The Instigator
shaanbarca
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Truth_seeker
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Is the bible corrupted

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 4 votes the winner is...
Truth_seeker
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/18/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 722 times Debate No: 54940
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

shaanbarca

Pro



I think the bible is corrupted because first, there are 43 different bibles in the world and all of the christians in the world are disputing wether which one is right and which one is wrong. Also if you have studied history class there was a period where the church was extremely corrupt, they had indulgences and they would tell the people lies for the purpose of money. Also to become a pope you could just buy your way. Only the nobles and the church knew what it actually was in the bible and they just changed a lot of the bible making the 43 different bibles which no one can agree today which is correct.

Also another thing i would like to point out something that is confusing me. Also why do christians seem to pray to Jesus and worship him more then god. Some say he is the son and some say he is god you people contradict your own teaching. So please enlighten me with your teachings and explain how the bible is correct.
Truth_seeker

Con

Having 43 books of the Bible doesn't imply that the Bible itself is corrupt. It simply means there is a disagreement over what is right and wrong. The church lying for the purpose of money doesn't imply that the Bible is corrupt as the authors and people of the Bible are not the more modern church.

Do you have evidence that the Bible was altered?

People pray to Jesus because he is God in the flesh. He is the son of God meaning that he is of God's divinity and his Messiah.

In comparing the Old Testament manuscripts together, there hasn't been a single alteration of the Old Testament found that would affect major doctrine.
Debate Round No. 1
shaanbarca

Pro

"Having 43 books of the Bible doesn't imply that the Bible itself is corrupt. It simply means there is a disagreement over what is right and wrong." Your argument contradicts, you said the there is a disagreement over what is right and what is wrong, if the bible was not corrupted then why is there a need to disagree? Also if the god in the bible does exist shouldn't god be an omnipotent being who does not make mistakes? If the bible was truly a revelation of god why are the christians fighting wether which one is correct.
Also you wanted proof

"In fact, after the death of Jesus a whole flood of books that claimed to be inspired appeared.... Disputes over which ones were true were so intense that the debate continued for centuries. Finally in the fourth century a group of church leaders called a council and took a vote. The 66 books that comprised our cherished Bible were declared to be Scripture by a vote of 568 to 563." [1]

"A study of 150 Greek [manuscripts] of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.... It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the [manuscript] is wholly uniform." [2]

1. Answering Christianity's Most Puzzling Questions by: Richard Sisson, Christian apologist.
2. The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible by: Rev. George Author.

Also i have found this sources below

Contention 1: The Bible Attests to its own corruption

C1.1 Jeremiah 8:8
"How can you say; "We are wise, since we have Yahweh"s Law?". Look how it has been falsified by the lying pen of the Scribes!" Jeremiah 8:8

I believe the Bible makes it very clear that the scribes purposfully corrupted the Law (1st 5 bookf of the OT). They corrupted it with their "pens"! That means they altered the law of the text. How else would a pin be able to corrupt something?

From that, I urge members to VOTE CON as I proved FROM THE BIBLE that it has been corrupt. Thus, we cannot say "there are no corruptions" as the Bible attests to its own corruption.

From here, we draw a few conclusions.
The scribes falsified the Bible.
The pens "lied" meaning that it has been corrupted by the scribes.
C1.2) Matthew 2:15

"And was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son."

If we were to go back to the original verse this was located in, it has been attributed to Hosea 11:1. However, let me quote Hosea 11:1.

"When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

Whoever wrote the gospel of Matthew completely took this out of context. We plainly see when the entire verse is quoted that it is referring to Israel--NOT Jesus.

Hosea 11:2
"As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images."

huh? When did Jesus do that?
Contention 2: The translations of the Bible as we have it have been purposefully mistranslated.

C1.2) Isaiah 7:14

In the current translations, Isaiah 7:14 states something similar to this: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Many things wrong with that passage.
Virgin is mistranslated. The word for "virgin" is the word alama which means "young woman." IT NEVER MEANS VIRGIN! [1];
Matthew, yet again, brings this to Jesus. But when we look at the entire context it is clear that it is an immediate fulfillment.
Allow me to elaborate one #2. The entire passage is referring to a war that is going on between king Ahaz and his enemies. Then when we read the rest of the verses, it becomes clear.

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah"he will bring the king of Assyria."

This obviously begs the question, "When did Jesus not know how to reject wrong and choose right?" Jesus was born more than 700 years after the event and thus could not bring any comfort to Ahaz.

What's more is that the virgin birth makes god a sinner (heaven forbid!) In Galatians 4:4 Paul claims that "God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under law." MAJOR problem here. IF jesus was born of a virgin, it violats the laws of the Torah. In Deuteronomy 22:23-24, "YHWH" makes it clear what constituts as adultry. Thus a claim made by Matthew that Jesus was born of a woman engaged to Joseph with God as his father is adultry.

God's law does not allow for Him to seduce a maiden. What is the worth of a moral code that's violated by God? [2]

| SUMMARY |
Bible attests to its own corruption.
Jeremiah 8:8
Matthew 2:15 (could also go under C2 and a misquote)
The Bible is mistranslated.
Isaiah 7:14
Makes God an adulterer.
| CONCLUSION |

We have seen that the Bible misquotes itself, attests to its own corruption, and makes God a sinner! Therefore, we cannot say that the Bible has not been corrupt and I urge a CON vote.

In addition, my opponent has yet to fulfill his burden of proof.

References

1. http://tinyurl.com......;
2. http://tinyurl.com......

Credits for source: Kohai
Truth_seeker

Con

You did not consider the fact that people might simply want to introduce their own corruptions into the text, but with studying them more, more direct conclusions can be made. God's existence doesn't correlate with the diversity of Christian beliefs. His will is not our will.

There is no evidence that such a council existed to decide what books in the Bible were divinely inspired. According to the Oxford dictionary of the Christian church:

"The suggestion of a particular synod in Jamnia held 100 A.D finally settled the limits of Old Testament canon made by H.E Ryle though no evidence exists to support this" (1).

Josephus wrote:

" For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another (as the Greeks have), but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his laws, and the traditions of the origin of mankind until his death. This interval of time is little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artexerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life. From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets. We have given practical proof of our reverence for our own scriptures. For, although such long ages have now passed, no one has ventured to add, or to remove, or to alter anything, and it is an instinct with every Jew, from the day of his birth, to regard them as decrees of God"" (2)

You took Jeremiah's words out of context. Read in verse 9 and you will find it says:

"The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord; and what wisdom is in them?"

Clearly, this cannot be an indicated that the scribes altered the Bible.

Matthew took this passage to describe Jesus living in Egypt for a while then leaving, not necessarily altering the original context.

As for the virgin birth, the Greek word used is parthenos which means virgin. Dr. Cyrus Gordon, scholar of semitics argues that the Christian translation rests on the Jewish interpretation:

"The commonly held view that "virgin" is Christian, whereas "young woman" is Jewish is not quite true. The fact is that the Septuagint, which is the Jewish translation made in pre-Christian Alexandria, takes almah to mean "virgin" here. Accordingly, the New Testament follows Jewish interpretation in Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the New Testament rendering of almah as "virgin" for Isaiah 7:14 rests on the older Jewish interpretation, which in turn is now borne out for precisely this annunciation formula by a text that is not only pre-Isaianic but is pre-Mosaic in the form that we now have it on a clay tablet." (3)

With all of these things in mind, the Bible has no corruptions and is divinely inspired.

Sources:

1. F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition (Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1985) p. 726. For more on what did and did not happen at Jamnia, see Jamnia Revisited, by Jack P. Lewis in Lee Martin McDonald & James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002) pp. 146-162.

2. Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, book 1, paragraph 8.

3. Gordon, Cyrus H., Almah in Isaiah 7:14, The Journal of Bible & Religion, Vol. 21(April 1953), p. 106.
Debate Round No. 2
shaanbarca

Pro

"You did not consider the fact that people might simply want to introduce their own corruptions into the text, but with studying them more, more direct conclusions can be made. " Oh but i did, your are supporting my point. In this text its what you are saying seems to be rather ambiguous so i am interpreting it as what you meant was that god did not write bad things but the people altered it."

"There is no evidence that such a council existed to decide what books in the Bible were divinely inspired. According to the Oxford dictionary of the Christian church" of course there is no evidence if you try to search from the christian church the people who ruled the church during the middle ages were corrupt but not stupid they knew they had to get rid of the evidence or else the church would be unable to control the people anymore. (Basic middle age history)

You also have still not defended why there is a dispute with the 43 bibles on which one is correct or not. If i threw all the bibles in the world to a black hole no one would be able to rewrite it as there will always be disputes on which one is right and wrong isn't that enough evidence to show the corruption in the bible because no one knows how which one is correct and how the bible originally was leading to eternal feuds on which one is right. Unless you can answer this question and provide a solution i win.
Truth_seeker

Con

You didn't provide evidence for the Oxford dictionary having their own agenda, but made a pre-conceived ideas that they are corrupt.

We know which books are divinely inspired because they are already established. Each book in the Bible confirms the authenticity of the others. The Torah is validated as inspired (Ex. 17:14; 24:4; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Deut. 31:9, 22, 24; Ezra 3:2; 6:18; 7:6; Ps. 103:7; Josh. 8:31, 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3, Hos. 12:13). Judges confirms Joshua to be inspired (Jud. 1:1, 20, 21, 2:8) and Ruth mentions Judges (Rut. 1:1). David claims inspiration (1 Sam. 23:2). Isaiah wrote of Uzziah and Hezekiah (2 Chron. 26:22, 2 Chron. 22:22). Jehu (1 Kings 16:7) wrote about Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 20:34). Daniel verified Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Ezra viewed Jeremiah a prophet (Ezra 1:1) and cited his prophecies (Jer. 25:11-12, 29:10-14, 2 Chron. 36:21). Isaiah accepted Micah and vice versa (Isa. 2:2-4,Micah 4:1-3). Ezra accepted Haggai and Zechariah (Ezra 5:1,6:14). Ezra accepted Moses (Ezra 7:6). Jeremiah accepted Micah (Jer. 26:18) and cited him (Mic. 3:12,4:1). Solomon was verified (1 kings 3:5, 4:32,11:9). Nehemiah validates Moses (Neh. 13:1). Finally, Jesus validates Moses (John 5:46) and other prophets (Matt. 24:15, Eze. 14:14, 20,28:3).

On top of that, the Essene community has left us with further proof that the canon was already set. The manual of discipline regards Moses, servants of God, and his prophets as divinely inspired (1). The Apocrypha and other extra-biblical writings were always seen as non-inspired by ancient Jews (2).

Therefore, there is powerful evidence that we can know which books are divinely inspired and which aren't without man deciding what is divinely inspired.

Sources:

1. Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. Greenville, SC, 1995. 140-141.

2. Emphasis mine. Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. Greenville, SC, 1995. 141.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Migrating_Hacker 2 years ago
Migrating_Hacker
shaanbarcaTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro might offend many people who are theistic ,but con actually was with the theistic and trying to prove that pro was wrong
Vote Placed by Matt_L 2 years ago
Matt_L
shaanbarcaTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con answered the questions raised by Pro. Also, the links that Pro provided for sources aren't actually sources.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
shaanbarcaTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to successfully point out some flaws in the Bible that help show it is corrupted, however Con used better sources. I am giving sources to Con but arguments to Pro (Pro barely got these points).
Vote Placed by Cobo 2 years ago
Cobo
shaanbarcaTruth_seekerTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: A decent debate, I give it a 5/10. The initial problem I saw was the pro coming straight out of the gate making wild claims, good on the Con for calling them on it. I also believe that the pro tried to shift the BoP onto the Con, due to the pro being trapped. Pro online sources did not work, So I gave the source points to Con. Overall the arguments were decent I just felt like this debate could have went in a better direction and that pro prevented the debate from really flourishing.