Thank you, GeneralGrant, for this debate I am looking forward to it. Because this topic is important to me, this is going to get a bit lengthy.
Contention 1: Biblical DefectsMy contention in this debate will be the argument from Biblical defects formulated by Theodore Drange. [1] From this logically valid syllogism, we will see that the Bible is certainly NOT God’s word.
- If the God of of the Bible were to exist, then the Bible would be God’s only written revelation (a premise my opponent would certainly accept. The Qur’an and other scriptures are irrelevant to this argument).
- Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship.
- Some facts about the Bible are the following:
- It contradicts itself or is very unclear in many places;
- It contains factual errors, including unfulfilled prophecies;
- It contains interpolations (later insertions to the text);
- Different copies of the manuscripts say conflicting things;
- Therefore [from C], the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.
- Hence [from B & D], probably the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist (Thus negating the resolution that the Bible is God’s word).
I am going to begin with Premise C, the facts about the Bible. I won’t go through and prove all 7 facts as that would make this debate far too long and cumbersome for Pro, but rather I will point out some of the most significant issues within that list.
ContradictionsA contradiction is “a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.” If two statements are contradictory, then one or both statements in the Bible have to be false.
Contradiction 1: Where was Jacob Buried
Before being stoned by the Sanhedrian, Stephen gives a speech recorded in the Book of Acts (ch 7). This is not only a contradiction, but a factual error as well. This one is significant because Stephen was supposed to be “full of the holy spirit,” yet got a basic fact wrong.
For his sons carried him into the land of Canaan, and buried him [Jacob] in the cave of the field of Machpelah. Genesis 50:13
So Jacob went down into Egypt, and died, he, and our fathers, and were carried over into Shechem, and laid in the sepulchre. Acts 7:15-16
Either the Hebrew Bible is wrong of Stephen is wrong. It’s clear that Stephen is wrong because you can visit the site of Machpelah and find Jacob’s tomb there [2].
Contradiction 2 & 3 What day & time did Jesus die?
Was Jesus killed before or after the Passover sacrifice? Depends on which Gospel you read. Was Jesus crucified at the 3rd hour or at the 6th hour? Depends on which gospel you read. There is a significant theological impact here. John is portraying Jesus as the Passover lamb. In order to do this, John is having Jesus killed at the exact day and time that the Pascal lamb was sacrificed.
“It was nine in the morning when they crucified him..” (Mark 15:25)
12 On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
16 The disciples left, went into the city and found things just as Jesus had told them. So they prepared the Passover. (Mark 15:12-16)
“It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.” (John 19:14)
If you compare the events of the last supper, Matthew, Mark, and Luke all clearly state it was the Passover meal. Indeed, we see that Jesus ate the matzah, the cups of wine, and recited Hallel (the hymns that are sung at the Passover seder). John, on the other hand, leaves all of this out. Instead Jesus has an “evening meal” and washes the disciples feet, and eats leavened bread with his disciples. There’s no cups of wine, no hallel, and no "institution of the New Testament claim.”
InterpolationsAn interpolation is in addition to the original text. Immediately we run into an obvious problem, one cannot ‘add” to God’s word; thus if something was interpolated into the text, it cannot be God’s word. Let’s list two of these.
Ending of Mark
All scholars agree that the ending of Mark (16:9-20) is not original. We have numerous manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark and various endings of this gospel. Some manuscripts read:
"And they promptly reported all these instructions to Peter and his companions. And after that, Jesus Himself sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation.”
Christian apologist Matt Slick notes that there are some significant theological implications here [3]:
Some scholars have asserted that the ending is in a different style than the rest of the gospel and that it contains 16-22 "non-marcan" words used in a "non-marcan" sense. It seems to suggest that Jesus appeared in a different form (v. 12)
which could be problematic since Jesus rose in the same body He died in (John 2:19-21). Also,
Mark 16:16 can be interpreted to mean that baptism is part of salvation. It isn't, as is testified by verses that teach justification by faith Rom. 5:1; 6:23; Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). Whichever the case,
the dispute is not settled and may never be.
I am not here trying to undermine the authority of God's word nor state that Mark 16:9-20 is not authentic. But,
the fact remains that these 12 verses are under dispute and it is necessary to spotlight this issue when dealing with the historic reliability and inspiration of the New Testament manuscriptsThe Adulterous Woman
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” It is one of the most loved stories in the New Testament, but sadly it did not happen and is not original. The Christian Apologetics site Got Questions notes [4]:
The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53—8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement.
Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53).
Conflicting Manuscripts It is estimated that there are 400,000 textual variations [5] within the New Testament. To put that into perspective, there are more variations than there are words. While most of them are insignificant and some can’t even be translated into English, there are a few variations that matter a lot such as the ones above.
Contention 2: Forgeries in the Bible As the story of Jesus evolved, details were added and changed. There’s a huge body of apocryphal literature that shows how wildly different these teachings were. In the Gospel of Peter, there is a vivid account of the resurrection:
“When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes.” [6]
Clearly forgeries were being made in the name of various disciples and apostles. Whoever made these forgeries to make a theological point. There are strong reasons to believe that various forgeries were included in the New Testament. For one, many stories were added that were not original (as I already proved; second, the supposed writers of New Testament books simply could not have done so. Lets’s prove this.
JohnActs states that John was illiterate (Acts 4:13) yet both books ascribed to them are composed in a highly skilled form of Greek. It’s interesting that Aramaic speaking Jews would write in complex Greek. On John 3:16, Ehrman notes in his book
Misquoting Jesus [7]:
Since Jesus was a Jew who lived in first century Palestine, any tradition about him has to fit in his own his- Liar, Lunatic, or Lord? Finding the Historical Jesus context to be plausible. Lots of our later Gospels—written in the third or fourth century, in other parts of the world—say things about Jesus that do not make sense in his own context. These things can be eliminated as historically implausible. But there are implausibilities even in our four canonical Gospels. In the Gospel of John, chapter 3, Jesus has a famous conversation with Nicodemus in which he says, “You must be born again.” The Greek word translated “again” actually has two meanings: it can mean not only “a second time” but also “from above.” Whenever it is used elsewhere in John, it means “from above” (John 19:11, 23). That is what Jesus appears to mean in John 3 when he speaks with Nicodemus: a person must be born from above in order to have eternal life in heaven above. Nicodemus misunderstands, though, and thinks Jesus intends the other meaning of the word, that he has to be born a second time. “How can I crawl back into my mother’s womb?” he asks, out of some frustration. Jesus corrects him: he is not talking about a second physical birth, but a heavenly birth, from above.This conversation with Nicodemus is predicated on the circumstance that a certain Greek word has two meanings (a double entendre). Absent the double entendre, the conversation makes little sense. The problem is this: Jesus and this Jewish leader in Jerusalem would not have been speaking Greek, but Aramaic. But the Aramaic word for “from above” does not also mean “second time.” This is a double entendre that works only in Greek. So it looks as though this conversation could not have happened—at least not as it is described in the Gospel of JohnThus we are reasonable to conclude that John did not write the Gospel of John. Peter also has some significant issues.
ConclusionThe debate asks us whether or not the Bible is God’s word. From the criteria set forth, the answer is clearly no. Even Christian apologist admit that the Bible has dubious passages that are not original to the text. Further, there are contradictions that have significant theological implications.
Sources1.
https://infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/confusion.html 2.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/tomb-of-the-patriarchs-ma-arat-hamachpelah 3.
https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/ending-mark-really-scripture 4.
https://www.gotquestions.org/John-7-53-8-11.html5.
https://ehrmanblog.org/who-cares-do-the-variants-in-the-manuscripts-matter-for-anything/ 6.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter 7. Ehrman, B.
Misquoting Jesus p. 154-155
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: swetepete540 // Mod action: Removed
>Points Awarded: 6 points to Pro for arguments, sources, and conduct
>Reason for Decision: The Bible did come from the lord God
>Reason for Mod Action: The voter does not justify any of the points they award in any clear manner, and it appears they are voting based on a pre-judgement of the topic. Per the site's voting policy: A vote bomb is a vote "cast based on a prejudgment of or prior opinion on the topic. Vote bombs that are reported will be removed." The user can find the site's voting policies at this link: https://www.debateart.com/rules
************************************************************************