The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
2 Points

The Bible does not need the Old Testament besides the book of Genesis

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/24/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,381 times Debate No: 35964
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)




The Christian Bible is composed of the 2 Testaments, Old and New.

I say we scrap the Old except for the book of Genesis


It would seem just by reading the argument that the Pro has provided, that he/she has not fully read and understood the entire Bible. Without the Old Testament, the New Testament is nothing; leaving out many major prospects that Christianity lives by. Just a few, we have the 10 commandments, which the New Testament does not restate in itself, but REFERENCES from the Old Testament. Another example from the Old Testament is the prophecies that we get from the Major Prophets: Which gave us the signs of the soon coming (then) of the Messiah, and the visions of Daniel, which showed us a timeline of the Europe's national powers. All of these prophecies have been fulfilled, all from the Holy Word of God, and with our current knowledge of the past, these prophecies are what proves the entire Bible's validity.

Just reading the New Testament without the Old Testament, is like trying to make a peanut butter sandwich without the bread. It can be eaten by itself, but it defeats the purpose.

The Bible is a gift from God to humanity as a guidebook; to help us understand the purpose, steps and gift of salvation through Jesus. Everything in the Bible was meant to be there. Otherwise God would not have let it been printed in millions of copies everyday.

Hebrews 4:12 speaks of the Bible being sharper than any two edged sword, and it "penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow". This means that the Word of God tells us whats wrong in our lives. Acting as divider between us and our sinful lives. Without the Old Testament, the Bible is only a sword and no handle. Without the New Testament, the Bible is only a handle. Both render useless.

With trust in an all mighty, all knowing God, we can know for sure that the entire Bible has been selected though out all the lost scrolls to be put into one book, that the New and Old testament are cooperative as one.

Debate Round No. 1


PiningForASilverLining forfeited this round.


I see that the pro has forfeited this round. This either proves that the pro has forfeited the entire match or that he has no evidence for his side. Please continue this debate.
Debate Round No. 2


I am no Biblical scholar, but it seems to me like the Bible and its contents are a bit crazy. By Christians It is called the Word of God. If you are a true and pure Christian and accept the Bible as the word, wisdom, and law of God then the laws of the Bible should supersede any secular laws and you should apply the law of God no matter how brutal or insane it seems. To not do this would be disobeying God.

The Old Testament is notorious, especially the books of Deuteronomy and Leviticus, for proscribing law and wisdom that is just plain insane and evil in the context of the modern worldview and morals.

Things that are deemed okay and the law of God in the Old Testament include:


However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Murder (domestic):

2) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)

Rape (domestic):

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)

rape (as a part of warfare):

"When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive's garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion." (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)

Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings " Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba " died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.

Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. "Why have you let all the women live?" he demanded. "These are the very ones who followed Balaam's advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD's people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

No pork and no shellfish (Diet restrictions, granted there was no US Department of Agriculture to ensure this stuff was safe to eat)

Deuteronomy 14:8-10

And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. These ye shall eat of all that are in the waters: all that have fins and scales shall ye eat: And whatsoever hath not fins and scales ye may not eat; it is unclean unto you.

The New Testament contains plenty of insanity of its own but the Old Testament is off the charts.

I make my argument to scrap the Old Testament except for Genesis because every religion needs a creation story, but no religion needs all the evil, racist, brutal elements and laws that much of the Old Testament seems to require and encourage.
Also, much of the Old Testament deals with the history of the Jewish People, their hardships, their crazy post exodus laws (Deuteronomy). Most Christians today have no ancestry relating to the Isrealites. Jesus seems to be the figure of most focus and inspiration for Christians, which is logical. This brings to mind the WWJD?. I'm okay with WWJD? I don't think I'd be okay with WWMD? How often do people ask "What would Moses do?" never... and thank God because then people would not be allowed to enjoy bacon and ham and crabs and lobster and the rage this would cause would cause them to take multiple wives, maybe one by raping her when she was a virgin and forcing her to marry them, killing family members for minor offenses, going to war against anyone who isn't Christian, raping their virgins after killing all males, owning slaves, etc etc.

My point, the Bible would be better without all the nonsense found in the Old Testament and I don't agree those entries to the Bible can be ignored. They too are the Word of God and must be obeyed if you are a serious Christian.


CentristX forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago
sorry i missed the 2nd round, I really only have a few points to make so round 3 should be enough. (This debate is a bit facetious though)
Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago
valid point, but seems like few debates are without subjective opinion
Posted by leonardlewis4 5 years ago
RE: "...Christians tend to pay attention to the New Testament and the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, the book of Genesis and the book of Revelations more than anything else"

That may be a statistical fact. I don't know... If that is all you intend to prove, the other part of your argument--that the other books are therefore not "needed"--is still just a declaration of what should follow, in your opinion. How do we argue your opinion logically?

You: They are not needed.
Me: Why?
You: Because I said so...

Posted by PiningForASilverLining 5 years ago
I'm arguing (and I'm no religious scholar mind you) that Christians tend to pay attention to the New Testament and the Gospels of Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John, the book of Genesis and the book of Revelations more than anything else, so to hell (pun intended) with the rest of it
Posted by leonardlewis4 5 years ago
Do you care to elaborate on what you mean by "need" in the debate topic? I might be a contender if I'm sure of what I'm opposing.

For instance, maybe you are saying that Genesis + the New Testament is complete (in the canonical sense)...and that the other Old Testament books are "filler" or "redundant" in that regard.

Or... Maybe you are saying that the Bible does not "need" the other books of the Old Testament, because those books are inconsistent with the rest of it (in your mind).

FYI: I would disagree with either of those, but I'd like to know exactly what argument I'm opposing.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
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: Both forfeited, so conduct is equal. Neither attempted to refute the other. Con proved that without the Old Testament, there is no basis for the New Testament. Pro ignored the arguments and made his own. Con did not refute Pro's arguments because of the FF. So arguments tied, BOP not fulfilled. Con used a source, so he gets source points.