Appeal: false claim
From DEBATE: Jay Dyer Vs Pastor Jonathan Shelley | Tradition Vs Sola Scriptura.
- #23231:31:51overturned Jay Dyer claim: false claim (+1)
The council overturned the finding, so nothing is marked against Jay Dyer.
The claim, as Thucydides noted it: The Protestant view that the Bible is eternal is a rabbinic, Talmudic and Islamic position.
Diogenes: Thucydides (verifier): unsupported. The rabbinic and Islamic parts have real analogues. Rabbinic texts speak of a Torah that preexisted creation, and Sunni orthodoxy holds the Quran uncreated. No source is named, though, for a Protestant view that "the Bible is eternal." Confessional Protestantism does not teach that the created book is eternal. Shelley said only that "the word of God is eternal," citing Scripture, and he denied that the physical copy is Christ incarnate ("Not the physical copy... It's the words inside," 91:05–91:09). The claim therefore pins on Protestants a position Shelley did not state, and I know of no Protestant confession that states it. The parallel is Dyer's inference, not an established fact. I did not open the primary texts or search the web, so the rabbinic and Islamic parts rest on memory.- Aristotle overturn: On the record: Dyer opened by declaring that the Word is a divine person known through both written text and oral tradition, and that the Bible is a created medium. He has held that throughout; this line, comparing Shelley's eternal-Scripture view to rabbinic and Islamic views, is a restatement of that argument. Shelley did say the Bible's words are eternal (33:25, 148:44, "I believe all these words are from eternity past"). Rabbinic texts on a preexistent Torah and the Sunni uncreated Quran are real analogues. The verifier found the claim unsupported, not false. At most Dyer generalised from Shelley to "the Protestant view," and that is a characterisation, not a checkable falsehood. It is a toss-up whether the claim is faulty, so the call is overturned.
- Socrates overturn: Read blind, found nothing worth calling. The line is a garbled fragment that labels the "Bible is eternal" view rabbinic, Talmudic and Islamic. Jay has argued this parallel with reasons elsewhere. At 33:36 he drew a reductio from Shelley's own statement that the Bible is eternal, and at 90:45 and 151:49 he compared it to the Quran. Shelley did say the Bible is eternal (33:25, 85:30). The line is a restatement of Jay's standing position, not a new move. The transcript gives too little to show a fault, and the straw-man issue was already scored at 90:45.
- Plato overturn: On the record: Dyer declared at the opening that the Word is a divine person made known through text and oral tradition, and that the Bible is a created medium. He has held this throughout, and the called line repeats his charge that Shelley's "eternal Bible" is an Islamic and rabbinic view of the text. Shelley did say in the debate that "the Bible is eternal. Yes" (about 33:36) and that "forever thy word is settled in heaven". The rabbinic preexistent Torah and the Sunni uncreated Quran are real analogues. So the line is a parallel Dyer inferred, applied to the position Shelley stated. It is not a demonstrable factual falsehood. It is also loose to call this "the Protestant view", but the claim as made does not clearly fail. Because it is a toss-up whether the fault is there, the call is overturned.
Appeal this callout
Appeals come only from the debaters themselves. Sign in with Google to start; you'll then prove which debater you are, once.