The Bible is the inerrant Word of God

First, I want to sincerely thank dj21 for a cordial debate. It has been a pleasure and an honor standing in defense of Biblical inerrancy, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I will also mix rebuttal with closing arguments (as Con did). | RE: “I believe both my assertions and even Pro’s rebuttals have shown | that the case for Biblical inerrancy requires lowering the standard of | 'inerrancy' to 'quite accurate'.” Did you notice the subconscious concession in that statement? Con is still hoping beyond hope that he will be allowed to change the definition of “inerrancy”—and that no one will notice or care. I’d like to remind Con and the audience that we agreed in the beginning to Con’s definition for “inerrancy”: | "Inerrant" is defined by Merriam-Webster as "free from error". | For our purposes, that means that there are no factual errors or | irreconcilable conflicts within the Bible. So according to Con (before the start of the debate), “inerrant” means “free from error”; and if the Bible is NOT “free from error”, it can be show to contain “factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts”. Con has now twice attempted (in the middle and at the end of the debate) to change that definition. First, Con wanted to expand the definition to include “transcription errors”: It must be noted that both of our sources agreed that of the approximately 24,000 manuscripts and partials, [1]"Most of the discrepancies are in spelling and word order. A few words have been changed or added. There are two passages that are disputed but no discrepancy is of any doctrinal significance (i.e., none would alter basic Christian doctrine). Most Bibles include the options as footnotes when there are discrepancies." If a transcription error could have been found that constituted a “factual error or irreconcilable conflict”, then Con might have a case. But of course, Con could not provide any such example. Moreover, inerrancy has NEVER meant letter-for-letter agreement across all manuscripts. Although, remarkably, of the 24,000 manuscripts from various regions and centuries of preservation, there is still 99.5% letter-for-letter agreement. Con later conceded his point: “I agree that transcription errors do not necessarily call into question the general truthfulness of the Bible…” …but then he picked-up the tactic to redefine “inerrant” again (in his closing rebuttal). Ultimately, this is not a case for ‘quite accurate’ as Con would have you (the audience) believe. This is a case of “no factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts”—the same definition I embraced from the start. Con is the one that has to “backpedal from his position”. Con has claimed that the Bible is NOT inerrant… Therefore, his initial assumed burden of proof is to identify “factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts”. Con has not met his burden of proof. First, he has not identified any “factual error”. Second, his claims of conflicting passages are presumptuous and, in some cases, bifurcations. In any case, they are easily reconciled… One doesn’t even need to be intimately familiar with the text to identify the problems with Con’s examples: | RE: “It seems within reason to expect an omnipotent God to guarantee 100% accuracy. | It is not beyond the power of an omnipotent God to ensure 100% accuracy, is it?” Con now wants to argue that because humans are involved and because words take on different connotations and spelling (for instance), over time, that the factual truth and internal consistency of the text is somehow called into question. He is making the claim in hopes it will plant a seed to question the Bible’s general accuracy, but he still provides no example of factual error or irreconcilable conflict. Why? Simple… There is no example to be found. As for the synoptic accounts vs John’s account, the simple explanation (as I stated before) is that they provide descriptions of the same (or similar events) from varying perspectives and even (in some cases) slightly different timeframes around those events. John’s gospel is structured thematically (similar to the way Moses recorded the creation account). John organizes the accounts with much less attention to detail (until the Passion week), and a greater focus on the deity of Jesus and the fulfillment of the old types and shadows in Jesus (as the substance). Again, if all four gospel accounts had provided the same perspective and structure, with exactly the same details, the cry would be “collusion”! There are simply no irreconcilable differences here… Con wants to present the different perspectives and different timeframes as if there were not multiple visitations to Jesus’ tomb (for instance). In one account the two Mary’s visited, in another account, Peter and John show up and see what they see. Again, we have different perspectives and different aspects of what is being communicated. Con goes on to quotes one scholar, saying, “…there are numerous points at which the gospels appear to disagree”. The key word here is “appear”… They “appear” to disagree on the surface, but after closer inspection, in fact, they do NOT disagree at all. Ultimately, Con has provided no examples of factual errors or irreconcilable conflicts. He knows this and therefore attempted to redefine “inerrancy” to include things like “typos” in the manuscripts—even though they can be corrected by comparing to other manuscripts. He also tried to use circular reasoning to convince the voters of “dubious science”—though he ultimately had to abandon that line of reasoning. Vote Pro. [1] http://www.godandscience.org...