The Instigator
JustCallMeTarzan
Pro (for)
Winning
80 Points
The Contender
cto09
Con (against)
Losing
74 Points

The Bible Qualifies as a Collection of Fairy Tales - E

Do you like this debate?NoYes+8
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 25 votes the winner is...
JustCallMeTarzan
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,028 times Debate No: 6353
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (58)
Votes (25)

 

JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

The proposition on offer is that the Bible qualifies as a collection of fairy tales. The letter is to disambiguate from other versions of the same debate.

Obviously by collection, I mean that there are more than one in the same book ("something that is collected; a group of objects or an amount of material accumulated in one location, esp. for some purpose or as a result of some process" - Dictionary.com). And by fairy tale, I mean the following:

Fairy Tale:
–noun
1. a story, usually for children, about elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures.
2. an incredible or misleading statement, account, or belief: His story of being a millionaire is just a fairy tale.

Thus, the resolution is satisfied if the Bible contains more than one story that is either about magical creatures or has incredible/misleading content.

*******************************
There are a number of magical and mythical creatures mentioned in the Bible. A short list:

Giants
Dragons
Cockatrices
Unicorns
The Cheldean's Horses
Sorcerers/Witches
Other Gods

The Bible also contains a number of stories with misleading (deceptive; tending to mislead -> to lead or guide wrongly or into error of conduct, thought, or judgment.; lead astray) or incredible (so extraordinary as to seem impossible, not credible; hard to believe; unbelievable). A short list:

Creation of Earth and Man
The Temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve
Life Spans of Adam, Noah, Methuselah, et al
Plagues of Egypt
Parting of the Red Sea
Jonah and the Great Fish

****************************

Evidence for each of these:

1. Giants - http://en.wikipedia.org...(mythology)

Gen 6:4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Num 13:33 - "And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight."

2. Dragons - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Rev 12:7 - "And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,"

Isa 13:22 - "And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged."

3. Cockatrices - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Isa 11:8 - "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."

Jer 8:11 - "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD."

4. Unicorns - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Job 39:9 - "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?"

Psa 29:6 - "He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."

5. The Cheldean's Horses - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Hab 1:8 - "Their horses also are swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves: and their horsemen shall spread themselves, and their horsemen shall come from far; they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat."

6. Sorcerers/Witches - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Acts 13:8 - "But Elymas the sorcerer (for so is his name by interpretation) withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith."

1 Sam 15:23 - "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king."

7. Other Gods - http://en.wikipedia.org...

Jud 2:13 - "And they forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth."

Jud 10:6 - " And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD, and served Baalim, and Ashtaroth, and the gods of Syria, and the gods of Zidon, and the gods of Moab, and the gods of the children of Ammon, and the gods of the Philistines, and forsook the LORD, and served not him."

8. Creation of Earth and Man (Genesis 1, 2)

God snaps his fingers and makes the world, then forms man from some dust and woman from one of man's ribs.

9. The Temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve (Genesis 1-3; 4-5)

God, who knew the natures of Adam and Eve allows Satan to tempt them and then evicts them from the Garden of Eden. They subsequently begin breeding the human race.

10. Life Spans of Adam, Noah, Methuselah, et al (Genesis 1-5; 6; 5)

These Biblical characters supposedly lived for 390, 600, and 900 years respectively.

11. Plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-12)

Seven plagues strike Egypt in the space of about a week and a half. Highly improbable, and some of the plagues are physically impossible (water to blood).

12. Parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 13-15)

Somehow Moses strikes a body of water with a piece of fabric and the water moves out of the way long enough for a bunch of people to walk across the sea, but not long enough for hundreds of chariot-riding Egyptians to catch them.

13. Jonah and the Great Fish (Book of Jonah, 2 Kings 14)

Somehow Jonah lives inside the belly of a large fish for three days. The fish then decides to regurgitate him conveniently on the beach somewhere.

***********************************

This is just a short list of the absurdities and nonsense the Bible contains. It is easy to see how this qualifies as a collection of fairy tales. Even if all these stories are metaphorical, they are still about mythical creatures. In other places, the Bible delivers stories that seem to suggest that seeking complex medical attention is wrong (Jam 5:14-15; 2 Chr 16:12). I would call that misleading. Stories of physical impossibilities, highly improbable events... all incredible stories.... and all qualify as fairy tales.

AFFIRMED.
cto09

Con

My opponent has given two definitions are fairy tale with no dictionary to reinforce them. So I provide a real definition:
Fairy tale (noun) a made-up story usually designed to mislead
From Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
This replaces my opponents second definition. This is important simply for clarification. A fairy tale can not simply be defined as an incredible story; it must be misleading. I will accept my opponent's first definition, however, that a fairy tale is a story about magical creatures.
****So a fairy tale is a story about magical creatures/made-up story to mislead.****
We must also look closer at the definition. The word "about" to be precise. A fairy tell need not simply mention the magical creature, but be about the magical creature. If a book must only mention the magical creature, then a dictionary is also a fairy tell. This is obviously absurd. So my opponent must accept that a fairy tale needs to focus on said magical creature, not simply mention it. Therefore, the first half of my opponent's debate holds no impact. He simply gives quotes references to magical creatures. Unless he can prove that the bible is centered around unicorns, dragons, etc. he does not win that argument.
Furthermore, the Bible was not written in English. The English word "dragon" may have a different word in Hebrew that means something different. Or it may be a symbolic reference. In Hebrew, dragon may mean a servant of the devil. I don't know Hebrew, sorry.

Now his second argument is about the "impossible" feats from the Bible. In debate, the pro always has the burden of proof. In other words, he must prove that the stories in the Bible were impossible. But I will go down and attack each of his references and why they are possible.
8. Creation of Earth and Man
http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:oJZS9v41O9QJ:81.186.166.197/evolution/Creationism%2520in%2520Germany%2520and%2520its%2520Possible%2520Cause.pdf+creationism+possible&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Recent fossil records show that Creationism is possible
Humans are carbon-based. Dust is made up of many things, carbon being one of them. It is not impossible to make a carbon-based being out of a carbon-based being.

9. The Temptation and Fall of Adam and Eve
God is all knowing but all loving. He gives people volition (the power to choose). He was giving them the power to choose there fate. Did he know what they were going to do? Yes. And why can't two humans breed and begin the human race? That's usually how other animals increase their population.

10. Life Spans
Why is this impossible? Age is subjective. Centuries ago, living to 60 was considered extremely old. When God created the world and Man the conditions were ideal. The environment and atmosphere were pure, and the different harmful bacteria which cause illness were not yet developed. Man lived longer.

11. Plagues of Egypt
No evidence given why this impossible (time span). And turning water to blood has two reasons why it is true. It is either literal and God is all powerful, or figurative. The disease schistosomiasis causes, among other things, urinal bleeding. Way back when, people relieved waste in the water supply. Drinking water with the Schistosoma worm would cause people to urinate blood, thus turning the water into blood.
http://library.thinkquest.org...

12. Parting of the Red Sea
A geologic split in the Earth's crust would have allowed Moses to transverse the Red Sea. And just because no RECORDED split has occurred as swiftly does not mean it is impossible
http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

13. Jonah and the Great Fish
A fish is any aquatic animal. A sperm whale can swallow a man whole. Also, sperm whales do not chew their food. A whale's stomach has multiple chambers. In the first chamber, there are no digestive juices to harm him.

I have provided explanations to all of my opponent's references. There are not supposed to be proof that the event occured, but evidence that the event COULD have occurred. As pro, my opponent has the inherent burden to prove that the events are not possible, were never possible, and were purposefully misleading.

Now one more reason why all the events could have occurred. God is omnipotent. He wants it to happen, it does. My opponent probably does not believe in God, but to prove that all the events were impossible occurrences, he must also prove that God is not all powerful.

So for my opponent to win, he must prove, without a doubt, that 1) my evidence is all wrong. 2) God does not exist. 3) the events are still impossible. If my opponent fails one of these three, he loses the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

As I had already mentioned the source for the definition of collection, I thought it unnecessary to specify that further definitions might come from the same source (http://dictionary.reference.com... via the Random House Unabridged). Thus, my opponent's attempt to change the definition of Fairy Tale to suit his own purposes is null and void...

Furthermore, there are three definitions of Fairy Tale in the source I presented in the first round. Others include:

1. A fanciful tale of legendary deeds and creatures, usually intended for children. (American Heritage)
2. A fictitious, highly fanciful story or explanation. (American Heritage)
3. A story about fairies; told to amuse children (Princeton Wordnet)
4. An interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse (Princeton Wordnet)

As we can see, the definitions of Fairy Tale are fairly specific in that they are incredible beliefs, and not merely stories intended to mislead. Stories intended to mislead are lies ( a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. - Dictionary.com).

My opponent's attempt to disqualify the stories concerning magical creatures is indeed a weak one. He pretends that simply because a magical creature is mentioned in a story, that it is not a fairy tale unless the story is ABOUT the creature.Then he attempts to state that the dictionary would be a fairy tale because it defines these magical creatures. This is truly laughable, as the dictionary contains NO stories... Let us examine the stories in the Bible...

********************

1. Giants

In Genesis, the Giants are interacting with mankind. In 1 Samuel 17, David fights one of the last Giants. How are these stories not about Giants?

2. Dragons

In Revelation 12, Michael the Archangel fights a dragon. How is this not about a dragon?

3. Cockatrices

In Jeremiah 8, God sends cockatrices and serpents out among the people. How is this not about a cockatrice?

4. Unicorns

In Job 39, he asks if a unicorn will serve and stay by someone. How is this not about a unicorn?

5. The Cheldean's Horses

Habbakuk 1 DESCRIBES the horses!! This is clearly ABOUT the horses!!

6. Sorcers/Witches

In Acts 13, Paul essentially battles the sorcerer Elymas. How is this not about a sorcerer?

7. Other Gods

Time and time again, there are stories of the Israelites turning away from God and to these false Gods. How are these stories not about the false gods?

As one can clearly see these stories do not "simply mention the magical creature" but they are "about the magical creature," thus completely satisfying my opponent's claim that a mere passing mention is not enough to qualify the story.

*****************************

8. The Creation of Earth and Man

My opponent obviously did not read the source he sites. A quote from the study on the purpose of the study: "In this contribution, I present new data on anti-evolutionism in Germany, which document that the situation has not changed much over the past 50 years—at least in the western part of this country." This study is the result of a poll concerning religious socialization in Germany, not any sort of scientific or philosophical inquiry into creationism.

Furthermore, fossil records are incapable of showing creationism as a plausible theory, because God could have simply created misleading fossils. Also, simply because dust contains carbon does not mean it can create carbon-based life forms. Humans are 75% water - and there's no water in dirt.

9. The Temptation/Fall of Adam/Eve

God gave Adam/Eve the power to chose their fate by eating from a magical tree. Then the two of them breed a race of beings that numbers in the billions today. Forgetting that 2 people are not a genetically viable population, that cannot account for the vast multitude of genetic diversity in the world.

10. Life Spans

"AGE IS SUBJECTIVE" ?!?! Are you kidding?! The bible is very clear about the ages of these characters. Man did NOT live longer ages ago - we have scientific data going back 1.4 MILLION years on the lifespan of the human race. Man lived for LESS time two and three millennia ago (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

11. Plagues of Egypt

It is highly unlikely that the same locale in Egypt would suffer plagues of blood, frogs, gnats, bees, pestilence, boils, hail, locusts, darkness, AND the death of all firstborns in a short time span. This story clearly qualifies as having incredible content. My opponent tries to weasel his way out of the point by explaining one of the plagues away as being a city-wide case of schistosomiasis that happened to infect the entire city at the same time... His theory also depends on all the infected Egyptians peeing into the river they drink from when they can obviously tell there is something seriously wrong with them.

12. Parting of the Red Sea

I'm confused at my opponents argument here. He states that a geologic split would have presented this... but the source he presents state: "But in September of LAST YEAR they split apart along a 37-mile (60-kilometer) section in Afar, Ethiopia (Ethiopia map), near the southern end of the Red Sea." This gives no evidence for a split 3000 years ago. Furthermore, such a split would have only caused a temporary disturbance of the sea, not nearly long enough for the Israelites to cross.

13. Jonah and the Great Fish

My opponent states that Jonah could have been swallowed unharmed, but does nothing to explain why the fish would, once it realized there was a foreign object inside itself, return to the beach to spit it out, and not simply spit it out where it was... the middle of the sea or under water, usually.

*************************************

A few responses:

>> "As pro, my opponent has the inherent burden to prove that the events are not possible, were never possible, and were purposefully misleading."

False - PRO has the burden of showing that these stories are one of the following:
1. About or containing references to magical creatures.
2. Containing incredible content.
3. Misleading by effect or design.

>> "God is omnipotent. He wants it to happen, it does. My opponent probably does not believe in God, but to prove that all the events were impossible occurrences, he must also prove that God is not all powerful."

Very well. In Judges 1, Judah is doing battle with a foe while this omnipotent God is assisting him, yet, "he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron" (1 Judges 1:19). Seems like God is not omnipotent if he could not drive out some people riding some metal carriages. An omnipotent God would have been able to quash the chariots like flies.

Also, an omnipotent God would be capable of telling a lie. Yet, according to Hebrews 6:18, "...it was impossible for God to lie...' And in Mark 6:5, Jesus (who by extension is God, assuming a trinity) "...could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them."

Three things an omnipotent god could to that the Judeo-Christian God could not do. Ergo, the Judeo-Christian God is NOT omnipotent.

>> "So for my opponent to win, he must prove, without a doubt, that 1) my evidence is all wrong. 2) God does not exist. 3) the events are still impossible. If my opponent fails one of these three, he loses the debate."

False - read the resolution. PRO must simply prove that two or more of these stories qualify as fairy tales. CON must prove that all, or all but one do not qualify.
cto09

Con

My opponent begins by offering more definitions that he did previously. We could go all day quoting different definitions with different meanings. For example, his third definition is that a fairy tale is a story about fairies. My opponent did not mention any fairies in the Bible, does that mean that he loses? In debate, you begin with one definition. You can not provide multiple definitions later in the round to prove that no definition is correct. My opponent must either stay with the definitions he provided, or concede that there is no clear definition of a fairy tale.

Furthermore, he tries to reiterate later on that a fairy tale may just be a story with incredible content. Is a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. a fairy tale because it has incredible content? Or one about Lance Armstrong? Obviously a fairy tale can not simply be a story with incredible content, but one with false content.

1. Giants
How tall is a giant? Goliath was "anywhere between 6 ft. 6 in. and 11 ft. 4� in. tall." The Bible measured Goliath in cubits. "A cubit is the distance from a man's elbow to the tip of his ringers and a span is the span of the hand or approximately one half of a cubit. These units of measurement are of course variable as the size of the person doing the measuring. "
http://www.time.com...
A giant in the Bible may simply have been a rather tall man.
2. Dragons
Again, I reiterate my argument from before. What the English word "dragon" means could very well not correspond with the Hebrew translation
3. Cockatrices
The Cockatrice in the Bible is also called an adder or viper. This is just an example of multiple translations
http://bible.cc...
4. Unicorns
Again a case of mis-translation. Unicorn refereed to either a wild ox or rhinoceros. The word unicorn literally means one-horn, not a horse with one horn.
5. Chledean's Horses
What about them are mythical?
6. Sorcerers/Witches
The word witch and sorcerer have different definitions now then they did when the Bible was written. Witch meant nature worshiper, or pagan. Sorcerer meant one who worshiped the devil. Not magical creatures in either account.
7. Other Gods
The people believed in other gods. The Bible never says the gods were real. In fact, the Bible says the gods were false gods, not true gods.
So again, you are at a point with no Bible that is about magical creatures. You have multiple words that are translated in a way that given them magical meaning in the English language.

8. The Creation of Earth and Man
I deeply apologize, I accidentally pasted the wrong link. Here is the correct one:
http://www.mineralwellsindex.com...
My opponent discredits fossils by saying God could have created them. If God could have created them, then he could also have created the universe. So again, you have failed to prove why it is impossible for God to create the Earth.
Onto the debate over the creation of man. If we assume that God created the fossil, or the Earth, he could have created Adam however he wanted.

9. The Temptation
You never dispute why God could not have given Adam/Eve their own volition.
Why are 2 people not a genetically viable population? They procreate, have multiple children. The children grew old, procreate, and have more children. It expands from there. Now diversity arises from adaptation to the different environments around the world. Again, you provide no evidence why it is not plausible.

10. Life Spans
By subjective I mean what one time period believes is old may not be the same for another. If you look at the Wikipedia link my opponent provides, it never provides evidence to why man could not have lived for hundreds of years. Also, the chart begins with a negative slope (life rate going down). It is safe to assume, therefore, the by going back in time, the life rate would go upwards. And finally, the chart says Upper Paleolithic, so it assumes that there is millenniums of uncharted time.

11. Plagues of Egypt
I already addressed why the incredible content of a story does not alone merit a fairy tale. Now to schistosomiasis. The disease takes two days for symptoms to begin occurring, so the everyone in the town would have had time to drink before the urinating of blood begins. Furthermore, the disease is most prominent in Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org.... The plagues are still possible

12. Parting of the Red Sea
My opponent misunderstands me, I was not claiming that a split would be discovered, but that these splits do occur and it is possible that one did occur during that time. Now the split could easily have held the waters long enough before Moses crossed. Is there any evidence that says a split can not hold back water before it breaks?

13. Jonah and the Great Fish
If you or I ate food without looking at what the food was, could we simply feel what was in our stomachs to tell it was something not normally on our diet? No. Sperm Whales eat many things, including giant squid. So the whale may not have known it ate a human. And who knows what the whale would have done. Are you a whale?

After debating all my opponents references of impossible events, he has yet to provide any evidence that one of them is impossible.

Onto his responses:
"PRO has the burden of showing that these stories are one of the following:
1. About or containing references to magical creatures.
2. Containing incredible content.
3. Misleading by effect or design."
I will concede that he can also win by proving the creatures are magical, but the 2nd reason is not valid. I have shown earlier that a fairy tale can not simply be a fairy tale because of incredible content. So I will rephrase my previous statement and say my opponent has the burden to prove that the stories are not possible or about magical creatures.

Here is the line from Judges
"And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

Here are some responses. (Joshua 17: 15-16)
"If you are so numerous," Joshua answered, "and if the hill country of Ephraim is too small for you, go up into the forest and clear land for yourselves there in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaites."
The people of Joseph replied, "The hill country is not enough for us, and all the Canaanites who live in the plain have iron chariots, both those in Beth Shan and its settlements and those in the Valley of Jezreel."
This verse tells us that God did not ordain the land of the Canaanites to be taken, so God did not want Judah to capture it. Or, we can conclude that Judah had God with him (was in faith), but he lost faith when he saw the superior technology of the iron chariots. Either way, this verse does not dispute God's power.

Onto Hebrews 6:18, my opponent does not understand the meaning behind the words. By the words "impossible to lie" it means that God IS all powerful and can do anything. So when he promises that he will do it, he can do it. He will not fall short of his word. It does not mean to say God is incapable of lying, but he has the power to ensure someone's salvation, and his promise will be kept.

And finally Mark 6:5. This is the weakest verse quoted to disprove God's divinity because it shows the most ignorance of the Bible. When God sent Jesus to Earth, he stripped him of some of his powers. That's why he was able to "die" on the cross.

My opponent still does not prove that two or more of the stories are about magical creatures or false. Until he does, he still loses. I have gone creature by creature and should why they are not magical creatures in the original language. I have also showed why the events COULD have occurred. And finally, I have upheld the divinity of God his power. Unless my opponent proves God is not omnipotent, he can n
Debate Round No. 2
JustCallMeTarzan

Pro

>> "In debate, you begin with one definition. You can not provide multiple definitions later in the round to prove that no definition is correct."

Therefore, we shall use the definition I provided in the first round. The source is Dictionary.com. Simply because I did not cite a source does not mean it is an invalid definition. Furthermore My opponent accepted this debate knowing full well the criteria upon which the argument was based.

>> "Furthermore, he tries to reiterate later on that a fairy tale may just be a story with incredible content. Is a biography of Martin Luther King Jr. a fairy tale because it has incredible content?"

My dear opponent seems to be confused about the definitions of incredible. The word can mean "so extraordinary as to seem impossible," which is the kind of incredible we see in the story of MLK. It can ALSO mean "not credible, hard to believe, or unbelievable," which is the kind of incredible we see in the Bible (Dictionary.com).

****************************

1. Giants

The Jewish cubit was about 16.75 inches, making Goliath about 9 feet tall (http://en.wikipedia.org...; 1 Sam 17:4). However, this is clearly not the only case of Giants in the Bible. In Numbers 13:33, the Israelites come across some giants that are described as being so tall that they "were in [the Israelites'] own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight." These giants were clearly not simply tall men. Deuteronomy 3:11 describes a descendant of the giants as being 9 cubits, or more than 12 feet...

2. Dragons

My opponent gives a semantic argument for this point, so I shall respond in kind. When the Bible references dragons, it uses the Hebrew word "tannin," which means literally "sea or land monster." However, there are words in Hebrew for snake, serpent, small lizard, great lizard, and even Basilisk (http://www.searchgodsword.org...). The use of "tannin" indicates that this creature was not of normal origin.

3. Cockatrices

Isa 14:29b reads "out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent." This does not sound like an adder, viper, or asp to me, unless these snakes commonly lay flying, fire-breathing serpents.

4. Unicorns.

Actually, my opponent is correct on this point, which I discovered after starting the debate. The Hebrew word used in the verses is "re'em," the plural of "rimu," a type of ox... I left it in here just in case...

5. Cheldean's Horses

What do you mean "what about them is mythical??" A normal equine can run about 30 miles an hour over distance. A leopard can run about 20% (23%) faster than a horse. On top of that, horses' temperaments are not similar to those of wolves - they are far calmer. And furthermore, they do not fly (http://en.wikipedia.org...; http://en.wikipedia.org...). The Bible describes these beasts as "swifter than the leopards, and are more fierce than the evening wolves... they shall fly as the eagle that hasteth to eat."

6. Sorcers/Witches

In 1 Samuel, the Bible uses the word "qecem" meaning divination, divine sentence, and witchcraft. Also, in Exodus and Deuteronomy, the word "kashaph" is used, meaning "to whisper a spell." A similar word, "Kesheph" is used in Kings, Micah, and Nahum - it means "magic, sorcery, witchcraft." When this concept appears in Greek, it is a derivative of mage (whose English meaning is clear), or "anan," meaning "a covert practice" (http://www.steveholder.com...). None of these words reference the use of Satan's power. The use or practice of divination, spells, sorcery, or witchcraft inherently requires a being with magical properties.

7. Other Gods

My opponent states that the Bible never says the false gods are real. However, if they are not real, then why is the Judeo-Christian god a jealous god, and why does he prohibit the worship of the other gods? Furthermore, the Bible also never says that the other gods to NOT exist. It simply calls them "false" gods because the writers of the bible believe that only their god is the "true" god.

8. The Creation of Earth/Man

Your "fossil" is a fake - http://gumbythecat.blogspot.com... - another one for good measure ( http://timpanogos.wordpress.com... ) This actually doesn't surprise me, because it's obviously a fake looking at the picture of it in YOUR link - the print is far too perfectly formed, and besides, Acrocanthosaurus has CLAWS on it's feet. Oh, and the "scientist" who analyzed it - "Dr" Carl Baugh - well... he has no doctorate (http://paleo.cc...)

9. The Temptation

My opponent asks why two people are not a genetically viable population. Aside from the genetic problems inherent to inbreeding, this would be incest, punishable by death in the Bible. Also, the advised minimum population level for a viable society is around 150 (http://answers.google.com...) - but this is not for long-term viability. The long-term viability threshold is upwards of 10,000 (http://alfin2100.blogspot.com...).

10. Life Spans

My opponent clearly does not understand life span OR the chart in the link. Biblical characters (except Adam) would have lived in the Bronze or Classical ages, where the life span was between 18 and 30 years. For Noah to exceed the average life span by a factor of TWENTY is clearly incredible content.

11. Plagues

Ct30 does nothing to address the issue of probability in the consecutive plagues. The proximity of these plagues renders them highly suspicious and unbelievable - incredible characteristics common to fairy tales. Furthermore, the plague of blood applied to water in streams, rivers, ponds, pools of water, "in vessels of wood, and in vessels of stone" (Exo 7:19). So unless the Egyptians were peeing EVERYWHERE... even in their vessels of wood and stone... that bacteria could not have been the cause of the plague.

12. The Red Sea

My opponent holds that a geographical split could have held back the waters, regardless of the fact that there would be both evidence of this split today, and a split would create a fissure that the water would sink into...

13. Jonah & the Fish

If the whale did not know what it had eaten, it would have no inclination to spit it out, OR reason to return to a specific place to do so.

********************

Responses:

>> "I will concede that he can also win by proving the creatures are magical"

See the entire first section of the debate, especially for sorcerers, where the Hebrew word used is for "magic."

>> "I have shown earlier that a fairy tale can not simply be a fairy tale because of incredible content."

False - you have simply disputed the original definition in the debate. An incredible or unbelievable tale qualifies as a fairy tale. Most Biblical stories are certainly unbelievable to anyone who thinks about them rationally.

>> "(Joshua 17: 15-16)"

This is from a different book of the Bible. Also, it says nothing about ordination by God - just that the people of Joshua can't fight chariots.

>> Hebrews 6:18

Was there some part of "impossible to lie" that you didn't understand??

>> "When God sent Jesus to Earth, he stripped him of some of his powers."

Then how did he heal the sick and dying? Oh... I guess God only stripped him of omnipotence... RIIIIGHT...

***********************

A recap:

All animals excepting Unicorns are still valid magical creatures, especially the sorcerers (plural) in the bible that are described IN HEBREW as using magic.

All stories remain incredible and unbelievable. The burden of proof is not to show impossibility, but rather implausibility, incredibility, or unbelieveability.

Apologies for being short - lack of characters.
cto09

Con

Let's begin with definitions. You have agreed to ignore the 4 definitions used last round. So now we have 1) includes magical creatures 2) incredible or misleading or 3) made-up stories. My opponent says that incredible has two definitions. However, his second definition is the same as the first. Extraordinary as to seem impossible and hard to believe/unbelievable are synonyms. If so extraordinary as to seem impossible is the story of MLK, than so is hard to believe/unbelievable. And a biography of MLK is not a fairy tale. So the word incredible is not the definition. Now he also uses the word "not credible." His own source defines credible as capable of being believed. So our true definition of fairy tale for this round is
1) about magical creatures
2) not capable of being believed
3) misleading/made-up stories

1. Giants
Again, my opponent fails to realize that a cubit is not an exact number. If he read his own Wikipedia article, it would explain that Goliath was "four cubits and a span, (approximately 200 cm or about six feet seven inches)." Numbers 13:33 employs a literary device called exaggeration. Like, I was a bug compared to him? It refers to the strength and stature of probably 6-7 ft. Back then, that was considered a giant. And finally, I will repeat myself for Deuteronomy 3:11, a cubit was not a standard unit of measurement. A cubit was the length from elbow to base of hand. That is approx. 1 foot. So he was 9 feet tall. The largest man recorded was over 9ft.
2. Dragons
The dragon is a symbol for Satan. Revelation 20:2 identifies the dragon, "He seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil, or Satan, and bound him for a thousand years." So it is a use of another literary device - symbolism
3. Cockatrices
Here is another use of cokatrice as an adder
http://www.gnpcb.org...
Like dragon, the "fiery flying serpent" is a symbol for Satan. In other words, sin.
5. Chaldean's Horses
Again, what's magical about them? You seem to be reading from the book of Habakkuk, of the Tanakh. The Chaldean horses are described in the Old Testament book of Lamentations 4:19 as
"Our pursuers were (A)swifter than the eagles of the sky"
My opponent has frequently shown that he quotes symbolism as evidence of magical creatures. Furthermore, another translation of Habakkuk in BE says "they come from far away, like an eagle in flight rushing on its food." The word "like" is included to emphasize that the passage was metaphoric.
6. Sorcerers/Witches
http://www.searchgodsword.org...
Link above shows the word "qecem" to be withcraft of false prophecy. In other words, pagan/nature worship. Kashaph and Kesheph are actually translated as the practice of withcraft/sorcery.
http://www.searchgodsword.org...
Witchcraft comes from witch which comes from Wicca which is associated with paganism.
http://www.essortment.com...
Sorcery can mean either the practice of withcraft or practice of magi religion. Magis "were a class of priests, the Magi of Zoroastrianism, and their reputation together with that of Ancient Egypt shaped the hermeticism of Hellenistic religion." http://en.wikipedia.org...(paranormal)
They believed in complex ceremonies and "spells" in their religion. The use of witch and sorcery in the bible refers to a pagan or Magi, one who practiced a religion that was under a "false god." So no, magic (our conception of magic) is not used. People who practice paganism and the Hellenistic religious are. Does the Bible give credit that they have power and can use our definition of magic? No. In Daniel, sorcerers failed to interpret the Kings dream. Throughout the Bible, sorcery and witchcraft (aka the practice of other religions) is fake.
7. Other Gods
The "false" gods are false because they are not real. false is defined as "deceptive" by your dictionary source. So if the gods are deceptive, that means they aren't gods. Hence, "false" gods.
8. Creation
I did not know that it was a fake fossil. I will no post, then, any evidence of why the theory may be true because you will not have a chance to dispute it. However, I will say that you never provide any evidence why the story in Genesis is false. Since you never did, you can not say that it is untrue. With no evidence to falsify it, the story of creation is just as plausible as it is implausible.
9. Temptation
You say incest would make this impossible.
"In small populations, as long as children born with heritable birth defects die (or are killed) before they reproduce, the ultimate effect of inbreeding will be to decrease the frequency of defective genes in the population.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
If Adam and Eve did not have the "congenital birth defect" necessary for the the increase in defective genes, incest would not be a problem. Now your first and second sources are discussing space travel and how many people would be needed to maintain a space colony when they arrive. Reproducing on Earth is much different than reproducing in space while sustaining an orbiting space colony.
10. Life Spans
I apologize for just discovering this now, but here the explanation. The Hebrews measured time in lunar months, not the Solar year introduced by the Egyptians. Therefore, Noah would have lived to be approximately 76 years in our time measurements. The discrepancy comes from misunderstanding
http://www.domainofman.com...
76 is much more believable. Also, the Jews were known to be a healthier people, because they followed religious tenants (i.e. bathing regularly and in hot water) which the majority of the populace did not.
11. Plagues
My opponents attack on the plagues is that they are incredible events. Well, I have already shown previously that "incredible" is not a definition for a fairy tale, because both of my opponent's definitions for incredible would fit a biography of MLK. He has not proved that the plagues were about magical characters or impossible. And I was only offering the bacteria of an example of what might have happened. I was not saying it was the only plausible reason.
12. Red Sea
The fact that we have not yet discovered a split is not a reason why it is impossible, because the scientific community discovers something new all the time. Split occurs, water is pushed away by the force. The split creates a dam like structure. The pressure behind the wall breaks the wall when the sea is crossed, water floods back in.
13. Jonah
Jonah tries to climb back out when the whale is swimming next to a beach. Whale notices something is wrong. Spits Jonah out.
God's power
1. The book of Joshua is explaining that the land of the iron chariots is not to be taken. The other book shows that God did not allow its capture. The verse uses "them" to refer to the attackers, not God.
2. By impossible to lie it means you are never wrong. If you are never wrong, you can not be proven to have lied
3. Yes God did strip Jesus of his divinity. If you read the Bible you would know that. If he hadn't, how did Jesus die on the cross? Every time Jesus healed the sick, God granted him the power (also explains that in the Bible)
So this is why I win the debate. My opponent had three definitions to fairy tale that he had to prove.
1) magical creatures
I have shown again that the "magical creatures" are symbolic, metaphoric, or simply a follower of a different religion. My opponent has not shown one magical creature that the Bible makes out to be real
2)not capable of being believed
Hundreds of millions of people believe in Christianity and the Bible. Obviously it is capable of being believed.
3) misleading/made-up stories
My opponent has not proven that any of the stories are impossible or made-up. He has also failed to disprove God's omnipotence. Even if you ignore all the evidence and examples I presen
Debate Round No. 3
58 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1994bookworm 8 years ago
1994bookworm
Congrats, cto09.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
Now one more reason why all the events could have occurred. God is omnipotent. He wants it to happen, it does. My opponent probably does not believe in God, but to prove that all the events were impossible occurrences, he must also prove that God is not all powerful.

So for my opponent to win, he must prove, without a doubt, that 1) my evidence is all wrong. 2) God does not exist. 3) the events are still impossible. If my opponent fails one of these three, he loses the debate.

listen here,
if i'm correct the debate was of the topic, the bible is a collection of fairy tales
not is g-d existent or all powerful, so you cannot use that as an argument.
now if i'm mistaken please do tell.
riddle me this chief.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
You DO realize that this debate is over... quit cluttering my homepage feed.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
13. Jonah and the Great Fish
A fish is any aquatic animal. A sperm whale can swallow a man whole. Also, sperm whales do not chew their food. A whale's stomach has multiple chambers. In the first chamber, there are no digestive juices to harm him.

you got a source for that CHIEF?
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
12. Parting of the Red Sea
A geologic split in the Earth's crust would have allowed Moses to transverse the Red Sea. And just because no RECORDED split has occurred as swiftly does not mean it is impossible

alright then,
i'll give you the fact that there are geological splits in the crust (faults),
but what you are saying is that water will "magically" chill on one side of the
aforementioned fault and the opposite side, with no support holding or binding it in place
how in the world is that possible?

RIDDLE ME THAT CHIEF.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
11. Plagues of Egypt
No evidence given why this impossible (time span). And turning water to blood has two reasons why it is true. It is either literal and God is all powerful, or figurative. The disease schistosomiasis causes, among other things, urinal bleeding. Way back when, people relieved waste in the water supply. Drinking water with the Schistosoma worm would cause people to urinate blood, thus turning the water into blood

Ha your an idiot.
YOU CANT TURN WATER INTO BLOOD.
BLOOD CAN BE IN WATER, BUT YOU CANT TRANSFORM IT.
picture it as a two cycle engine, you must "mix" the gas and oil,
upon mixing said gas and oil, does the gas become oil, or vise versa?
RIDDLE ME THAT CHEIF.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
Wikipedia is a terrible source for academia, but Religion hardly qualifies as academia. Besides, it was used to give a conception of what these things are, not back up any sort of factual claim.

>> ""other god" implying more than one. you see this is quite disrespectful because you are insinuating that all religions believing in more than one god are inadequate and don't matter"

Considering all religions do not use the Bible, I fail to see how this offends anyone besides Christians and Jews.
Posted by NukeTheJuice 8 years ago
NukeTheJuice
uhm wikipedia is a HORRIBLE source. and your out of your mind to even think those can stand as credible sources.
p.s- to be honest your arguments as pertaining to round one were exceptional until you used the subject of "other god" implying more than one. you see this is quite disrespectful because you are insinuating that all religions believing in more than one god are inadequate and don't matter, this is a terrible way to argue because in reality your beliefs may be wrong and all others might be right, and vise versa.
Ask and We'll Clarify
Posted by gger 8 years ago
gger
the schistosomiasis argument made me laugh =p
Posted by GodSands 8 years ago
GodSands
Ha Not on my latest debate their not...
25 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Galiban 8 years ago
Galiban
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by s0m31john 8 years ago
s0m31john
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by imperium 8 years ago
imperium
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 8 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by mecap 8 years ago
mecap
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Carpenter 8 years ago
Carpenter
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by LoveyounoHomo 8 years ago
LoveyounoHomo
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:16 
Vote Placed by Metz 8 years ago
Metz
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by HempforVictory 8 years ago
HempforVictory
JustCallMeTarzancto09Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03