Is the Bible absolute truth?
Debate Rounds (4)
The Fundementalists Christian will make the claim that if you do not whole heartedly believe in the Bible, that you are a heretic and will burn in Hell. If you have not accepted Christ as your personsal savior, that you are doomed to spend eternity in Hell. Challenge me if you are of the Fundementalist Christian belief and think the Bible is absolute truth, the flawless direct message from God to man.
The bible is as close as you can get to "absolute truth." Whatever the bible says, is true.
1. There is manuscript evidence
2. There is archaeological evidence
3. There are eyewitness account
I shall take the statements as they occur.
How does one know if something is close, unless there is an existence of what it is close to? Absolute truth is also perfection and therefore can not be improved upon. One can visualize an equal lateral triangle in their mind that has no particular size, but it is perfect. If you were to try to draw that triangle free hand, you would fail. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to draw a triangle as good as the one in your mind. Thinner lines, better measurements, microscopic angles etc. The correct way to look at this is that we can not demonstrate perfection, but hypothesis is most certainly a way to confirm its existence. The constant struggle to reach it is humanity"s quest. Are you prepared to say that absolute truth does not exist, therefore the Creator does not exist?
"There is manuscript evidence"
Not even close. We have some manuscript from the New Testament, but the majority of the Bible itself, has no original manuscript. The first books would had to have been written at least 1500 years before the first coherent alphabet came into existence. The reference below describes the earliest methods of writing to exist on clay and pottery, and still lacked the ability to convey any more that a scant idea. These are the earliest known forms of writing and have nothing to do with the Bible.
There is a lot of controversy as to where the first alphabet first surfaced, but what is not debatable is the fact that a very large part of today"s Bible was not taken from original manuscripts written at the time of the events it recorded. These early writing forms were done on clay and stone and only exist in fragments.
Here is a thought. If the Bible were intended by God to be a message to all of humanity from its inception to now, why did God not preserve it in its original forms as it was written?
"There is archaeological evidence"
I will not dispute this statement, but that merely proves that certain things referenced in the Bible
have proof of existence from archaeology. Inaccuracies in the Bible are also very prominent from archaeological evidence. For example (and there are many), the following link shows evidence that camels were not used when the Bible says they were.
There are many more references such as the city of Ai and the research of Dr. Joseph Callaway that I wont go into here.
Archaeology can show a tremendous amount of history but it often does not show an accurate account of the events during that period.
"There are eye witness accounts."
This statement does not speak to the debate because there is no qualification. I hope you are not saying someone is still around that witnessed these accounts.
I really do not believe that you gave me a basis for your argument
Kit-Kat0324 forfeited this round.
I shall use this round to show some direct and fundamental contradictions within the Bible itself.
The Bible has many references to God being perfect. The existence of a creator is a provable enough point (material for a different debate), yet a creator would have to be perfect, past present and future. There can be no flaw in perfection. For the creator to be presently perfect, the creator would had to have always been perfect, or any past flaw would prevent perfection in the present. This assertion would likely not be contested by my opponent.
Early on, man seemed to "get it all wrong" and began going a bit crazy, according to the Bible. Folks got so wicked that they just could not do anything right. God burned cities, struck people down etc., etc. They still just went rampantly wild, the Bible says.
No Prozac I guess.
The Bible states in the following passage
Genesis 6:6 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Genesis 6:7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repented me that I have made them."
Here, clearly, according to the Bible, God is claiming himself as the cause of this huge blunder. The result of which, according to the Bible, is the drowning of every living thing on the planet except the contents of a boat, with 22' 6" of water. Genesis 7:20, says "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered." Yep. I actually saw an argument supporting this verse that claimed the mountains didn't exist at the time of the flood. Never mind the size the boat would have to be (or how deep the water would have to be) in order to house and float two of every single living thing and sustain them for 150 days.
Wonder who scooped that s____!?
In Exodus 32, Moses is up on a mountain speaking with God who is establishing law. While this was going on, the Children of Israel became impatient and made an idol out of their jewelry to worship. This pissed off God to the point he declared he would destroy them. Believe it or not, Moses, a mortal, convinced 'God' to spare them. In the 14th verse, it says, "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Um....who verified this?
The biblical reports of these events can not be accurate (if they ever happened in the first place), if the claim is true that God is both perfection and absolute truth. Clearly the above account places Moses above God because Moses corrects God. Another clear indication that the Bible is way off the mark.
There are many accounts in the Bible that are not just wrong, but absurd. In Joshua 10:12, the claim is made that God grants a request to make the Sun and Moon stand still. Whether you interpret this to mean that Earth stood still, or that the Sun really revolves around Earth, the results of such an event would be far, far greater than the supposed event itself. Any acclaimed miracle by God here, clearly defies reason and practicality. God could have just prevented the war mentioned in the story.
I shall make this point and question, with the hopes that my opponent does not forfeit this round as well. The universe functions under certain laws and processes. The Fundamentalist Bible Believer would maintain that this is most certainly the handy work of God almighty. Why then, according to the Bible, can God only prove himself when those very laws and processes are violated?
Anyhow, that is no excuse. I really think that you are right with all of your arguments, but I can no longer debate in this argument, where you are correct.
I would like to deal with an issue that is widely distorted by Bible advocates. I want to deal with translations of the Bible.
"I saw a bun dance on the table" gets changed by merely deleting two spaces, to "I saw abundance on the table."
"And Judas went and changed himself" becomes "And Judas went and hanged himself," by simply dropping off one letter.
I am not declaring this to be the case with these two examples, but rather pointing to the possibilities of a complete concept change with very small changes. To say that through translations from languages that do not even exist today, hundreds of times back and forth, winding up in a language that is slightly more than 6 or 700 years old, that this never happened a single time, is wildly inaccurate.
If you take a trip through history, you will see that scrolls had been copied by scribes that sometimes did actually not have the ability to write. They would just copy the characters from original resources onto more scrolls and give them to religious leaders, repeat the procedure and give them to more religious leaders. These religious leaders would then translate the scroll into Ancient Greek etc. This process was prevalent during the period of 700 to 800 AD. At one point, " The Church" decided they did not want the general public to be able to actually read the scripture, because they would not be able to understand it. This is the believed reason for most of the Old Testament being translated into Latin.
To watch these televangelists hang on single words in the Bible, just displays inaccurate commentary. They play on greed with claims of wealth if you will just send them money, using such scriptures as Proverbs 13: 22 that declares that the wealth of the wicked is laid up for the just.
There are many many points to be made about this book we call the Holy Bible, but unfortunately my opponent has not given way for challenge. I have a wealth of information to anyone who would like to give me a more in-depth challenge. Just let me know in the comments.
I thank my opponent for what I input was given.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.