The Instigator
Yo123
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kohai
Con (against)
Winning
25 Points

The Bible has not been changed and corrupted

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 5 votes the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,258 times Debate No: 18050
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

Yo123

Pro

I will be for that the bible has not been changed and corrupted since the time it was revealed. Con will say that the bible has been changed and corrupted from the time it was revealed, and he will have to prove that, like I will have to prove my point. I will let my opponent start first with his arguments, and then we just go from there.

Thank you and good luck.
kohai

Con

I suppose round 1 is just for acceptance. I want to start the debate from a few quotes from fundamentalist christians.

"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]

In order for me to win, I need to show only 1 corruption while my opponent has to go through the entire Bible to prove otherwise. Good luck!

References

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

Debate Round No. 1
Yo123

Pro

Con have given 2 Quotes from some "fundamentalist Christians" as he says, but do not say what the names of these fundamentalist Christians are. I will ask my opponent to give me that. Thank you.

You have not yet proved that the bible has been changed and corrupted. You just gave 2 Quotes some "fundamentalist Christians".

Don't vote Con!
kohai

Con

Ah, I thought the first round was acceptance only. My opponent has not fulfilled his burden of proof so I shall now bring forth my arguments.

Anyways, I shall define "corruption" as a change in the text.

Allow me to quote the Bible.

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.
  1. The scribes falsified the Bible.
  2. 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.

  1. Virgin is mistranslated. The word for "virgin" is the word alama which means "young woman." IT NEVER MEANS VIRGIN! [1];
  2. 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 |
  1. Bible attests to its own corruption.
    1. Jeremiah 8:8
    2. Matthew 2:15 (could also go under C2 and a misquote)
  2. The Bible is mistranslated.
    1. Isaiah 7:14
      1. 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.

Debate Round No. 2
Yo123

Pro

My opponent didn't give good proves of the bible being changed and corrupted. He only gave some passages from the bible, which are taken out of context. For example, a historic evidence or something like that would have been more better. Also, my opponent didn't give me the names of those 2 fundamentalist Christians which he quoted on his first round.

My opponent haven't yet proved 100% that the bible has been changed and corrupted, so don't vote con.

kohai

Con

My opponent has yet to provide a definition of corruption. I defined it in the previous round as a change in the text that alters the texts meaning. Thus based upon that definition, I negated the resolution. We cannot say the text had not been corrupted or changed as we have seen how the Bible attests to its own corruption, the translators altered the texts meaning and the gospel writters took the old testament passages out of context to give it a different meaning. Thus the resolution has been negated because we cannot say the Bible has not been changed.

PRO I suggest you give a definition of "corruption" in the next round.

VOTE CON!

Ps...if you look under the reference in the first round, I clearly shown the book and the author of it.
Debate Round No. 3
Yo123

Pro

I forfiet.


kohai

Con

Thank you for a good debate. As pro forfeited I urge a CON vote. I hope to debate with you in the future.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by shaanbarca 2 years ago
shaanbarca
Kohai i borrowed some of you sources is it ok
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 5 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
Yo123kohaiTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro did not debate at any point.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Yo123kohaiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I hate to vote for Kohai in anything... but since Pro made no argument (and really proposed an un-winnable debate due to BoP) I hvae to give Kohai the argument.
Vote Placed by izbo10 5 years ago
izbo10
Yo123kohaiTied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins as terrible debate to take on as pro, at least he forfeited. Props for admitting he had no argument though.
Vote Placed by CD-Host 5 years ago
CD-Host
Yo123kohaiTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Yo123kohaiTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF