The Instigator
SheaShea
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
midgemodge123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

If There Was No God, Then Who Do You Think Wrote The Holy Bible?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
SheaShea
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 946 times Debate No: 37674
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

SheaShea

Pro

The Bible is a book that was written to you personally. God does not have favourites, He loves you as much as every other person on this earth. Therefore, what He says in the Bible He says to YOU. He wants to have a relationship with you. He wants you to knowA279; Him and talk to Him. He wants to be your friend. Even if God is not your friend right now, you are His friend already. He loves you more than you can imagine and will show you that in the Bible. Thank U my Father God in Heaven. I love U<3
midgemodge123

Con

explain dinosaurs then
Debate Round No. 1
SheaShea

Pro

Dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible uses ancient names like "behemoth" and "tannin." Behemoth means kingly, gigantic beasts. Tannin is a term which includes dragon-like animals and the great sea creatures such as whales, giant squids, and marine reptiles like the plesiosaurs that may have become extinct.

The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is recorded in Job chapter 40. "Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God"" (Job 40:15-19).

The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus. It was a gigantic plant-eater with great muscles and very strong bones. The long Diplodocus had leg bones so strong that he could have held three others on his back.

The behemoth were not afraid. They did not need to be; they were huge. Their tails were so long and strong that God compared them to cedars - one of the largest and most spectacular trees of the ancient world.

After all the behemoth had died out, many people forgot them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. But those animals certainly do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees!

Although it cannot be stated with certainty, it appears that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible. This should not sound so strange. After all, God tells us that He created all the land animals on the 6th day of creation, the same day that he created mankind. Man and dinosaurs lived at the same time. There was never a time when dinosaurs ruled the earth. From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs.
midgemodge123

Con

midgemodge123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
SheaShea

Pro

SheaShea forfeited this round.
midgemodge123

Con

midgemodge123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
Actually the Bible was not written by the originators.
The stories of the Visions or Hallucinations of Abraham who invented the Biblical God, were handed down by Rote for hundreds of years. As rote goes, pretty much like Chinese whispers, the story got distorted, more glorified and overstated until they finally got put onto parchment around the time of Mosheh, (Moses).
The rest is history, except for the revision of the books of the Old Testament at around 100BC, to give it a political bias, just the same as Constantine re-wrote the Bible around 350 years after Jesus to give it his political spin.

This is by far the most factual brief account of how the Bible came about.
It's a recording of the rote distorted Hallucinations (visions) of Abraham and successive Hallucinations of those following after him, in Moses, Joshua, Solomon, Jesus.
It's essentially a book of symptoms of people with Temporal Lobe Lesions.
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
Sorry for the delay, I've been quite busy during the weekend. You've stated "for the Prophet enters not here on a new subject, but only confirms what he had said of the ultimate destruction of Samaria" and "God will yet execute what he has determined, and what he now pronounces by my mouth"...

As mentioned before what you've done is made excuses to the fact, God ordered the slaughtering of the innocence, period. What crime can a baby possibly commit deserving of death? Cry too loud? Or that of a unborn child still in the mother's womb? What obscene crime could one commit that would be deserving of such cruelty? Today we have organizations and institutions dedicated in the rehabilitation of troubled people so that they can live peacefully along side the rest of our society. If God is a powerful and loving, as you are diligently trying to defend, then is it a difficult task for him to have done the same back then? It's quite troublesome that there are plain examples of unnecessary cruelty, destruction, and genocide throughout the Bible that God has either ordained, permitted, or carried out himself, yet believers continue to make excuses for those actions. Truly is a shame and I hope you read the Bible thoroughly and not be fed bogus information from those that try to excuse or hide the truth behind the Bible. Cheers.
Posted by SkepticLankan 3 years ago
SkepticLankan
"behemoth" and "tannin." are actually translates to rhinos and hippos lol
Posted by SheaShea 3 years ago
SheaShea
This is the conclusion of the discourse: this verse has then been improperly separated from the former chapter 1; for the Prophet enters not here on a new subject, but only confirms what he had said of the ultimate destruction of Samaria and of the whole kingdom. Samaria then shall be desolated; as though he said "I have already often denounced on you what you believe not, that destruction is nigh at hand; of this be now persuaded; but if you believe not, God will yet execute what he has determined, and what he now pronounces by my mouth." At the same time he adds the cause, For they have provoked their God. That they might not complain that they were severely dealt with, he says, that they only suffered the punishment which they deserved. He also specifies the kind of destruction that was to be, They shall fall by the sword, their children shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women squall be torn asunder, that the child may be extracted from the womb. In saying that the citizens of Samaria, and the inhabitants of the whole country, shall fall by the sword, he doubtless intimates that God would make use of this kind of punishment by sending for enemies who would consign them to destruction.

We now then see what is included in the words of the Prophet. He first shows that it was all over with Samaria and the whole kingdom of Israel; as God could by no means bring them to repentance, he would now take vengeance on so desperate an obstinacy. He afterwards shows that God would do this justly, because he had been provoked; and, lastly, he shows what kind their punishment would be. That they might not think that the Assyrians would come by chance, the Prophet says that this army, which was to invade and destroy the country of Samaria, would be, as it were, conducted by the hand of God; for though the Assyrians wished to extend their own borders, and were influenced by their own avarice and cupidity, yet God would use them as instruments to execute his own judg
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
To not go off track I will respond to what you've mentioned in a thorough matter. What you have pointed out are excuses to defend the God of the bible's acts of genocide. You've highlighted quite a few scriptures to which I'm very well familiar with but it doesn't erode away the true issue. You've mentioned in the first part of your rebuttal that "Most times the focus is on the love for sinner and that is good". With that in mind, I'm sure you didn't read Hosea 13:16 which says (NIV): "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open." So let me paint the picture in your mind. The loving God saw a people doing wrong, instead of providing counseling or try a different way to console with them, he orders his people, the Israelites, to go forth and take hold of a baby who was likely in the arms of it's mother, and throw them to the ground killing them. If God ordered you to do this today, would you do it? Next, he orders them to rip open with a sword a pregnant women, resulting in the spilling of her intestines and killing her unborn child. Do you think this is coming from a loving God? Is it reasonable to conclude that he was carrying out this order out of "love of the sinner"?
Posted by SheaShea 3 years ago
SheaShea
The saying that "God loves the sinner and hates the sin" is biblically correct and can be affirmed by the writings of both Testaments. Most times the focus is on the love for the sinner"and that is good. However, God"s hatred for sin is also essential in the plan of salvation. This divine hatred can be called "the wrath of God."
The wrath of God is His displeasure against sin and evil. It is God"s just and righteous response of judgment against sin, apostasy, unfairness, and injustice both within and without the community of God"s people. In the Old Testament, the most frequent cause of divine wrath on God"s people was centered on apostasy: (1) especially in the form of idolatry (Ex. 32:10; Deut. 4:25; 1 Kings 11:9; Jer. 2:23-28; Eze. 6:12; 8:5-18) and (2) social injustice, especially the oppression of the poor and weak (Isa. 1:23, 24; 42:24, 25; Jer. 21:12; Eze. 22:27-31). The wrath of God is prominent in the Pentateuch but more especially in the writings of the prophets.
When God"s people apostatized in idolatry or social injustice, He used surrounding nations as instruments of wrath on His people. He later turned on those nations, however, and judged them for their sin as well. The prophets made prophecies about nearby nations that the Lord had used previously to judge His people (Isa. 10:12, 13; Jeremiah 46"51; Ezekiel 25"32; Amos 1:3-2:3). Babylon, Assyria, Moab, Syria, Philistia, Sudan, Egypt, Arabia, and Phoenicia were mentioned in these prophecies. Therefore, God punished all nations for their sins, not only Israel and Judah. God dealt with sin wherever it was found. Apart from the use of military invasion, defeat, and destruction from other surrounding nations, natural disasters such as disease, plagues, locust attacks, famine, and drought (Deut. 28:15-68; 1 Kings 8:33-40) were also manifestations of God"s wrath against sin.
This wrath is also the basis for divine judgment on the eschatological Day of the Lord. This is to be a time in the future that
Posted by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
@SheaShea - How do you explain the following scriptures:

Psalms 137:9
Hosea 13:16
Isaiah 13:15-18
Exodus 21:20-21
Just to name a few for now....

After reading those, how is god of the Bible still loving? (1 John 4:8)

If you say I'm taking them out of context, read 2 Timothy 3:16-17 before you come to that conclusion about me.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
SheaSheamidgemodge123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Only PRO presented any arguments. The Conduct point resulted from the trolling, and not from the offsetting forfeitures.
Vote Placed by johnlubba 3 years ago
johnlubba
SheaSheamidgemodge123Tied
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: Roy's vote is so eloquent, I thought I should second those thoughts.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
SheaSheamidgemodge123Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Con asked a question and then forfeited the rest of the debate. That left Pro's arguments unanswered. Pro thereby wins arguments. Pro did forfeit one round, but it was clear at that point that Con had abandoned the debate.