CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
The Bible has Errors
The resolution 'The Bible has Errors' is presented as a statement. If you agree that the Bible has errors, you will take the Pro position. If you disagree, and think the Bible has no errors, you will take the Con position.
I will prove that the Bible has errors unequivocally, by pointing out a single example of error:
2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign.
The Bible states that Ahazia was 22 years old when he began his reign, and that he was 42 years old when he began his reign. Obviously, Ahazia couldn't be two ages at the same time.
Now, this is most likely a simple scribal error in writing a new copy of the Bible, but a single error keeps the Bible from being error-free.
Where exactly did you read that from? Checking in the Bibles I have, both say twenty two years old.. Don't take it off the internet, read it out of a Bible, and a proper Bible, at that.
That particular error is found in the King James version, but other errors permeate into different versions.
NIV Genesis 11:1 Now the whole world had one language.
NIV Genesis 10:20 These are the sons of Ham by their clans and languages, in their territories and nations
There cannot be one language and multiple languages at the same time. This discrepancy permeates every English version of the bible.
NAS 2 Chronicles 8:18
And Huram by his servants sent him ships and servants who knew the sea; and they went with Solomon's servants to Ophir, and took from there four hundred and fifty talents of gold and brought them to King Solomon.
NAS 1 Kings 9:28
They went to Ophir and took four hundred and twenty talents of gold from there, and brought it to King Solomon.
This number error permeates all standard English versions of the Bible as well.
Of course it has errors. It has been reprinted and revised over the years so many times, that I personally believe that most of it has been skewed by the church to suit their purpose.
As a Christian, I would say there aren't any. Others can dispute this, but what I know is that people wrote the Bible while under the influence of the Holy Spirit (AKA, God). Considering God is perfect, that means that what He wrote, is what happened. Also, considering God is there at every point in time, He knows exactly what happened. Scholars have studied the Bible, a lot, and they cannot find errors in it, other than the fact that some of them think there is no God.
Whether or not there are any doctrinal errors is more of a dispute, but as far as scribal errors go, there are a few. I'm not saying the Bible isn't inspired, I'm just saying that it does have errors.
"I know is that people wrote the Bible while under the influence of the Holy Spirit (AKA, God)"
How? And you better not say because it says so in the Bible.
"Scholars have studied the Bible, a lot, and they cannot find errors in it, other than the fact that some of them think there is no God."
Maybe scholars from Answers in Genesis, but there are many, many, many errors in the Bible, even in the story of the Crucifixion, something that you would think would be the most important part of the whole thing.
(This is when I wish there was a "central" position!)
Before one can give adequate thought to this "resolution", we must first be informed of the codicological history of these "errors". Is it that the errors are found only in translation? Perhaps the Vulgate contained mistranslations (for few Mediæval-æra writers were very well versed in Latin) over the hundreds of years that it was being copied? Going back even earlier, what we have of an "original" papyrus Greek Bible is itself not that as it was originally writ, but copied most likely from copies, and that most likely itself a copy of a copy, going on for "generations" of texts. The older the work, the more generations of the texts have existed, and the more likely for the occasional misprint or mistranslation to appear. For instance, with the Old Norse story of Heiðrek, we have three similar versions, each descended from an original MS, but with obvious differences.
Or is it that the original Greek and Hebrew had fewer, if any, errors, but a thousand years of misprints and, when it came to translating into Latin and English, mistranslations, we have what we view in English as having been errors? I may concede that there are mistakes in the real Bible only once my Hebrew is good enough for me to read it myself and see the mistake, and know that it really is a mistake, not some sort of metaphor or trope. But that shall not be for quite some time, for the Afro-Asiatic tongues are far down my list to study, and Hebrew shall not be learned by me at least until I'm already versed in Babylonian, Arabic, and Middle Egyptian.
There are errors in the oldest manuscripts we have as well. In the Greek, the price paid for the field is different. In the Hebrew, we have scriptures which say Elohim can't be seen and Elohim has been seen.
3.) Even with "proof", I would not believe it (just as I don't believe anything) till I've read it and comprehended it myself.
So, I request from you a verse which states that "Elohim can't be seen" in both English and Hebrew (and, if you can, Latin) as well as a verse which states that "Elohim has been seen", once again in English, Hebrew, and, if possible, Latin. I'm not too familiar with the Afro-Asiatic family, but hopefully I can call on my knowledges of Arabic, Egyptian, Akkadian, Babylonian, and Hebrew (my weakest of them all) to decipher the meaning.
Also, I would like textual information. Tell me (with evidence) the earliest date to which each of those two verses can be confirmed to have been written. As well, are there any variations amongst different MSs and papyri? I don't expect you, JaxsonRaine, to be able to provide me with anything I want in this regard; indeed, I'd be truly shocked if anybody who uses this website could do so. However, to anybody who shall ever read this: take this as a challenge. I've been studying stuff like this for years, though never bothering with Biblical history; I want to be convinced that thereis a discrepancy.
1 - Firstly, I apologize. It is not Elohim, but Yahweh which the Old Testament states can't be seen, and has been seen, not Elohim.
2 - Exodus 33:20 "And he[the LORD] said , Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live .
1 Kings 22:19 "And he said , Hear thou therefore the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left."
These verses are from the KJV. In both cases, LORD is translated from Yahweh[1] and see/saw is translated from Ra'ah[2].
The latin is not needed, as the latin was translated from Hebrew, and the English was translated from the Hebrew.
You can research yourself the origins of different translations. KJV has roots in the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg, as well as the LXX.
This really doesn't matter, as this message is common across all translations. The earliest fragments of the Bible are found in the Dead Sea Scrolls from the 2nd century BC. We also have Greek manuscripts of most of the Hebrew Bible from the 1st century BC. If you want to learn more about early versions, I could suggest you start with these references(7-10):
I applaud your efforts; I do not believe anybody has ever worked so hard to assuage my demanding ways. I guess now I must live up to my end of the social contract and actually look into this (I wasn't expecting to, but am glad now that I am). ;)
First, I'll address your statement that "latin is not needed". I'll agree that, to get right down to the source, Latin is irrelevant. However, I requested it because my knowledge of Latin is great whereas my knowledge of Hebrew is almost nil. No matter, though; I can find it on my own if there becomes any need. I had thought that you would have realized, if only based on the level of arrogance which I am sure you perceived in my previous post, that I am not in need of any sort of lesson on these topics.
When it comes to the Exodus 33:20 vs. 1 Kings 22:19 "discrepancy", all that I can say is that, from the looks of things, Micaiah is stating in 1 Kings that he saw the Lord in a vision, and he does not state that he has seen the face of the Lord. Likewise, did not Moses never look upon the Lord's face, but rather into the burning bush? Exodus 33:23 states: ""Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen.”"
This debate has actually begun to arouse within me an interest; perhaps I shall look into some other [modern] sources, if I've ever the time. However, skimming the first wikipedia site to which you linked, I cannot help but laugh at parts. First of all, I hate the usage of "CE" and "BCE" anywhere, but all the more so when I am reading about a religious topic. Such is amongst the foulest intermeddlings of political correctness! Then when they state that the book of Corinthians was writ in "57 CE [citation needed]" also seems laughable to me.
Your second "wiki-source", if you will, offers me less interest. A link from that source to 1Qls^a states that [p]ieces of the Isaiah Scroll have been carbon-14 dated at least four times, giving calibrated date ranges between 335-324 BC and 202-107 BC; here have also been numerous paleographic and scribal dating studies placing the scroll around 150-100 BC. That's a 230 year discrepancy in the "scientific" practice of carbon dating, and potentially an even bigger discrepancy if the paleographer's word is veritable. As I mentioned before, my area of expertise (at least in codicology) is in the Old Norse language and MSs, but such a discrepancy hardly surprises me.
To answer directly your last statement, The discrepancy is clear, No man can see Yahweh and live, yet many people saw Yahweh in the Old Testament, and lived, my response is a repeat of what I stated earlier: show me one verse which states that a man saw the face of God, something which cannot be done lest one shall die.
I appreciate the discussion. My knowledge of Latin is nil, and my knowledge of Hebrew is close :)
The problem is, the scripture doesn't say 'No man can see my face', but that 'No man can see me'. Just as the NT says 'No man can see God and live'. There are several verses where people saw Yahweh, and others where people saw God Elohim. It's an interesting topic, but I consider the Bible to be slightly corrupted by man, both accidentally and purposefully.
I agree about Wikipedia. I only use it when I need to get a list of sources quickly. I used to have tons of material on these subjects, but now I just have to go off of memory.
I disagree about it the Bible has no errors in it. If you heard about the Dead Sea Scrolls when the found it they compared it to the KJV of the Bible which in the Dead Sea Scrolls there was the book of Isaiah and other books and it was word for word on the KJV and the Dead Sea Scrolls so its acurrate.
