The Instigator
mightbenihilism
Pro (for)
Winning
8 Points
The Contender
ThirdCaliber
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Bigfoot is in the Bible!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
mightbenihilism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/8/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,088 times Debate No: 62902
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (2)

 

mightbenihilism

Pro

Bigfoot is a Biblical fact. If you believe in the Bible, you must admit that Bigfoot existed in the past, at the very least, and you cannot rule out that Bigfoot does not exist presently.

If you do not believe at least in the Old Testament (Tanakh), please do not enter this debate.

Note: Bigfoot also means Yeti, Sasquatch, the Abominable Snow-man, the Skunk ape, and the Alma.
ThirdCaliber

Con

Before starting round 1 off, I would like to say that I am a full believer in the whole Bible and in God. Next, I would like to say that your argument is invalid. The only "evidence from the Bible that Bigfoot exists" is Esau's descendants. Apparently, some people, including you, think that Esau's great grandchildren are wandering around in the woods. How is that even logical. If Bigfoot is only human, then they would have already captured him and interrogated him. I have no doubt that if your argument is valid, then a whole lot more of us would be considered a Yeti. Not just one or two guys out in the woods that have never even been proven to be actually seen. I'm not sure how old you are, but if you are at least sixteen or so, you would know that your arms and legs start to get covered in hair (due to puberty). Not because we have caught Sasquatch disease "like Esau." Plus you said that, "you cannot rule out that Bigfoot does not exist presently." In the Bible, there is no evidence in the Bible that anyone lived further than age 969 (Methuselah). Therefore how could you even know that he is still around. It has been at least 3000 years since the time of Esau. How would he "still be around." You are using the Bible as your source, and then contradicting it. Your argument is invalid and does not even make sense, and if you are not referring to Esau, then please tell me who because I know for sure that Bigfoot is not a "Biblical fact" as you consider him to be.
Debate Round No. 1
mightbenihilism

Pro

As will be seen, the Con has misunderestimated my argument, and Esau is not relevant.

The argument:

We know that the Bible says there were "giants".

Most accounts depict adult Bigfoots as larger than the average human and can be classified as "giants".

Some of the names for the true giants in the Bible were "Emims" and "Zuzims".

"Emim" in Hebrew means "terrible ones". (Strong's Concordance 368)

"Zuzim" means "roving creatures" (Strong's Concordance 2104). It derives from the root word "Ziyz" (2123) which also means "a full breast" (ref. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, by Wilhelm Gesenius). One should watch the Patterson Bigfoot film more insight into this last aspect. It is available on youtube.

The Gods of the heathen are devils, and a Hebrew word for devil is "sa'iyr" which means "hairy ones" (8163 ). (Leviticus 17:7) The Bible shows that these hairy ones were the offspring of the Sons of God (angels) and the daughters of men (Genesis 6:4) and were revered by men.

From this we can conclude that the giants were terrible, roving, large-breasted and potentially hairy, in addition to being large in stature. All of this describes Big Foot, which in Chinese is called the Ye-ren (wild-man). How could my opponent argue this? I will describe it according to classical Aristotelian syllogism:

1. Giants are in the Bible, are hairy, are a' roving, are big and, therefore, are not dainty of foot.
2. Bigoot is hairy, is a' roving, is not dainty of foot.
3. Ergo, Bigfoot is in the Bible.

This also clearly reveals that Bigfoot are the offspring of angels and earth-women. This explains why we have not been able to discover a full skeleton, for it is probable that when a Bigfoot dies its body is taken by the (bad) angels. We know angels have a tendency to want bodies due to the tesimony of Jude 1:9

"Yet Michael the archangel, when he was disputing with the Devil in a debate about Moses' body, did not dare bring an abusive condemnation against him but said, 'The Lord rebuke you!'" This is an example of two angels (one good, one bad) fighting over Moses's body, to see who could get it.

However, my opponent will note that there are no Biblical verses indicating that angels are concerned with foot-prints, hair-samples, and other leavings of the Bigfoot (which, out of decency, I shan't mention). It is only the body of the abdominal Sasquatchalo that the angels would argue over.

True, we do have some modern giants walking among us like Shaquille O'Neale from the video game "Shaq Fu", Nikolay Valuev the Soviet boxer, and Christian Bale --- however, none of these are hairy enough to qualify as a true "Bigfoot". They are simply large men.

Concluding Postscript:

NOTE: I did not say ALL angel babies were hairy monsters. However, SOME clearly were. There could indeed be a hairless variety, though it is unlikely that such could live in the wild very long due to poisonous critters biting it to death (Bigfoot hair is a protectorate against poisonous critter bitings().
ThirdCaliber

Con

I would like to begin by pointing out some serious flaws my opponent has made. He stated that, "The Gods of the heathen are devils." This statement is far from correct. To be heathen, means to not belong to any religion, such as an atheist. If they don't have a religion, they have no God. Therefore, the Gods of the heathen are not devils, their Gods are nonexistent. Also, my opponent said that the Sons of God were angels and their offspring were "Bigfoot." The Bible does NOT say who the Sons of God were, nor do they say who the Nephilim(offspring) were. If the Bible does not say who they were, how can he make such a huge assumption with out proof. This is what he is assuming: Nonexistent God children had offspring with human daughters and produced hairy men that wander around in the woods with "poisonous critters." If that doesn't sound ridiculous enough, he goes on to say why he believes that we don't find their skeletons. He references a passage in the Bible where the archangel Michael is arguing with the devil about what will happen to the body of Moses. Moses is not an angel nor a child of an angel("Bigfoot"). I do not understand how this point helps his argument at all. They were fighting over 1 HUMAN in the whole Bible, and that suddenly means that they are going to take every "Bigfoot Skeleton" off the face of the Earth every time one dies. NO! That is incorrect. What would be the purpose in that? Also, my opponent brings into play the "evidence" left behind by Bigfoot. NONE of this "evidence" has ever been proven to be anything other than fake.

One of my opponent's last points implied that as long as you are large(a giant) and you are "hairy enough," then you can be considered a Bigfoot and your Grandpa is a heathen devil God. That point really killed his argument. Bringing back my point of time, these "Bigfoot" you created in your head would have died out long ago. If they were "produced" back in Genesis, they would have had to have lived for around 5,000 years for people to "have sightings" of them today. Nothing can live that long on Earth. Even God grew up. If his plan was not to die on the cross, I would imagine he would grow old and die like the rest of us. Earth puts us and "Bigfoot" in a state of immortality.

The last point I would like to bring up is when the first sighting of "Bigfoot" occurred. If you look it up on the internet, you will find the first person to "see Bigfoot" (excluding native American legends) was a white man in Canada in 1811. If Bigfoot has been around since Bible times, then you would think that someone would have caught a glance of him before 1811.

If only a tiny sliver of the Bible points to some people that most likely had nothing in common with large hairy demon grandchildren, how believable does that make it. My opponent sounds like he knows what he is talking about, but careful analysis will lead you to think otherwise.

Postscript - In his Postscript, bitings isn't even a word...
Debate Round No. 2
mightbenihilism

Pro

A numbered refutation

1. Con writes, "To be heathen, means to not belong to any religion, such as an atheist."

Webster's dictionary: "an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible " "of or relating to heathens, their religions, or their customs". Con does not know what "heathen" means. He should concede this point in his closing remarks.

2. Con writes, "The Bible does NOT say who the Sons of God were, nor do they say who the Nephilim(offspring) were."

I don't know if the Con is saying the Sons of God *weren't* angels, but that is is shown by the 1st chapter of Job that "sons of God" refers to angels. The Bible does not give a dictionary-style definition of Nephilim, but the Bible makes clear that Nephilim and their offspring were large: "And there we saw the giants (Nephilim) the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33) The Con cannot dispute this. He should concede this point in his closing remarks.

3. Con writes, "They were fighting over 1 HUMAN in the whole Bible, and that suddenly means that they are going to take every 'Bigfoot Skeleton' off the face of the Earth every time one dies."

It is supporting evidence that angels have a fascination with stealing dead bodies. They are therefore suspect #1 in the disappearance of Bigfoot skeletons. If, for instance, someone in your neighborhood is known for dressing up neighborhood dogs as butterflies, and you find, to your astonishment, that someone has dressed your beloved poodle-doodle as a stately Monarch butterfly, then who are you going to suspect first? Obama? I don't think so. You're going to go the butterfly-dog-dresser fellow.

I agree, however, that this is the weakest point I brought up. We can strike it from the evidence locker.

4. Con writes, "One of my opponent's last points implied that as long as you are large(a giant) and you are 'hairy enough,' then you can be considered a Bigfoot and your Grandpa is a heathen devil God."

The problem with this is that we do not have scientific classification for the species of Bigfoot, so we must go by their appearance and general characteristics to be able to call them Bigfoot. I argue that if they are:

a. Hairy (like a shaggy dog, not like a Bulgarian)
b. Smelly
c. Big
d. Have big foots

Then they qualify under the common English word "Bigfoot." The Con will not be able to dispute this. He should concede this point in his closing remarks.

5. Con writes, "If they were 'produced' back in Genesis, they would have had to have lived for around 5,000 years for people to 'have sightings' of them today."

The Bible makes clear that Nephilim (who I accuse of Bigfootery) can:

a. Have sex
b. Make babies

Proof text: "And there we saw the giants (Nephilim) the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." (Numbers 13:33)

Anak was not an angel, he had a father named "Arba": "And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the LORD to Joshua, even the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron." (Joshua 15:13)

This demonstrates that:

a. Arba had sex and begat Anak (wives or girlfriends aren't commonly mentioned in Biblical genealogies, so no implication of Arba actually carrying the Anak child in his womb for 9 months is implied here)
b. Anak had sex and begat the sons of Anak

This proves that the Con either does not know how sex works, or his argument is flawed. He should concede this point in his closing remarks.

6. The Con writes, "the last point I would like to bring up is when the first sighting of 'Bigfoot' occurred. If you look it up on the internet, you will find the first person to 'see Bigfoot' (excluding native American legends) was a white man in Canada in 1811. If Bigfoot has been around since Bible times, then you would think that someone would have caught a glance of him before 1811."

If the Con is correct in this, then the words "Sasquatch", "Yeti", "Alma", etc. were developed after 1811, as I clearly indicated that these were to be taken as synonymous terms in my opening statement. The Con either:

a. Believes both Native American and Himalayan culture developed their ideas of Bigfoot from a white Canadian in 1811.
b. Didn't read what I wrote.
c. Lacked the mental clarity and intelligence to comprehend the words I wrote
d. Is dishonestly and ineffictively narrowing the term "Bigfoot" down to his own private definitions.

None of these options support the Con as having mounted an effective argument. Let me say, there ARE good arguments against this, but Con isn't bringing them.

The problem with option A is that what the Con would need to do is define every hairy hominid that is described in their myths or culture as "not Bigfoot". Of course, if it is hairy, hominoid, is large (and, by implication, possessing of large feetsy-deetsies), then it falls under the heading "Bigfoot", for lack of a more precise classification.

Conclusion:

It is clear that Bible-believing Churches should add the existence of Bigfoot to their Creedal statements, and gather together teams to track down and hand the Bigfoot Satan monsters over to the CIA, rightly ridding the earth of their abominable presence.

Thank you, Con, for your debate but you could have done a bit better.
ThirdCaliber

Con

ThirdCaliber forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
I think there's a small possibility that an unknown ape exists out in the wild that people claimed to be "Dr. Bigfoot", but I don't think it's the result of angels and earth-women.

My uncles theory though was hard for me to refute. :(
Posted by ThirdCaliber 2 years ago
ThirdCaliber
Wait, so do you actually believe in Bigfoot or are you just relaying you uncles information?
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
lol no I was totally joking. I got my Biblical evidence for Bigfoot from a weird Uncle (now deceased).

Peppery spray wouldn't work on Bigfoot, anyway. The beast is much too hardy.
Posted by ThirdCaliber 2 years ago
ThirdCaliber
So this was not just some debate to you? You were trying to in a sense "prove your faith"? :O
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
People think because I have a pug in a tuxedo avatar that I'm some push-over softy. Not the case. Bigfoot is real. He's out there. Be sure to have some pepper spray on you if you're out in the woods.
Posted by ThirdCaliber 2 years ago
ThirdCaliber
This turned into a lot more serious of a debate than I thought it would be. You made excellent arguments and citations. You deserve to win! :D I'll do better on my next debate though. And don't worry, I'll stay away form Bigfoot if I find him. ;)
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
It;s cool, Thirdcaliber. I had a fun debate. Just do not go near bigfoot if you see him the forest. Even if it is a small bigfoot, they are dangerous beasts.
Posted by ThirdCaliber 2 years ago
ThirdCaliber
Sorry guys I'm sorry I could nor post my debate for round 3 I did not have enough time due to school and homework. My apologies. Thank you for the debate though!
Posted by Atmas 2 years ago
Atmas
Technically the new testament is the foundation of Christianity, since you must first have Christ before you can have Christianity. Just pointing that out.
Posted by mightbenihilism 2 years ago
mightbenihilism
uh. . . round one is for acceptance of the debate. Rookie mistake. Sowry. :(
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
mightbenihilismThirdCaliberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff, con dropped most of pro's points
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
mightbenihilismThirdCaliberTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for the forfeit. As to arguments, Pro presented a pretty compelling case. Con responded to his points in R2, but when Pro counter-rebutted, Con chose not to respond, which rather seems to drop all of Pro's points and therefore give the win to Pro. I did find this debate rather amusing, at least in part for Pro's writing style. As always, I'm happy to clarify this RFD.