The Instigator
Sinque
Con (against)
The Contender
evil_monkey_god
Pro (for)

Is the Bible 100% Correct?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
evil_monkey_god has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 100288
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Sinque

Con

Round one is rules and accepting the challenge.

-All arguments must be logical and tied to proven truth.

-All points most attack the opponent's point, not them.

-Be polite and civil.

Here, I am arguing that not everything in the Bible is correct. While I am not Christian, Muslim, etc., I will be assuming the position of someone who does believe in God, but does not believe that everything in the Bible is true.
evil_monkey_god

Pro

I accept.

Go easy on me, I'm a beginner.
Debate Round No. 1
Sinque

Con

Don't worry. This is my first argument on the site.

For this debate, I am going to give examples of incorrectness in the Bible.

Basically, the Bible was written by some humans that did not know how the universe worked completely and invented/filled in certain parts of the story, probably because the retelling changed a little bit each time.

1. The Bible claims the Earth is flat and inside a dome, as shown in this picture.


The Bible states 'It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in'- 40:22.

Notice the book contains the word 'circle' instead of ball or sphere. This alone isn't enough to prove definitely, it could be a mistake.

Here is another verse: 'Again, the devil took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory' - Matthew 5:8.

There were 'kingdoms' all around the world, and it is simply impossible to see all of them at once, no matter how far or close they were to the rest of the planet, even with light being bent by gravity (which was not known about at that time).

And gravity forces planets into spheres. If the world is a massive mountain, it wall be pulled/fall towards the center of mass, forming a sphere. Its a phenomenon in the universe.

Google Maps, and globes show the Earth all show the Earth as a sphere, and for the Earth to be flat, its geography would be distorted, like on the Mercator projection, where land to the North is larger than it really is. The cartography for the maps was made long before satellites or Google Earth.

Here are a few more quotes proving the Bible claims the Earth is flat/the center of the universe.

'Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.' - 1 Chronicles 16:30.

It says here the Earth is unmoving, the sun and moon orbit it. The sun has a much greater gravity, (the larger the mass of a planet, the larger the gravity).

Earth tries to move in a strait line through space, but is pulled towards the sun, making its orbit. Earth's gravity is not strong enough to pull the son in the same way. All of this has been proven.

II. The Bible denies the existence of evolution

Here are some quotes: 'So God created man in his own image,in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them.' 1:27.

This verse says God created human kind. Some other verses read about God creating animals in the ocean.

Clearly, the Bible is creationist.

But research has shown that all life on Earth was once a single celled organism, based on protein patterns. The evidence for evolution is massive and the evidence for creationism is nonexistent, except what is in the Bible.

God scientifically couldn't create life as it is at the beginning of the planet, which by the way is older than the Bible says it is, based radiometric dating. There are records of things on Earth that were created on Earth far older than 6000-10000 years, based on carbon dating.

Just two examples of how the Bible cannot be correct, scientifically.
evil_monkey_god

Pro

A) The Bible states 'It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in'- 40:22.

I think "circle of the earth" is just an idiom in reference to the horizon or something. It's not actually claiming that the earth is actually flat. Language is a highly confusing thing, some athiests do say merry christmas instead of happy holidays. Doesn't make them religios.There are even some peple that don't believe in jesus, yet if you ask them what year it is they'll probably say it's 2017 (or whatver it is now)yet deny Jesus.

B) 'Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.' - 1 Chronicles 16:30.

I think this passage is another idiom. The earth is referring to people, and the "be not moved" part is meaning unpersuaded.

C) Here is another verse: 'Again, the devil took [Jesus] to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory' - Matthew 5:8.

The devil probably had tv or something while showing Jesus the kingdoms around the earth, maybe even photos. Some aliens on StarTrek had holograms and what not, why can't the devil? The devil could be an ET for all we know. ET phone home! =D


II. The Bible denies the existence of evolution

Ok, i need to clarify here. Are you actually implying that science is 100% true, always? You do know scientists are human, and aren't perfect, they make mistakes. I mean i did say go easy on me, but you don't have to go that easy on me. And if you do agree that scientists do make mistakes, then there is absolutely no reason to assert that the bible has to be 100% scientifically correct, simply because science isn't 100% correct itself.

However you are right about evolution here, the Bible does disagree with naturalism (as it claims that God made things and not nature). Which in turn disagrees with evolution that I think is a little bit more mainstream. There are things like microevolution that some believe in, but a lot don't really like the terminology. Some even try to mix evotion and the bible in a lot more, I think it's called natural theology or something like that. So it's not to say that all

And about the research and age of the earth. The problem with these kinds of sciences is that they are speculative, simply because they can't be falsified. I can't test rather or not if we actually did evolve from a single cell organism, I wasn't there billions of years ago, nor was any other man. The problem is also the same with carbon dating, I can't falsify rather or not it's claims are true over long periods of time because I wasn't there a long time ago.
Debate Round No. 2
Sinque

Con

The fact that there is so many verse that state essentially the Earth is flat rules out the idea of confusing language.

And the devil with holograms, pictures, etc. isn't really showing. Lucifer might as well of showed him while they were on the ground. The language makes it pretty clear they can see everything without these tools.

Science is 100% correct, because science, by definition, is fact. It is the study of 'the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment'.

What isn't always correct is the observation of the science. Nothing can be truly proven or not. God may come down to Earth, but that doesn't mean it is God. We can't simply prove it, either way. What we can do is have enough reliable truth, essentially all scientists agree about something.

Evolution and carbon dating have been proven under that definition. Darwin's finches are pretty good evidence by them self. There is so, so, much more.

The thing about carbon dating is that we don't need to go back in time because the theory of half life has been proven. I am not going to go into half lives here, this is an wikipedia entry : https://en.wikipedia.org...

Because half lives have been proven to exist and the half life of carbon 14 has been calculated, there is enough evidence to prove the theory.
evil_monkey_god

Pro

Uhh, so if a lot of atheists say merry Christmas, it would rule out their atheism?

Oh yes, I agree with you, devil could've done it anywhere. But when you can do it anyware, where should you do it? He probably picked the mountain for it's symbolic meaning, you know height\size has often been associated with authority, like "High King" or "The big Guy" et cetera. So what better place to get Jesus to bow down to the devil?

The definition that you provided of science does not say anywhere science is "fact", it says it's a study. You shouldn't cherry pick science, if your going to use it you have to agree to both to the good and bad, the true the false. What if I decided to say the Bible is by definition fact? Words that are spoken by a truthful God? And if you find anything in it that is not true, then it is not the Bible because the Bible is 100% correct. You see, I could do that too. So stop cherry picking, because this debate will simply become dumb because of dumb definitions. Science, much like the Bible, needs to be able to be proven false to be good.

Half life is not perfect, you can sometimes get young volcano's that are dated millions of years old. Here's a link http://www.icr.org...

With finches, I do agree that there was a common ancestor, it was a bird. Not a dog, a cat, or a rock.

Also just because scientist commonly agree on something doesn't make it truer, it could mean it's because they're from the same school. There's an old saying, train up a child the way he should go and he will not depart from it. For example, if you were born into a Christian home, you are more likely to be Christian then they that were not born into that home. If you were educated that the earth was young, you will probably think the earth is young. If you were educated the earth was old, you will likely believe that the earth is old. You see? People can commonly agree on things if they were educated the same way. So scientists having common agreement on things is more based on their education, and not necessary the truth of that belief.
Debate Round No. 3
Sinque

Con

Atheists saying Merry Christmas doesn't make them religious, Christmas was even invented before Christ: https://www.youtube.com...

If the Devil wanted to make some symbolism, he would probably have done in hell or something.

The definition I was aiming at was science as fact, I made a typo, but never mind that. The thing about the Bible is that there is no non-coincidental or good evidence. Just because there was a landslide in a sinful town isn't evidence for God. Heck, it could be evidence for any god. Science does have evidence. By making claims off of science, I am making claims backed up by proven things.

Furthermore, scientists don't agree because they went to the same school. That's religious people. Scientists may be taught something, but I a good scientist will find evidence for it, because good scientists question everything. Religious can't even find any evidence.

Half life obviously won't work well on volcanoes. It is a place where there is flow of rocks and materials from possibly distant locations. And that article isn't even carbon dating anyway. Good ol' carbon is solidly proven.

You just admitted that evolution existed here, that sounds like conceding to me.

Conclusion:
1. The Bible is against the round Earth.
2. The Bible is against evolution.
3. There are enough quotes in the Bible to discount miswording on the flat Earth.
4. Evolution has been proven.
5. My opponent has already let a few of my points slip through, which means that he isn't arguing against the Bible not being 100% true.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by m8 10 months ago
m8
Thanks DDO. I definitely didn't post that twice.
Posted by m8 10 months ago
m8
The sad thing is that you'll probably actually get somebody to accept this debate, which is basically an instant win for you as long as you don't forfeit.
Posted by m8 10 months ago
m8
The sad thing is that you'll probably actually get somebody to accept this debate, which is basically an instant win for you as long as you don't forfeit.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.