It means breast.
'Har' or 'harar' means mountain.
'Sadu', which means mountain, is not Hebrew.
The Names & Attributes of God>: El Shaddai

Of course early cultures will have similar stories. These are only a few generations removed from Noah and the tower of Babel. The children and grandchildren of those who chose to reject Yah and go their way would have thought the stories handed down were myths and would have changed and embellished them as such.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another post is up: #10.

 

[charliehcf]

Blue is prevailing, and there is nothing really surprising here. Many a devout believer is shaken when they go to Bible college or seminary, and start analyzing the Bible, and start facing all the issues Blue has so skillfully articulated. What should the scholar do? Should he just ignore all these issues, and become a dishonest believer? I think most believers, who survive scholarship, find a better way.

I believe pshun will not to be able to muster a prevailing rational debate against Blue, not because of their debating skills, but because of the facts. But in the end, phsun's and my belief stem from our acceptance of certain axioms, without proof (that's what an axiom is). That's what we call Faith.

But this faith goes both ways. So what if phsun were to prevail in the debate? Would that make my faith stronger? No more so than Blue's victory would make my faith weaker.

So what if somebody goes out and proves that the Earth is 10,000 years old. Does that make my faith stronger? It ought not.

There's an endless pit if your faith is based on proof. So what if pshun proves that the Bible is the inspired word of God, and so what if somebody proves the young earth, what next? What if my faith is shaken because I prayed and my brother died anyway? It goes on and on. Faith can't work that way.

Faith is not certainty in the face of doubt, faith is action despite uncertainty. Indeed, without doubt there can be no faith - the two go hand-in-hand. Indeed, we Christians ought to celebrate doubt because without it there could be no faith.

I love science, and I love rational analysis, and I love faith.

The way to live an conflicted Christian life is the conflate Truth with Fact, as the fundamentalists and Atheists do. Truth and fact overlap, but are different. The Bible promises to be Truth. My library of textbooks promise to be Fact. The two live very happily together on my bookshelves.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Another new post just up!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

There are a couple more posts up.