The Instigator
Mr.Infidel
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
williamcarter
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

The Bible Is Not God's Word

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...
Mr.Infidel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/22/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 964 times Debate No: 18926
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

Mr.Infidel

Pro

The topic of the debate.

"Is the Bible the Word of God?"

The opponents of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Mr.Infidel is possitive, my opponent is negative.

The scope of the debate.

That there is sufficent evidence to believe that the Bible is God's word.

The length of the debate, in number of rounds.

Arguments begin in round 2

There are a total of 4 rounds.

The maximum length of each statement.

8,000 characters.

The time limit between statements.


72 hours.

______________________________

For technical purposes, the Bible will be defined as the standard 66 books that are accepted by all Christians. I will be using the New American Standard Version (NASB); however, if my opponent wants me to use a different version he may do so.

If certain circumstances arises and you need more time, you are free to request that the opposition waits to make his/her posts.

Summary of my arguments:

The Bible is Not God's word because:
  1. It contradicts itself on many occasions;
  2. The Bible contains historical, mathematical, and scientific mistakes; and
  3. The Bible contains ethical defects.
I may change or remove some of those above arguments.

Thank you to whoever accepts this debate. Good luck!

:-)
williamcarter

Con

The bible is said to be God's word, but was written by human hands. It is supposedly God's will, testament etc. We can not say any of the bible versions are true or not, because one reason they were translated to languages that didn't have all the Hebrew words and had to replace some of the words etc.,and another reason is, they are not complete. There are books that are not in the bible, that should be. When you write a book you don not leave some of the chapters out, when you write a book series you do not leave some of the books out. The bible is a collection of books if you like it or not, you shouldn't leave some of the books out just because you think so or because you can't live up to their expectations.

The bible was written by people who we are able to prove did, but not all. The problem we can not solve is if God is real or not, if the events acured, or if the bible was actually written by people who were told what to write, or if they just were influenced by something/someone. Today, there are many arguments on things that can not be proven like this one, but I do say that the bible is real and it is God's testament/will. I will do my best to prove that it is real for several personal reasons and to try to solve on of the many unsolved questions.

Thank You

Works Cited
http://www.thelostbooks.com...
http://reluctant-messenger.com...
http://www.ivpress.com...; etc.



Debate Round No. 1
Mr.Infidel

Pro

I want to welcome my opponent to debate.org and hope this is a fruitful debate. My opponent brought up an excellent point. When we say that the Bible is God's word, we mean that it was inspired by God.

(A) If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God's only written revelation.

(B) Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship.

(C) Some facts about the Bible are the following:

  1. It contradicts itself or is very unclear in many places;
  2. It contains failed prophecies; and
  3. It contains scientific mistakes.

(D) Therefore [from C], the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.

(E) Hence [from B & D], probably the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist. [1]

I want to discuss letter 3 in this debate. My arguments are as followed: (1) The Bible contradicts itself; (2) It contains scientific, historical, and mathematical mistakes; and (3) It contains later additions into the text.

The Bible Contradicts Itself

(1) Did Michal have any children?

A. 2 Samuel 6:23, "Therefore Michael the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.

B) 2 Samuel 21:8, "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:" [2]

(2) Who was the high priest when David ate the bread?

Mark 2:25-26:, "And he said to them, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions."

1 Samuel 21:1:, "Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" [3]

Was Abiathar or Ahimelech the high priest at the time of David?

It Contains Failed Prophecies

(1) The City of Tyre

Ezekiel 26:7-14, "For thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock. You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the LORD; I have spoken, declares the Lord GOD."

In this passage we see a couple of things: (1) Nebuchadnezzar is going to destroy Tyre; (2) The people will be killed; (3) Tyre will be in ruins; and (4) They shall never be rebilt.

The problem with this is that it never happened. After 13 years of sieg, Nebuchadnezzar compramised with Tyre [4] and thus Tyre survived. Morover, the final nail in the coffin is that we see Tyre was rebuilt. In fact, the city of Tyre is mentioned again in the New Testament; hence, this prophecy has failed.

It Contains Scientific Mistakes

(1) Flat Earth


Isaiah 40:22
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;

This passage tells of a flat earth. Note the use of the word tent to describe the sky. A tent, of course, is something used on a flat surface. The figure below shows what the author of Isaiah actually meant: [5]


Matt Slick of the Christian Apologetics and Research Minsitry admits, "This [the passage I cited above] may not be construed to support the spherical shape of the earth. The horizon is a circle and a circle is flat. [Emphasis mine] [6]


| CONCLUSION |

We have the Bible contradicts itself, the Bible contains failed prophecies, and the Bible contains scientific mistakes. All of these point to the fact the Bible is not God's word.

Thanks.


Work's Cited

[1] Martin, Michael, Ricki Monnier, and Theodore Drange. The Improbability of God. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2006. Print.

Available online at http://www.infidels.org...;

[2] Tobin, Paul. Rejection of Pascal's Wager.

[3] http://errancy.org...;

[4] Tobin, Paul. Rejection of Pascal's Wager.

[5] Ibid

[6] Slick, Matt. Scientific Accuracies of the Bible. http://carm.org...;
williamcarter

Con

Now in your [a-b] columns you talk about God and his only written revelation and how if to exist, would see to it that it was clear and authoritative, and make it lack the appearance of merely human authorship. Well you don't know what he would do if he existed, but since you are an atheist (no offence) I understand your closed mindedness.

Now your [c] column is the main article and when I say this it will include the [d] column. The Bible talks about sin and how it has corrupted everything, well all of the messages might have gotten in the writers minds, but since all of our bodies are corrupted then you will not be able to make a perfect book. If you like to read books or write them you will understand the most when I say you most likely will never be able to write/ read a perfect book. Have you ever heard of something imperfect create something beautiful, machine, human, etc.

Now the [e] column uses the [b&d] columns for a connection I will not include them. The Bible is mostly about faith, that's it. We will never be able to prove if God is real or not.

If you have any comments on my argument please comment.
Debate Round No. 2
Mr.Infidel

Pro

My opponent convinently dropped the arguments that I posted. In the last round, I have argued that the Bible is not God's word because:
  1. It contradicts itself;
  2. It contains failed prophecies; and
  3. It contains scientific blunders.
All of these points were (apparently) conceded, so I can go on to back up the rest of the syllogism I have presented.

(A) If the God of evangelical Christianity were to exist, then the Bible would be God's only written revelation.

(B) Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship.

(C) Some facts about the Bible are the following:

  1. It contradicts itself or is very unclear in many places;
  2. It contains failed prophecies; and
  3. It contains scientific mistakes.

(D) Therefore [from C], the Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative, and has the appearance of merely human authorship.

(E) Hence [from B & D], probably the God of evangelical Christianity does not exist.


It appears point C is agreed upon and hence D is also agreed upon. Now, let us go to point A and B.

If the God of the Bible were to exist, then the Bible would be God's only written revelation.


Deuteronomy 4:2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Revelation 22:18-19

The previous verses quoted were from old testament books. The final book of the Bible was the book of Revelation. It is physically the last book in the Bible, but it was also the last book written in the Bible (90 AD). Revelation begins with these verses:

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John: Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw. Blessed [is] he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time [is] at hand. Revelation 1:1-3

Revelation ends with these verses:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book.

http://creationists.org...


So apparently the Bible agrees that the Bible is God's sole revelation to mankind and that Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven as John 7:14 clearly points out.

(B) Thus, if that deity were to exist, then he would probably see to it that the Bible is perfectly clear and authoritative, and lack the appearance of merely human authorship.

Since "God is not willing that any should perish" it would make sense for the Bible to be clear in what God has to say. Let's say, for example, that you were to tell your 3 year old daughter not to play with matches, but give a very fancy and unclear command (i.e., "The matches that thou holdest in thine hands art very dangerous. If thou playest with the matches, then oxygen and other elements may causest a fire). Obviously, this is not very clear for a 3 year old, hence if the house burns down since she played with matches, the fault is on you.

One of the most important issues on how to get to heaven is the requirement for salvation. "What must I do to be saved?" is a question once put to Jesus. The Bible contradicts itself on that matter. Consider repentence. According to Luke 13:13, one must repent in order to be saved. On the other hand, there are passages which state (or imply) that everyone who is in a certain group will be saved. For example, John 3:16 says "whoever believes in Him [Jesus] will not perish..." There is no mention of repentence in this verse.

To prove this point further, let us look at just a few ways to save yourself:

By Baptism: John 3:5: "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"

By Grace & Faith, not Works: Ephesians 2:8,9: "For by grace are ye saved through faith ... not of works."

By Faith & Works: James 2:17: "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone."

By Keeping the Law: Matthew 19:17: "... if thou wilt enter unto life, keep the commandments."

By Belief in Christ: John 3:16: "... whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

By Belief and Baptism: Mark 16:16: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."

By Words: Matthew 12:37: "For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned."

By Calling on the Lord: Acts 2:21: "whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Not Works but by Grace & Baptism: Titus 3:5: "Not by works ... but according to his mercy ... by the washing of regeneration." (Note: some denominations will say the washing refers to Christ's blood and sacrifice.)

According to Proverbs 16:4: God made the "wicked" for "the day of evil" (i.e. judgment & damnation). Of course, this makes no sense in light of passages that confirm or suggest that Jesus died for a small number of the elect; or that suggest all will be saved: John 1:29, 4:42, 1 Corinthians 15:29, Hebrews 2:9, 1 John 4:14.

Salvation Available to the Chosen Few: Matthew 7:14, 22:14, Luke 12:32, 13:24, John 6:37,65,15:16,19, Romans 8:29, 9:11-23, Ephesians 1:4.

Salvation Available to Those Who Desire it: Matthew 7:7-8, 11:28, John 3:16, 5:40, 7:37, Acts 2:21, Revelation 3:20. [1]


Christian Denomination Authority How one is "saved" Can Women Preach? Number of Members
Southern Baptists



Southern Baptists generally subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Protestant Bible; some liberal sects do not. Authority is left to each local church. Baptism (by immersion) seen as a public testimony to the commitment to Christ (infant or preconversion baptisms not practiced); some require baptism, some do not. Belief in God, eternal covenant between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect, repentance of sin. Communion is seen as symbolic. Conservatives say no, liberals say yes. Currently subject to much controversy. 15,619,912

(USA)

Christian Science





Interpretation of Scripture and rules outlined by Mary Baker Eddy in theManual of The Mother Church(1895) andScience and Health with Key to the Scriptures (1875). Salvation is seen as rescue from materiality. They deny the existence of sin and think Jesus was a man. Communion is taken to be the union of God through prayer, and baptism the continual presence of regeneration. Do not have ordained ministers. Women can help conduct services. Exact numbers not available per founders' instructions

)

Roman Catholic






Pope, church councils, and the Catholic Bible which containssevenadditional books compared to the Protestant version. Truth is found in scripture, as interpreted by the church. Merit gained through God's grace, belief in Christ's sacrifice, and baptism. Good works performed under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Believes the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ and the change is permanent (i.e., transubstantiation). No 1,043,000,000

(World)

Not only do we see difference in the Bible, but also in Christianity. What must I do to be saved?

| CONCLUSION |

The Bible is not perfectly clear and authoritative. In fact, it is so confusing that Christians cannot agree amongst themselves the necessary requirements for savlation. Hence, non-belief is justified and the Bible is NOT God's word.


References

http://www.infidels.org...;


http://www.infidels.org...;

williamcarter

Con

You can see my opponent has the facts, but the problem is in the beginning when we found the scriptures and started to translate them to different languages we had to change/ replace some of the words. Also since each church has it's own edition there of course going to be mistakes with all the editing. Plus since no one notices, when they make another edition it stays in there and another mistake might come up. With all it's adding up my opponent is able to make a hypothesis that maybe God isn't real etc.

If you have any comments please add.
Debate Round No. 3
Mr.Infidel

Pro

Please actually PROVE what you are attempting say. When translating from Hebrew and Greek to English, the translation shouldn't include all those contradictions and failed prophecies etc. In fact, what I listed is JUST THE SURFACE. Clearly I have won this debate and I urge a PRO vote.
williamcarter

Con

You can not prove if God does exist or not, its all about your faith. The errors in the Bible I can not prove to be false, but if someone wishes to believe in them I, nor you have the right to say they are wrong. If they wish to believe in these fake texts let it be so. I am afraid that you just might have proven that God does not exist. After this debate ends I want you to find the reason for all those testimonies and all those visions, because if they are true you can not say God, his will, etc. are fake. I rest my case when you prove that!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by williamcarter 2 years ago
williamcarter
i am not religous, never gone to church in my life !!!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by kevinbravehart 2 years ago
kevinbravehart
As usual the religious mind shows itself in this debate, backing away from concrete hardcore evidence to rely solely on faith based argument. To put it bluntly williamcarter, testimonials and visions are not considered evidence in any court of law in the world. Know one gets sentenced to the death penalty based solely on testimonials and visions. DNA evidence, video evidence and so on are considered real evidence. Translation errors cannot account for the wide discrepancy of beliefs among Christians. If a science text or law book had as many discrepancies as the bible, then those texts would not be considered valuable other then for literary reasons, just like the bible. Infidel set out to demonstrate this and as usual, the religious mind failed to understand.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
1) I really dont hope to achieve anything except reaffirm my atheism and have the fear hell removed.
2) I am an apostate of Christianity.
Posted by williamcarter 2 years ago
williamcarter
1.What do you hope to achieve in faulting the bible?
2.Have you had any past faiths?
Posted by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
LOL. True.
Posted by Prez_Siler 2 years ago
Prez_Siler
Mr. Infidel, your profile pic is very misleading to polytheists lol
Posted by Mr.Infidel 2 years ago
Mr.Infidel
Not a problem. I understand.
Posted by williamcarter 2 years ago
williamcarter
Hello, I would like to be part of this argument, I have some research I need to do and I can only be on until Sunday night due to some college circumstances.

Thank You
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by jewgirl 2 years ago
jewgirl
Mr.InfidelwilliamcarterTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was clearly more prepared this and thus his arguments are stronger. Of particular interest to me was that nearly all of pros argumentts were only problematic if we acept the NT. With regard to the contradiction in samuel, if my memory serves me corectly the resolution to that contradiction is that she did not have children after that point, but did have prior to that point.But this really belongs in the comment section. oh well.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
imabench
Mr.InfidelwilliamcarterTied
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: rather than argue that the bible is not gods word by stating that it was written by peoples interpretations of historical events and such he boldly claims that it means god does not exist... Con argued that the bible is gods word but that people wrote it, make mistakes, etc and that was more convincing to me. Pro did do his research though so I threw him sources, somewhat decent debate
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 2 years ago
Man-is-good
Mr.InfidelwilliamcarterTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con loses a point for conduct for posting his argument in the first round, even when Mr. Infidel/Kohai specifically stated that arguments are to begin in the second round. Con showed no willingness to prove his claims..For example, he argues that one would not know what god would do if he existed, but offered no proof even for his argument that "we cannot know if god exists or not". Funny, the debate is about the existence of god, it's about the bible being the Word of God. Sorry.