The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Contradictions 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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,930 times Debate No: 30863
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (1)




This is a formal debate. First round is for setting up initial beliefs. Here are the rules.
1. We are debating only the Christian Bible. No cross referencing with other religions.
2. No straying from topic.
3. Obey all rules. No writing on the walls, for it is very hard to get writing off the wall.

Other than that it is simple.


Welcome to "Contradictions in the bible", both secular common sense and Christianity sources tell us there are many".in fact, there are almost countless number of contradictions between the many published and republished bibles, almost countless discrepancies in interpretations between liberal and conservative (fundamental) believers. So let"s list some of them that we will be discussed in greater detail as we go.
Rabbits do not chew their cud".bible says they do.
Spiders and insects do not have four legs" bible says insects and spiders do.
The world is not flat".bible says it is.
The world is not fixed" bible says it is.
The world is not the center of the universe". bible says it is, or at least time period popular doctrine does, I think the Church finally conceded this just last year, remind me to check. : )
The world first day was not created on the second day"the bible says it did.
The bible is not a book of love or tolerance despite claims that it is..."the bible says nothing says love like a corpse of a non-believer.
Satan did not know the world was not flat".never went to school I guess.
Jesus did not know the world was not flat so god did not know either".didn"t go to school.
God doesn"t know the world isn"t flat"..must have burned his school down and ate it?

Common sense tells us these beliefs are invalid, irrational and that this so called NON-contradictory bible knowledge is false. My opponent does not believe in many of these things, his god of the bible does however. The contradiction between the believer and his god exists if for no greater reason than that the bible insults the intelligence of the believer and non-believer alike.

Contradictions in text"
There are 38000 conflicting Christian denominations"nothing says contradictions like two Christians from separate neighborhoods/Church"s let alone the remaining 37999 denominations and their many bibles.
Eight different conflicting modern bibles have been (re)written" Contradictions in Jesus, his divinity or lack thereof, contradictions in Satan"s name, God"s name, again I state that there is contradictions in every storyline that is portrayed in the bible, all of them.
Creation contradictions"we will be visiting skeptics bible, thinking atheists .com, infidels .com have an abundance of listed contradictions that we will explore together starting next round".along with Story line contradictions. There source (?), the Christian bible!
God sacrifices himself, his son, Gabriel, Jesus Christ"..which is it?
God creates man to fail and dams him for acting out as man was designed"this is like damning a dark tunnel that you just dug for not having skylights.
Freewill, bible states what is freewill".and then fails when describing what it calls freewill. Example, freewill is having countless choices and no restrictions"well except for this one or that one".and by the way, I created you to fail just for this purpose so you cannot win.
Historical contradictions, cities that never where, multitudes that never were, laws that never were"and many more. Examples>
Nazareth never existed".
Bethlehem was a village during the time of mythical Jesus"
Judaism was NOT a monotheistic religion originally"
God was not God but rather god"s"
The Satan was not Satan, but satan or hasatan".
Thieves were not crucified so who was on the cross next to Jesus?

Contradiction is the bible; one is hard pressed to find something in the bible that is NOT contradicted. The true irony is found when Christians create their own contradictions (apologetics) for the bible to protect their personal beliefs. One such example is when Jesus tells everyone to sell everything and then follow him"..the contradiction arises from abstracts like Jesus zombies from the grave. So many excuses why a Christian does not have to sell or give everything away"but none of them existing as a command (or counter command) to NOT to forfeit everything FIRST. Apologetics are contradictions that Christian creates to keep from obeying the parts of the bible they do not wish to acknowledge.

Closing of round one I am merely going to point out that I am not here to prove anything that has already been proven repeatedly. I endeavor ONLY to cite and provide evidenced the bible is contradictory. The religious mind will most likely never accept this "as fact" and will endeavor only to cover their eyes as not to see, plug their ears so they don"t have to hear"and even lie to protect what they believe" and the latter is what I"ve come to know and understand as Christian apologetics. The facts that I will post to the contrary "may not appeal to the theistic psyche", but this is a formal debate (like my opponent pointed out), and the facts ARE all that matters here and egos be damned"his rules so let us ONLY pay homage to the facts.
I now invite my opponent to demonstrate the universal unity, NON-contradictory facts and stories of the bible, and his religion.
Debate Round No. 1


You are wrong about the rabbits and cud. Here's a website to explain.

Also, it doesn't say spiders have four legs.

The bible does not say that the Earth is flat or fixed or the center of the universe. I have explained this to you in other debate comments. It is only figurative language.

Judaism has been polytheistic many times throughout its history, and has always turned back to monotheistic.

I have not found a single site supporting the fact that satan is just a misinterpreted word so give me a site please.

God did give us full freedom. Even the freedom to sin, which we did. God never denies freedom for anyone.

The bible is a book of love and compassion and God did not set us up to fail.

Nazareth did exist, here is a website to put that argument to rest.

God is one god and is not contradicted in the bible.

Thieves weren't put on crosses in Rome, but local cultures were different. Plus, the word used in Hebrew which translate to thieve implies a major crime, not small time.


Chase200mph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


no comments


Contradictions in the bible round two (part one)"..I would like to point out that just because there are apologies for contradictions in the bible, the contradictions remain contradictions if for no greater reason than the bible having needed them in the first place.
Lev. 11:20-3 All fowls that creep, going upon all four (a contradiction), shall be an abomination unto you. Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
Spiders as babies (and as adults sometimes) fly, they excrete a web that catches the wind and fly off before their siblings have a chance to hatch and eat them and sometimes crossing great distances. The bible (Lev. 11:20-3) does indeed state that insects have four legs, and fowls have four legs, common sense tells us this is not true.

Con the states "The bible does not say that the Earth is flat or fixed or the center of the universe. I have explained this to you in other debate comments. It is only figurative language. " Irrelevant, if the bible is only figurative, then this contradicts the rationality that other denominations have for the perfect word of God. Con"s position is contradicting the bible in the eyes of other Christians which in itself is a contradiction."Con fails here as well.
Since my opponent failed to, I will now source and cite the FIRST accredited works in this debate and his sumury of why the bible characters believed the earth was flat. and the works of Bob Schadewald (1943-2000) former president of the National Center for Science who summarizes with an "accredited account and sources"

"From their geographical and historical context, one would expect the ancient Hebrews to have a flat-earth cosmology. Indeed, from the very beginning, ultra-orthodox Christians have been flat-earthers, arguing that to believe otherwise is to deny the literal truth of the Bible. The flat-earth implications of the Bible were rediscovered and popularized by English-speaking Christians in the mid-19th century. Liberal scriptural scholars later derived the same view. Thus, students with remarkably disparate points of view independently concluded that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth cosmology, often deriving this view from scripture alone. Their conclusions were dramatically confirmed by the rediscovery of 1 Enoch."

I now list some more scripture confirming the Flat earth contradiction".. 1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ..."

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ..."

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Affirmation, the bible contradicts with the belief that the earth is flat.

Quoting Con, "Judaism has been polytheistic many times throughout its history, and has always turned back to monotheistic." Pro answers with"YES, if I accept this statement of yours and claim nothing more this was INDEED contradictory to what the bible claims as taught in most popular doctrines.".thank you for making my point and saving me time and space.

Con then somewhat incoherently states "I have not found a single site supporting the fact that satan is just a misinterpreted word so give me a site please."

Pro"s Answer: The Old Testament never originates with the term Satan as a name of a being, satan or hasatan is a Hebrew term meaning accuser or the accuser/ adversary or roughly adversary. Source and quote:

"The name Satan comes from the hebrew ha-satan , meaning " the adversary " "accuser" . In the Old Testament this term is used exclusively to describe either the enemies of God or the enemies of the Israelite race in general...
Never is the devil referred to as the evil one . Not until the advert of the New Testament , the collection of the books and gospels relating to the period subsequent to the birth of the Christian era , does the term ha - satan take on this all - important role .
Conclusion, this Satan is a contraction to the O/Ts endorsement of the satan or hasatan, and remains a Christian creation and contradiction since there is no O/T support.

Con states "The bible is a book of love and compassion and God did not set us up to fail." The bible contains roughly 1127 justifications for acts of evil and mentions love some 224 times (and getting many of them wrong). The contradiction to con"s position is shown in the bible as follows

Evil bible web site demonstrates the bible advocating child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.
Christian doctrine teaches, "he"s the lamb", "our savior", "the king of peace", "the embodiment of love", amongst the many other names they associate with a loving, merciful nature. But let"s look at the contradictions the bible has with these same teachings.
Jesus says family members should hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

Jesus says, "Don"t imagine that I came to bring peace on earth! No, rather a sword lf you love your father, mother, sister, brother, more than me, you are not worthy of being mine. "The real beauty of this verse is that Jesus demands people truly love him more then they love their own family. I ask you how can we love someone that we can not see or interact with? Love is an emotion pertaining to physical existence not to faithful ideologies, yet God threatens you with Death just because your love for your mother maybe stronger than your love for him. Matthew 10:34

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus. "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." Matthew 10:21
Jesus strongly approves of the law and the prophets. He hasn"t the slightest objection to the cruelties of the Old Testament. Matthew 5:17

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn"t care for his preaching. Matthew 11:20

Jesus, whose clothes are dipped in blood, has a sharp sword sticking out of his mouth. Thus attired, he treads the winepress of the wrath of God. Revelations 19:13-15

The beast and the false prophet are cast alive into a lake of fire. The rest of us the unchosen will be killed with the sword of Jesus. "An all the fowls were filled with their flesh." Revelations 19:20-21

Jesus says he is the only way to salvation yet he purposely disillusions us so that we will go to hell:

Jesus explains that the reason he speaks in parables is so that no one will understand him, "lest . . . they . . . should understand . . . and should be converted, and I should heal them." Matthew 13:10-15

Jesus explains why he speaks in parables to confuse people so they will go to hell. Mark 4:11-12

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands before eating. He defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Matthew 15:4-7

Abandon your wife and children for Jesus Matthew 19:29

Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law. Mark 7:9

Luke 12:47 Jesus okays beating slaves.

Affirmation that there is contradiction to Cons position is abundantly clear here. Evil bible .com
Since I am out of space, I will continue with more contradictions in and of the bible next round": )
Debate Round No. 3


First off, my rebuttal was answers, not apologies. The bible needs no apologies.

To the insects aguement. You debate with only terminology and nothing else. The word used for fowl in Hebrew speaks of anything with wings, referring both times to the insects. Plus, the Hebrews did not count the hind legs as legs. It refers to four feet that they walk upon and legs above their feet. Notice that it speaks of walking on feet, but distinguishes that they have legs above the feet. The only other
option is that the Hebrews which ate them raw, never noticed the other legs.

Next, being non literal in places does not make it imperfect as you state. Some places are literal, some not. Here's a website to explain.

Now, to the fixed earth. Considering the majority of those verses are poetic, they are literal. Also, immovable and stable does not imply non moving. If something is going in an orbit and can't be stopped, it is immovable.

And no to the other one. A large part of the Old Testament is focused on the prophets trying to turn a polytheistic Israel back to god. This does not support you at all.

To satan. In the Old Testament, going against what you say, it doesn't just speak of enemies. Although the name means accuser, many names had meanings back then. The word angel comes from messenger. However, satan is seen talking to The Lord in Job. Also in Zechariah, satan is seen with the high priest trying to persuade him, and The Lord openly denies satan. It is obvious that satan must be more then enemies since The Lord does not openly talk to normal nonbelievers back then.

The bible is a rule book for life and shows us great love. You claim since it tells of darks acts more often it must be bad, but this isn't true.

Also, people use everything as an excuse to do bad. There are plenty of atheist murders out there, that doesn't mean that's what Darwin had in mind. The bible is right, just how people take it is bad.

In Matthew doesn't say you should hate your family. Jesus says that he isn't going to set up peace for a reason. The bible says that Christians should be set apart. This will not allow peace. We could have peace if we all turned atheist. Or Buddhist. Or anything the same, but Jesus came to allow people to follow him, which some would not and hate those who did. The bible even says if you don't love your brother who you have seen, how are you to love me who you have not seen.

I also like how you pointed out a great point of faith. You claim it is impossible to love someone you have not seen, but that is faith. You have to be willing to give up everything for the pursuit of God. Just because you don't understand, doesn't mean it is wrong.

Also, the punishments you find cruel in the old testament is justice. You consider murder a bad crime, but sin is all the crimes. The people openly goes against God and that is their punishment.

Slavery is not condoned in the Bible. In the old testament they were usually slaves of war, which they had captured. Jesus never speaks against slavery for a reason. He doesn't speak against many things. If the moral values changed, so would the bad stuff. Jesus could not speak against everything. Plus, in those days, slavery was a promised job which did pay. In fact, some people opted in stay a slave for life because of the goodness of ther job. Later on, slavery was near destroyed in England under the preachings of John Wesley and George Whitefield.

In conclusion, all that you have given is either misused terminology or minunderstood verses, nothing more.


Con states > First off, my rebuttal was answers, not apologies. The bible needs no apologies.
I didn"t create apologies, the first apologist for your bible and gods was a self-proclaimed Christian historian named Justine Martyr. So Christians do INDEED believe that the bible needs apologies even if you don"t"the contradiction stands on its own merit.

Con states> "To the insects aguement. You debate with only terminology and nothing else." Con, I did NOT create the contradiction in terminology, your bible and common knowledge did, and secondly the terminology (as you have already admitted) is in contraction to what is known. I am not responsible for glueing the extra legs on insects and spiders all over the world. I am not responsible for failing to identify the differences between insects, spiders and foul"according to your own admission and belief in the bible, your god is. The "apology" you offer in this debate is still just that, an apology. Apologies are only needed to try and explain away contradiction; you having offered just another apology and then having offer just another unaccredited Christian apologist web site proves my point because the terminology used is contradictory.

Con States> "Now, to the fixed earth. Considering the majority of those verses are poetic, they are literal. Also, immovable and stable does not imply non moving. If something is going in an orbit and can't be stopped, it is immovable."
Con, yes it does, immoveable mean it doesn"t move".your apology is rejected the contraction stands..

Con states> " In conclusion, all that you have given is either misused terminology or minunderstood verses, nothing more." Con I agree again, the "terminology or miss understood verses" are all Christian, created by Christians, for Christians and it is ALL " terminology or missnunderstood verses" or in other words, contradiction. IF god had written the bible maybe the terminology or missnunderstood verses would have not existed, then no apologies would be needed for those very same contradictions. "..or is god flawed by failing to inspire outside of the flaws of contradiction"either way, the bible is contradictory.

Con round two posts > "Nazareth did exist, here is a website to put that argument to rest."; Sorry Con, I find ONLY contradiction to your unsupported statement as your web sites claims nothing of the sort and is just another dead end.
Nazareth never existed outside of biblical claims (if this were NOT TRUE, then why are Christians still looking for it), one cannot reference such a place on a map and the Hebrew bible never mentions it.
Affirmation is that Nazareth is contradictory to everything archeological, geographical and historical known and or recorded. Here is a well written summary found on Now this post has sources, and I could provide them""but if I am required to then perhaps con"s position should contain sources as well?

Nazarene or Nazareth?
A People Erased from Existence and The City That Never Was
The Disassociation of Jesus from the Holiest of Peoples

For 20 centuries, most of the life of Jesus has been hidden or suppressed, but modern archeological discoveries have now shed new light on his enigmatic life. Archeologists have now proven that the city of Nazareth did not exist until three centuries after his death, and questions long debated in scholarly circles are now coming to the forefront. Armed with ancient sources like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the papyrus books of Nag Hammadi, and the long overlooked writings from the early church, modern scholars and theologians are reconstructing the life and times of Jesus, and what they are finding is very different from the life and teachings we have been "led to believe."

Nazareth, The City That Never Was

The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist " not literary, not archaeologically, and not historically.

Biblical scholars and clergy alike have always had difficulty accepting the possibility that at the time of Jesus there was no city called "Nazareth." They have always resisted this possibility and sometimes, quite vigorously.

The Encyclopaedia Biblica, a work written by theologians, and perhaps the greatest biblical reference work in the English language, says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time."

Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud (the Jewish law code), nor in the Apocrypha and it does not appear in any early rabbinic literature.

Nazareth was not included in the list of settlements of the tribes of Zebulon (Joshua 19:10-16) which mentions twelve towns and six villages, and Nazareth is not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37AD-100AD), a widely traveled historian who never missed anything and who voluminously describes the region. The name is also missing from the 63 towns of Galilee mentioned in the Talmud.

The first reference to Nazareth is in the New Testament where it can be found 29 different times. However, there is still cause for speculation as to whether or not the city existed at the time of Jesus. It is mentioned only in the Gospels and Acts. These books do refer to Nazareth, but they did not originate at this time, they are later writings. The earlier writings of the NT (Paul etc) mention Jesus 221 times - but never mention Nazareth.

The Essenes, The Nazarenes

At the time of Jesus, there were three major Jewish Sects. The Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the Essenes. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were relatively similar in their beliefs and traditions, but the Essenes were radically different and openly opposed the theology, doctrines, and the spiritual integrity of both the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

There are numerous historical, literary and archaeological accounts of the existence of the Essenes, yet the bible is strangely silent about them. We know of their specific geographic locations throughout Egypt and ancient Palestine, we know of their customs and traditions, and we know the details of their deeply rooted spiritual convictions and of their esoteric religious beliefs.

The word Essene is a collective term and is not necessarily a distinctive designation, just as the word Christian encompasses a wide base of institutionalized systems of religious beliefs, attitudes and practices. There are currently over 34,000 separate Christian groups that have been identified throughout the world. Most are independent churches.

At the time of Jesus, there were three distinct Essenian groups that played important roles in his life, and their religious practices and spiritual theology mirror in his teachings. They were:

The Theraputae of Egypt; where the infant Christ and his family fled during Herods rein.

The Essenes of Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls), the strict, celibate monastery of which John the Baptist was a part.

The Nazarenes of Mount Carmel, the cooperative family village where Jesus lived and studied.

Josephus and other classic writers tell us of the Essenes and their intense appreciation for the inspired Law of God and that they "strove to be like the angels of heaven." They also opposed slavery, the sacrificing of animals and the eating of flesh. Their highest aim was to become fit temples of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor 6:19), to be healers and perform cures, especially spiritual cures, and to be spiritually qualified as forerunners of the Messiah, the latter being the primary spiritual focus of the Nazarenes of Mount Carmel.

Contradiction wins again". If Nazareth existed at the time of Jesus, then why are Christians still looking?
Debate Round No. 4


Apologies exist due to the fact that people pointlessly fight against the bible.

Terminology is not contradictions. If they call it one thing, and we another years later, how can we be wrong. Legs were considered things of movement. Even as late as the 1950s do people refer to legs solely as propulsion. George Orwell stated in the Animal Farm book that birds had four legs, because the wings were not used for manipulation. Also, it only speaks of locust. Fowl comes from the Hebrew word meaning flying thing referring to the locust, as is the word for beetle. It does not include anything else.

Immovable- definition includes steadfast or unyielding. Immovable from a set path is easily used for definition.

Once again, terminology changes over time. If you expect it to mean the exact same thing nowadays is idiotic. You give nothing here.

The websites you give just blindly state of how it has been proven without a doubt of its nonexistence. However, finds around the area show very accordant information with the bible. Nazareth could have easily existed at the time of Jesus, ceased to exist for several years due to fighting, then returned several years later. You question why it is not listed in the towns. This is very easily explained. The size of it according to site examination shows that it would only contain a very small amount of people. This would explain the sign put on the cross. It was like telling people that he came from nowhere.


Con states> "Apologies exist due to the fact that people pointlessly fight against the bible." Answer: Sorry Con, (people being Christians?) but the bible is just paper and words and it doesn"t conjure up a entity capable of corporeal adversary engagement. The bible was created by people who possessed little knowledge by modern time comparisons. How could the authors of the bible known of the science of today(?) I guess if there was a real Christian god he could have told them, but he didn"t, end of story. Regardless of the reasons, your conflict with the contradictions of the bible is based in a likewise series of apologies. Apologies Christians tell each other to keep god or his chosen authors from sounding like lunatics or frauds. What a 5th grader considers common knowledge in the here and now would both baffle and be receive/viewed as a form of blasphemy or sorcery because it contradicts the bible. Galileo found out the hard way that being scientifically ahead of your time can get you in trouble with the contradictions in the bible".Christians NEED apologies to bridge the gap between contradictions of the bible and the knowledge possessed by a common 5th grader. Biblical era biases believed the world was flat, fixed, center of the universe BECAUSE of what the bible claimed and before the even bible claimed it. The term planet means "roving star" because they thought these other words were stars that floated around aimlessly. We still use the term planet NOT because we still believe such things so there is no modern day contradiction though knowledge wise there once was. The bible indicates its god"s didn"t know the difference and failed, OR that man didn"t know the difference and created a god that didn"t know the difference"..and that"s the only REAL problem you have with contradictions found in the bible, and that"s why you and others use apologies to mask them.

Con states> "Terminology is not contradictions." And I agree, terminology is used to define contradictions and needs no apologies themselves and UNLIKE the bible.

Con states> "If they call it one thing, and we another years later, how can we be wrong." Answer: The flat earth is round, the contradiction being the term flat"knowledge grows and bible wisdom shrinks so apologies appear.

Con states> "Legs were considered things of movement." Answer: Yes, insects use 6, spider use 8 legs to move around"NOT 4.

Con states> "Even as late as the 1950s do people refer to legs solely as propulsion." Answer: Irrelevant, because people still foolishly believe the world is 6000 years old, that they worship ONE Jesus who is and is not god and or man, there are 38000 Christian denominations all believing in their own version of the contradictions found in the bible and that in itself is contradiction.

Con states> " George Orwell stated in the Animal Farm book that birds had four legs, because the wings were not used for manipulation. " Answer, so old George doesn"t believe birds fly?

Con states> "Also, it only speaks of locust. Fowl comes from the Hebrew word meaning flying thing referring to the locust, as is the word for beetle. It does not include anything else." Answer: Irrelevant since neither locus or birds have four legs and since the bible you refer to was ONLY written in Greek!

Con states> " Immovable- definition includes steadfast or unyielding. Immovable from a set path is easily used for definition." Answer: The earth orbit is NOT set in a path Con, the earths orbit is sometimes elliptical and sometimes more circular moving closer and further from the sun sometimes never orbiting in the same path, the earth rotates sideways on an axis which moves back and forth by 13 degrees, it orbits the sun which orbits the western spiral arm of the galaxy which orbits the center of the galaxy as it rises and falls on its Z axis as the galaxy moves away from the center of the universes at an ever increasing speed"none of which defines immovable path because it is forever changing and I knew 5th graders who knew this.

Con states> "Once again, terminology changes over time. If you expect it to mean the exact same thing nowadays is idiotic. You give nothing here." Answer: Well I don"t know if you are calling me idiotic or Science, but I assure you my idiocy is based in several accredited degrees and an accredited University with accredited professors some of which produced some of the works already cited here".

Con states> "Nazareth The websites you give just blindly state of how it has been proven without a doubt of its nonexistence."
Answer: Just because other Christian share a belief without evidence or support does NOT mean there is any truth found in your diatribe. Nazareth could have existed is what my sources say".but as a primitive shack, filled with a couple of struggling farmers and it was never a city (at least of the time you claim Jesus was alive)".and like you said in the rules, this IS a formal debate and formal debates are based in facts and NOT shared beliefs Christina or otherwise.

Con mentions in a previous round that the bible is a book of good, and peace, and Historians as well as myself see this as a contradiction of truth.".let"s see what apologetics should "REALLY" be used for if NOT for the bible.
"For the record, let's take a look at some of the acts perpetrated by the church in their quest for domination of the hearts and minds of the populous.
"The destruction of the library at Alexandria, 390 C.E.: thousands of ancient scrolls and books lost. The damage is immeasurable to the study of ancient history. The dark ages begin.
"The systematic elimination of the non-Christian opposition of the early church: 325"900: victims unknown but ranges from 5,000 to 50,000.
"The Crusades, 1095 -1300: starting with the Peasants Crusade and the Slaughter of Innocents, there were nine crusades in all including the disastrous Children's Crusade. Thousands upon thousands were killed to the rallying words: "Dieu Le Volt" (God wills it).
"The routine and frequent killing of Jews by Christians: 350 -1945: millions killed.
"The Inquisitions, 1200 -1500: in all, the total victims is immeasurable, hundreds of thousands, a million or more, perhaps, depending on whose figures are used. Men, women, and children. Most were tortured first then burned or hanged.
"The witch hunts, 1500-1780: tens of thousands of victims. Mostly women, children, the old and infirm. Most were tortured first then burned or hanged.
"American slavery, 1500-1865: 50-million plus victims. Men, women, and children.
"Racial/sex discrimination: lynch mobs, hate groups, random killing, intimidation & etc. 1865-present: victims unknown and still counting.
This is the "short" list"..

This is a lot to be sorry for.

If these Christians were truly sincere and apologetic, perhaps they should insist the church return all the property, money, gold, silver, jewels, art work, household furnishings, or give monetary compensation in lieu of the loss to the descendants of the victims. After all it was this booty that made the church rich and powerful in the first place. It is only fair and the real, true Christians should realize this biblical principle and demand retribution to its victims.
By John Hill
Thanks John, and I agree and this is a contradiction to bible concerning THE peace it is supposed to represent (according) to Con seems like nonsense since so many Christians find reason to commit violence. So if these Christians felt the bible justified all these atrocities, then doesn"t this contradict your position with the bible Con? If any of the 38000 Christian denominations can chose what is and isn"t meant by ANY given passage, then how can this not exists as the greatest evidence of contradiction found in the bible? Christians may not all agree that there are contradictions in the bible, but Christendom sure does". : )
Have a great day Con.
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
in short, one is apologizing for God
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
The cohesion of your complaints seem more emotional based than a anything else. perhaps you should adress them before you post again
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
I don't know about any of that, but "Apologist" and "Apologetics" definitions in every other source I've seen are the same. I've taken an Apologetics course in high school, so I do know that it's meaning comes from the Greek, not the modern English "apology." It literally means "to speak in defense of." If you gave the content of Christian Apologists' work any attention, you'd have realized it is composed of defense of Christianity, not apologies.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
Merriam Webster dictionary should be avoided by both sides in my opinion. There are about 315 errors in this dictionary in its purist form. I use the term purist form because the trade mark Merriam Webster does not exist and therefore many other sources use this name to pass off inferior renderings. IO guess this is the reason that you get so many hits when your goggle the name. : )
Posted by Skynet 3 years ago
Pro: Merriam Webster says an apologist is "one who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"
Posted by PeaceByJesus 3 years ago
And i am sorry for not being gracious. If you were my neighbor i am confident we could have a more positive exchange.
Posted by PeaceByJesus 3 years ago
First, your attempt to reject the fact that the Bibles do teach that the Bible is the evil one by rejecting it as a historical document is invalid, as the issue is what the Bible teaches, not your view of the Bible.

Second,despite resorting to calling my reasoned response a "diatribe" and "the worst dribble I"ve ever heard," your statement that "38000 [name them] Christian denominations [are] all claiming that you (personally) are full of fodder" is absurd and cannot be evidenced, and instead you will see my basic stand affirmed from among the largest Christian denomination in the US to Assemblies of God to Calvary chapels, etc. The vast majority of differences among Christian denominations deal with more peripheral issues, and thus you see a widespread common contention against cults which deny core truths.

Moreover, your reasoning is perverse, as not only do Christian denominations overall commonly assent to basic core truths, but a lack of complete unanimity does not negate a truth claim. In this debate you must deal with the evidence for the issues you invoke as contradictions rather than ranting about denominational differences and parroting borrowed polemics.

You then write,

The (like you) twist the word into fitting the model they themselves wish to portray. Now if we allow this BS to take root, then we have people like Adolf Hitler, KKK clansmen, the Catholic Church commissioning for the genocide of 500 Nations in the Americas and so on.

Again, the fact that some can radically interpret the Constitution to justify them not needing a drivers license, or that SOTUS can even interpret contradict its own interpretations does not negate the authority or perspicuity of it. Rather than resorting to charging that no interpretation is valid in making charges of contradictions, this debate is about which claim is most warranted.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
In short and concluding with this" your BS for arguing with the other 37999 Christian denominations that know you to be the fool I already see you as".
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
PeaceByJesus. Your diatribe is the worst dribble I"ve ever heard, if we accept for a moment the logic and reasoning you offer, then we come up with this"".if one came amalgamate and make excuses for anything/everything in the bibles shortcomings, then anythi8ng one can make up is therefore correct. There are 38000 Christian denominations all claiming that you (personally) are full of fodder. The (like you) twist the word into fitting the model they themselves wish to portray. Now if we allow this BS to take root, then we have people like Adolf Hitler, KKK clansmen, the Catholic Church commissioning for the genocide of 500 Nations in the Americas and so on"..if you can make up these stupid little excuses about and for your bible and be justified, then so can they. Now goose step off and spread your so called good news else for I already know the poison your spew.
Posted by Chase200mph 3 years ago
He absurd arguments that so many skeptics resort to, and lack of objectivity, evidences a polemic driven by something other than a love for truth

Answer: the height of ignorance is believed that truth and love are inseparable.

just a few:

1. "Never is the devil referred to as the evil one. Not until the advert of the New Testament"

This Pro polemic requires an explicit statement that the devil is the evil one, which is not how man always communicates in life nor God in Scripture. And satan is clearly revealed as the evil one, as the adversary of God and of His own, from Genesis 3, painting God as a malevolent paranoid, selfish being (if that sounds familiar, you know where the spirit of militant atheism came from), and enticing Eve into rebellion to gain what was not hers to have (a "share the wealth" cry, and an expression of the devil's apparent victim/entitlement mentality), to him seeking to have at it with Job that he may curse God, to the selfish "I wills" of the devil in the original "occupy movement,' (Is. 14) trying to "climb up some other way" to be like the Most High, being the thief and robber the devil is. (Jn. 10:1)

Answer: I see, so I state that satan appears for nowhere and you confirm this which now invalidates my position".you are dreaming! First off the bible is not a historical document, never has been and never will be. This is why one can study the bible from any given public school, but cannot study from the bible as it has no historical value or relevance.

2. Evil bible web site demonstrates the bible advocating child abuse and murder amongst many other cruelties.

Rather, "amongst many other incredulities." Spanking a child out of principle (not because you have an anger problem) which my good daddy did to me many a time for just cause, is not child abuse.

And God never sanctioned murder, which is unjust killing, but punished it, while God Himself can take life as the author of it, executing the wicked and stop
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit