Liberal Theology (Pro) Vs. Fundamentalist Theology (Con)

Nothing should change with the debate structure though, I just mistakenly typed that there would be five rounds earlier when the debate was actually set or four. Argument #1: It's difficult to tell if the Bible actually is literally the word of God. Therefore, the Bible is not truly "divinely inspired"[1]When it came to the compilation of theh Bible by the Council of Nicea, it appears that it was strewn together by human means. Even the answer given to how the Bible was created is said to have, admittedly, been decided upon by human beings. "Determining the canon was a process conducted first by Jewish rabbis and scholars and later by early Christians. "[1]Furthermore, even the greatest theologians must admit that each of the books within the Bible today, and each of the books which existed within the Bible at one time in the past (i. e. the Biblical Apocrypha). To go off on a tangeant for a moment, it would behoove me to point out here that some books of the Bible have been removed or kept for various reasons of varying decisions. In fact, the Roman Catholic version of the Bible is much different from the Protestant Bible for this reason, and the Eastern Orthodox Bible is much different than the Protestant Bible. In 2 Peter 3:16, it is said that Paul's writings are "hard to understand" and that it is the same "in all of his letters. " If this is the case, then the Pauline Epistles themselves must be "hard to understand" as it is said here. Surely if the Bible were the Infallible Word of God, it would be perfect and understandible enough for anyone to read and interpret accurately, for "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33). There are also many, many branches and denominations of Christianity - so, surely if the Bible were God's Word, and God is not the author of confusion, then these denominations of Christianity would not exist, for there would be no question as to what the Bible says - and yet, the Bible is stuffed to the brim with semantics controversies and debates from beginning to end. Argument #2: Scientific and historical evidence may confirm some elements of the Bible, but it also refutes many others as well. While it is true that there are some things in the Bible which have been confirmed by scientists and historians, there are also some things which have been in direct conflict with these scientists and historians. The subject of evolution is an ever-prevalent notion being passed around today, with an increasing number of evidences to prove it. Another conflict with the Biblical history is this latest challenge to it's authority by historians:"Last week, archaeologists Erez Ben-Yosef and Lidar Sapir-Hen of Tel Aviv University released a new study that dates the arrival of the domesticated camel in the eastern Mediterranean region to the 10th century B. C. at the earliest, based on radioactive-carbon techniques. Abraham and the patriarchs, however, lived at least six centuries before then. The New York Times, in a story about the finding today, announced, “There are too many camels in the Bible, out of time and out of place … these anachronisms are telling evidence that the Bible was written or edited long after the events it narrates and is not always reliable as verifiable history. ” "[2]Another recent challenge to a literal interpretation of the Bible was the creationism vs. evolution debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham, where 92 perccent of voters on an Evangelical Christian website believed that Bill Nye had won:"Ninety-two percent of the more than 37,000 voters taking a poll on the evangelical website Christian Today said Nye won. Certainly, as has been noted, the self-selecting poll could have been invaded by evolutionists. But if this was not the case, the poll results suggest a few possible interpretations: 1) Self-identifying Christians don’t agree with Ham, 2) Christians believe Nye performed better, even if they disagreed with his points, 3) a mixture of the above. "[3] Argument #3: The Bible seems to be "Errant" - that is to say, it appears to have some contradictions, and as such appears to be anything but "infallible", as it is commonly said that it is "the Infallible Word of God. "Another issue with the Bible is that it appears to have clear contradictions in it - taking Exodus 31:18 and Malachi 4:4, for example, where it seems to be saying that Moses had obtained the 10 Commandments from both Mount Sinai and Mount Horeb. A detailed chart revealing many different contradictions which are apparent in the Bible can be seen in the link provided below, albeit I will digress that there are some of them which can be explained for by some Theological understanding of the said passages. . http://bibviz.com...Clearly, if there are contradictions like these in the Bible, then the Bible must have been written by imperfect human beings and is thusly imperfect itself, much less the literal Word of God. Sources: [1] . http://www.gotquestions.org...[2] There Were No Camels During Time of Biblical Patriarchs, Study Says | TIME. com . http://world.time.com...[3] . http://www.salon.com...