Well, when I saw the thread title, I was actually a tad startled, thinking you might have just made a debate that would turn out badly, but when I saw the detail you put into your first post, I realized it should be a pretty good debate. Good job! I hope to help you make this debate even better, and sharpen your skills.
First of all, I'm very glad you pointed out that it is multiple books. I'm writing an article right now that talks about the multiple humans who wrote the books. I point out how it is important for Christians to remember the human authors, and how it is unjust for skeptical criticisms to treat it as only
one book when there are clearly many authors. My next response depends on the multiple human authors:
Regardless of whether or not you personally accept it, the Bible itself claims to be inspired of God, penned by man. It was not written by God, or Jesus, in the sense that God did not actually pen the words on the paper. It does, however, claim to be inspired by God.
To start, I believe that God is the divine author. In all fairness, however, the statement you quoted is something Peter wrote (though there is debate, I believe II Peter was written by Peter). Thus, unless you already know that God has given us the Bible, that statement doesn't prove that each biblical book claims to be from God. Though I believe the gospels
are from God, they don't make that claim for themselves. We need to be careful in how we build our case for inspiration (and for that I recommend
an excellent article by Daniel B. Wallace).
Just one great example of just how well this worked is
the book Isaiah. A complete copy that has been dated to 335-ish BC (1100 years older than the more common and widely used Leningrad Codex). Even though 1100 years of painfully slow hand copying separated this copy and the Leningrad codex, there are zero significant differences between the Dead Sea copy and the Leningrad copy. The only differences were minor grammatical and linguistic changes that would be expected to happen over the course of 1000+ years as language tends to change. While I can obviously understand the skepticism that many have, over the transmission of the Bible over thousands of years by flawed men, we have countless examples like this. They did an exceptionally good job of handing down their sacred scriptures, by hand from one generation to the next.
Mentioning that specific scroll, known as the St. Mark's Isaiah scroll (because it was purchased by the St. Mark's monastery in Jerusalem) is a very good idea. I would like to point out a few things here as well:
First, it would probably be best to point out that you probably shouldn't cite the earliest possible date for that scroll. It is likely from a bit later than the oldest possible date. Millar Burrows, in his book
The Dead Sea Scrolls (pages 118-119 & 89), dates it to probably before 100 B.C. (or possibly before 150 B.C.)
Additionally, I would point out that the earliest Isaiah scroll is not quite so close as you seemed to suggest:
“Many of the differences between the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text. It does not, however, prove that the latter is the original text of Isaiah.”
(Millar Burrows,
The Dead Sea Scrolls [1983 edition], page 303.
Since Burrows was part of the Revised Standard Version committee, he discusses some the readings that the RSV adopted from the oldest Isaiah scroll:
In Isaiah 60:19, the oldest scroll says “nor for brightness shall the moon give light to you by night.” (The last two words, "by night" were most likely omitted from the traditional text of the Old Testament.
In Isaiah 56:12, the oldest scroll has “let me get wine” instead of the traditional “let us get wine.”
“The only difference of which I am aware that could make a difference would be in Isaiah 52:14, of which Burrows writes:
In Isaiah 52:14, where the Masoretic text, translated literally, reads ‘marred more than a man was his appearance,’ the St. Mark’s scroll says—or seems to say—‘I have anointed more than a man his appearance.’ Barthélemy [of the French School of Archeology in Jerusalem] takes this strange statement to mean, ‘I have anointed him, so that his appearance surpasses that of a man.’”
(Pages 313-314)
This would provide additional support for the idea of a Messiah who is more than a mere human being, yet it would seem to contradict 53:2, which says "when we see Him, there is no beauty that we should desire Him." Yet Burrows points out that anointing someone's
appearance makes little sense. He also cites some scholars who believe it may be just an unusual form of the word "marred" as in the traditional text. He and I are both unconvinced by Barthélemy’s argument.
So, the differences, while slightly more than you suggested, are still not major. They help us in attempting to determine the original text, which is very similar in the vast majority of passages.
It's not peer-reviewed / subject to update.I can understand how a person who views the Bible as a simple "work of man" could reasonably raise the charge that because it's not peer reviewed or subject to update as new information and discoveries come about, it is not a legitimate source for debates today. If the Bible truly is just a collection of men's thoughts, then yes, it is absolutely outdated.
I think it
was peer-reviewed! (Obviously, I'm joking a bit, because peer-review is a precise term for a modern process.) This is why I disagree strongly with your last statement. Many of these people witnessed God acting in history. They didn't simply walk into a cave one day and get an unverifiable message from an unverifiable God. The witnesses to Jesus' resurrection saw things that happened in the real world. That can never be outdated, because it is a matter of history.
Much of what I said here and in the previous paragraph also apply to the criticism that the Bible is not verifiable. Using the criteria of historical scholarship, the Bible holds up exceedingly well. This is true as long as they don't assume supernatural things are impossible. Following such examples as C. S. Lewis, Princeton scholar Bruce Metzger offers this practical principle for examining reports of miraculous things in the Bible: “One should beware of being influenced by an outmoded rationalistic prejudice against the possibility of miracles” (
The Text of the New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content [2nd edition, 1983], page 134).
*I disagree with your thoughts on the Bible being testable. Yes, you can say that you prayed to God for something to happen and it happened, therefore God did it. However, what about people of other religions who have prayed to their various deities and found the same results? Is this proof that their beliefs are testable and that their gods are real? This also brings me to my next line of thought in this debate…
What makes the Bible so special? Why is it the religious text that should be accepted as a credible source for a debate? What about the Vedas, the Lotus Sutra, the Analects, Qur’an, or any other religious texts? In your opinion, are these just as relevant and credible as the Bible? Why or why not? The Qur’an is holy text of Islam, which believes in the same God that Christians and Jews believe in. Many of the others, the Vedas especially, predate the Bible (and even the Torah) by thousands of years. Why are these not as relevant?
I think you are correct about not testing the Bible by something like prayer. After all, I believe that people's feelings are not really the best guide to truth.
There are many differences between the Bible and the books considered sacred by other religions. Let's use Buddhism as an example: How does anyone know whether Buddha was enlightened? It wasn't something that could be witnessed. Muhammad claimed to be a prophet. How do we know? The answer I've gotten from several Muslims is that the Qur'an is the most beautiful book in the world. This could be debated in the same way that favorite Pokémon are debated. In short, one of the biggest differences is the way you don't have to just take the word of a holy book, you can find out by using historical methods, that people testified that Jesus, after being executed, was alive after that. This convinced even skeptics like Jesus' brother James. Thomas is remembered for doubting, but he couldn't deny what he saw. And Paul didn't
want to see a risen Jesus, but...Jesus wanted to be seen.
I wish I'd gotten a chance to post on the first page....
