The Instigator
DeusMortisEst
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points
The Contender
Dale.G
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is 100% Accurate

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 7 votes the winner is...
DeusMortisEst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/9/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,931 times Debate No: 29022
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (14)
Votes (7)

 

DeusMortisEst

Con

There is sufficient evidence to call into question the accuracy of the bible.
The bible is rife with contradictions and inaccuracies.

This is a list of ten errors in the bible, taken from http://www.examiner.com...

- The genealogy of Christ. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two very different genealogies for Joseph, Mary's husband. In fact, even Luke admits that he isn't sure that Joseph was actually Jesus' father (Luke 3:23, NIV). You would think that someone who was directly inspired by god would know what he's writing.

- Scientific errors. I find it suspect that those who take the Bible literally as a scientific text for the larger, cosmological arguments can simply ignore the number of small scientific mistakes the Bible makes. For example, rabbits don't chew their cud and the bat is not a bird.

- The story of Jesus' death and resurrection. Were Jesus' last words "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit," ""It is finished," or "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" followed by a loud cry? Did the rooster crow once or twice? How did Judas die"by suicide or fall?

- God or Gods? In Hebrew, Genesis 1 mentions "Elohim" created the heavens and the earth. Elohim is plural (the rationalization of this is really extraordinary), and Genesis states that God said "Let us make men in our image." Also, in Jewish literature, Asherah is the female counterpart to Yahweh, though the Bible condemns worshiping her. Nevertheless, she appears in the same Jewish literature the Old Testament is drawn from, but is completely ignored in Christianity.

- Faith or works or belief? Ephesians 2:8-9 says that salvation is not of works, "lest any man should boast." James 2:24 says man is justified by works and "not by faith alone." Most justify it by saying it is both, but Paul is very clear that salvation is not of works, and even gives a reason why. Then, to add confusion to the mix, verses such as Acts 16:31 claim that belief alone is sufficient salvation. Not only that, but your entire household will be saved just by one person believing. Other verses show various conglomerations of the three.

- Where is Jesus? In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying that he would return before the end of that generation. There are some interesting theories as to why he has not yet returned, the most common being that there is a gap or a figurative generation, however, it is obvious that the writer's of the text thought he meant that physical generation. I find it hard to believe that a theologian 2,000 years later can better figure out what Jesus meant than the people who were actually there. Some people think it is a mistranslation, and that Jesus actually meant "race," not "generation." This probably makes the most sense, but still is dubious and does not explain much.

- Freewill or not? There is almost no greater theological debate bigger than the idea of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or freewill vs. predestination. Do we humans have any choice whether to believe in God or not? Though most Christians acknowledge the differing viewpoints, somehow the fact that the issue is confusing because the Bible is so contradictory on the subject escapes many.

- Does God ever change? Ezekiel 24:14: "I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD." (KJV) But God changed his mind about destroying or punishing people several times in the Bible, most notably in Genesis 18:23-33. The Bible also directly contradicts Ezekial 24:14 in Genesis 6:6: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

- Are God's laws good? Many verses seem to suggest that God is, indeed good. There are too many to list. But the Bible also says "Wherefore I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live; And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD." Ezekial 20:25-26.

- Should we judge? 1 Corinthians 2:15 says "The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment," but 1 Corinthians 4:5 says "Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

And these are only 10 examples. How can one claim the bible as an accurate and trustworthy source when it appears so internally and externally inconsistent?
Dale.G

Pro

OK First of all, I would like to thank Paddy for having this debate with me; I agree that the bible is 100% Accurate Paddy U wanted to Debate me on The Bible is 100% Accurate your the one who said it Paddy. :) before I start this debate
I would like to say that all contradictions have being already answered. :)
Alright let's get started shall we, someone who is unsaved non believer will not understand what the bible say's,' u need To be born again to understand the Bible. :) this is what Paddy said for round one The genealogy of Christ. Matthew 1 And Luke 3 give two very different genealogies for Joseph, Mary's husband. In fact, even Luke admits that he isn't sure That Joseph was actually Jesus' father (Luke 3:23, NIV). You would think that someone who was directly inspired by God would know what he's writing.
/ Me quote Paddy The Bible say's in Luke 3:23
King James Version (KJV)
23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
/ Me Quote Jesus was born from Mary right The Bible say's in Matthew 1:19-23
King James Version (KJV)
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
/ Me Quote Paddy here is what I will say to u about Why are there different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew 1 and Luke 3?

Matthew 1:16 - Luke 3:23

Both Matthew 1 and Luke 3 contain genealogies of Jesus. But there is one problem--they are different. Luke's genealogy starts at Adam and goes to David. Matthew's genealogy starts at Abraham and goes to David. When the genealogies arrive at David, they split with David's sons: Nathan (Mary's side?) and Solomon (Joseph's side).

There are differences of opinion with two main options being offered. The first is that one genealogy is for Mary and the other is for Joseph. It was customary to mention the genealogy through the father even though it was clearly known that it was through Mary.

"The second thing is that this genealogy differs in significant ways from the genealogy in Matthew. Why? Most Bible scholars believe that Luke gives the genealogy of Mary (who was also of the royal Davidic line), while Matthew traces the family of Joseph. Thus by both His mother and His earthly father, Jesus had a right to the throne of Israel."1

"Luke paused from his narrative to give Christ"s genealogy. While Matthew traced Christ"s lineage through Joseph, his legal father (see Matt. 1:1"17), Luke traced it through Mary, beginning with Mary"s father, Heli. (Men in ancient times often regarded their sons-in-law as their own sons.) The lineages of Mary and Joseph converge at King David (compare 3:31 with Matt. 1:6).2

"Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph"here His real, there His reputed line"explain the statement about Joseph, that he was "the son of Heli," to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Ru 1:11, 12), and believe that Joseph"s name is only introduced instead of Mary"s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported." 3

Some critics may not accept this explanation and it is not without its problems.

"The theory that Luke really gives us the family tree of Mary rather than of Joseph is improbable. The theory with least difficulties is that Matthew gives the descendants of David down the royal line (i.e. who was heir to the throne at any given time), but Luke gives the particular line to which Joseph belonged.4

The Bible should be interpreted in the context of its literary style, culture, and history. Breaking up genealogies into male and female representations was acceptable in the ancient Near East culture since it was often impolite to speak of women without proper conditions being met: male presence, etc. Therefore, one genealogy might be of Mary and the other of Joseph--even though both mention Joseph. In other words, the Mary geneaology was counted "in" Joseph and under his headship.

I find it difficult to accept that those who collected the books of the New Testament, and who believed it was inerrant, were unaware of this blatant differentiation in genealogies. They must have understood what the historical/cultural context was and had no problem with it. Even though we cannot ascertain at this time a precise explanation does not mean one isn't forthcoming. After all, archaeological discovers clear up Bible "difficulties" on a regular basis. But, back to our discussion.

Notice that Luke starts with Mary and goes backwards to Adam. Matthew starts with Abraham and goes forward to Joseph. The intents of the genealogies were obviously different which is clearly seen in their styles. Luke was not written to the Jews, Matthew was. Therefore, Matthew would carry the legal line (from Abraham through David) and Luke the biological one (from Adam through David). Also, notice that Luke's first three chapters mention Mary eleven times; hence, the genealogy from her. Fourth, notice Luke 3:23, "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," This designation "supposedly" seems to signify the Marian genealogy since it seems to indicate that Jesus is not the biological son of Joseph.

Finally, in the Joseph genealogy is a man named Jeconiah. God cursed Jeconiah (also called Coniah), stating that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of David, "For no man of his descendants will prosper sitting on the throne of David or ruling again in Judah," (Jer. 22:30). But Jesus, of course, will sit on the throne in the heavenly kingdom. The point is that Jesus is not a biological descendant of Jeconiah, but through the other lineage -- that of Mary. Hence, the prophetic curse upon Jeconiah stands inviolate. But, the legal adoption of Jesus by Joseph reckoned the legal rights of Joseph to Jesus as a son, not the biological curse. This is why we need two genealogies: one of Mary (the actually biological line according to prophecy), and the legal line through Joseph.

LUKE - Adam, the father of Seth, the father of Enosh, the father of Cainan, the father of Mahaleleel, the father of Jared, the father of Enoch, the father of Methuselah, the father of Lamech, the father of Noah, the father of Shem, the father of Arphaxad, the father of Cainan, the father of Shelah, the father of Heber, the father of Peleg, the father of Reu, the father of Serug, the father of Nahor, the father of Terah, the father of

MATTHEW - Abraham, the father of Isaac, the father of Jacob, the father of Judah, the father of Perez, the father of Hezron, the father of Ram, the father of Admin, the father of Amminadab, the father of Nahshon, the father of Salmon, the father of Boaz, the father of Obed, the father of Jesse -- the father of
/ me quote Paddy I will refute your next questions in round 2 Paddy
Debate Round No. 1
DeusMortisEst

Con

"someone who is unsaved non believer will not understand what the bible say's,' u need To be born again to understand the Bible."

This is an argument you used in our previous debate, and it is not a valid argument. It is an excuse that the faithful use to attempt to invalidate claims of inconsistency within the bible made by non-believers. Please refrain from presenting this as part of a formal argument.

Your refutation was an interesting read, to say the least, however it is clearly copied and pasted from elsewhere, and since you didn't provide the source there is no way for me to assess how trustworthy the author is. However, that alone does not render your refutation invalid at all. You (or rather your source) may be absolutely correct in the assumption that the two genealogies given were both valid genealogies, but referred to different sides of Jesus' family. However, there is no evidence to support this supposition beyond the argument that 'it makes sense this way.'
I will admit that I cannot really argue against the points you made, but this is not to say I agree, this is just to say that I do not have sufficient evidence to disprove the argument, but, that being said, you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it.
Because of this evidentiary stalemate, I am perfectly willing to allow that apparent error in the bible to be explained by your rationalization, however that was just one error out of ten that I presented, and I would be interested to see your refutations for the rest.
Dale.G

Pro

OK now I would like to say thank u Paddy for your response, but what i find interesting; is Paddy statement? Paddy Quoted this I will admit that I cannot really argue against the points you made, but this is not to say I agree, this is just to say that I do not have sufficient evidence to disprove the argument, but, that being said, you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it.

/ me quote so If Paddy cannot really argue against the points I have made, then Paddy cannot say but, that being said, you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it.
Paddy did not prove me wrong, that is why Paddy cannot say I don't have sufficient evidence to prove it.
when A I have given prove, Paddy said to me this is what Paddy said to me The genealogy of Christ. Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two very different genealogies for Joseph, Mary's husband. In fact, even Luke admits that he isn't sure that Joseph was actually Jesus' father (Luke 3:23, NIV). You would think that someone who was directly inspired by god would know what he's writing.

/ Me quote Paddy needs to be honest in debating me :)
OK I will refute what Paddy next's question is Paddy Quoted this to me - Scientific errors. I find it suspect that those who take the Bible literally as a scientific text for the larger, cosmological arguments can simply ignore the number of small scientific mistakes the Bible makes. For example, rabbits don't chew their cud and the bat is not a bird.

Here comes my answer; :) This statement is made in Leviticus 11:6, where the Hebrew literally means "raises up what has been swallowed." The rabbit does re-eat partially digested fecal pellets that come from a special pouch called the caecum. Bacteria in these pellets enrich the diet and provide nutrients to aid digestion. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Some lagomorphs [rabbits and hares] are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants ...The upper tooth rows are more widely separated than the lower rows, and chewing is done with a transverse movement."

OK Paddy next question is this - The story of Jesus' death and resurrection. Were Jesus' last words "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit," ""It is finished," or "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" followed by a loud cry? Did the rooster crow once or twice? How did Judas die"by suicide or fall?

OK Judas died by hanging himself, the bible says in Matthew 27:3-5
King James Version (KJV)
3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

here is the link http://www.biblegateway.com...

/ Me Quote Paddy can u show me where it say's word for word in the Bible that say's bat is not a bird.
I notice u did not back that statement up with any Evidence. :)

OK Paddy other question Did the rooster crow once or twice?
my answer is this
Matthew 26:34-35, 74-75; Luke 22:34,60-62; John 13:38 and Mark 14:30

Denies before cock crows
(Mathew 26:34,74-75) - "Jesus said to him, "Truly I say to you that this very night, before a cock crows, you shall deny Me three times . . . 74Then he began to curse and swear, "I do not know the man!" And immediately a cock crowed. 75And Peter remembered the word which Jesus had said, "Before a cock crows, you will deny Me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly."
(Luke 22:34,60-62) - "And He said, "I say to you, Peter, the cock will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me . . . .60But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are talking about." And immediately, while he was still speaking, a cock crowed. 61And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how He had told him, "Before a cock crows today, you will deny Me three times." 62And he went out and wept bitterly."
(John 13:38) - "Jesus *answered, "Will you lay down your life for Me? Truly, truly, I say to you, a cock shall not crow, until you deny Me three times."
Denies before cock crows twice
(Mark 14:30) - "And Jesus *said to him, "Truly I say to you, that you yourself this very night, before a cock crows twice, shall three times deny Me..."
If a cock crows a second time, then it has crowed once before. The problem is that in Mark, after Peter denies the Lord for the third time (Mark 14:71), immediately a cock crows a second time (v. 72). The other gospels tell us that after Peter's third denial a cock then crows. How do we reconcile this difficulty?

Mark does not mention when the cock crowed the first time. Therefore, it is possible that after Peter's third denial, the cock then crowed twice; that is, two times in a row. This is logically possible.

OK here is what Paddy said to me - God or Gods? In Hebrew, Genesis 1 mentions "Elohim" created the heavens and the earth. Elohim is plural (the rationalization of this is really extraordinary), and Genesis states that God said "Let us make men in our image." Also, in Jewish literature, Asherah is the female counterpart to Yahweh, though the Bible condemns worshiping her. Nevertheless, she appears in the same Jewish literature the Old Testament is drawn from, but is completely ignored in Christianity.
/ Me Quote here is my answer ELOHIM: God "Creator, Mighty and Strong" (Genesis 17:7; Jeremiah 31:33) " the plural form of Eloah, which accommodates the doctrine of the Trinity. From the Bible"s first sentence, the superlative nature of God"s power is evident as God (Elohim) speaks the world into existence (Genesis 1:1).
/ me quote Paddy u may of not heard this said to u but i will tell u Question: "Who was Asherah?"

Question: "Who was Asherah?"

Answer: Asherah, or Ashtoreth, was the name of the chief female deity worshiped in ancient Syria, Phoenicia, and Canaan. The Phoenicians called her Astarte, the Assyrians worshiped her as Ishtar, and the Philistines had a temple of Asherah (1 Samuel 31:10). Because of Israel"s incomplete conquest of the land of Canaan, Asherah-worship survived and plagued Israel, starting as soon as Joshua was dead (Judges 2:13).

Asherah was represented by a limbless tree trunk planted in the ground. The trunk was usually carved into a symbolic representation of the goddess. Because of the association with carved trees, the places of Asherah worship were commonly called "groves," and the Hebrew word "asherah" (plural, "asherim") could refer either to the goddess or to a grove of trees. One of King Manasseh"s evil deeds was that he "took the carved Asherah pole he had made and put it in the temple" (2 Kings 21:7). Another translation of "carved Asherah pole" is "graven image of the grove" (KJV).

Considered the moon-goddess, Asherah was often presented as a consort of Baal, the sun-god (Judges 3:7, 6:28, 10:6; 1 Samuel 7:4, 12:10). Asherah was also worshiped as the goddess of love and war and was sometimes linked with Anath, another Canaanite goddess. Worship of Asherah was noted for its sensuality and involved ritual prostitution. The priests and priestesses of Asherah also practiced divination and fortune-telling.

OK I have not got much Characters remaining left so I will try to refute all Paddy questions in Round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
DeusMortisEst

Con

Again, your argument made for interesting reading.
Let's clear some things up before I refute your argument.
The phrases "I cannot really argue against the points you made" and " you don't have sufficient evidence to prove it" are two separate statements. However I will admit that I didn't word them as clearly as I could. Please allow me to rephrase:
I could try to argue against the points you made, but I choose not to because I feel that the evidence I could present would be insufficient to conclusively disprove your argument, just as the evidence you have presented is insufficient to conclusively prove it.
Also, don't try to claim my inability to disprove, discredit, or invalidate a claim you have made as evidence of it's truth. That is akin to shifting the burden of proof.
Oh, and please don't tell me to be honest, when you are copying and pasting your arguments from other sources, and claiming them as your own.

Because you have addressed so many of my points in one round, I will rebut them in segments.

SCIENTIFIC ERRORS

Your argument in support of the accuracy of referring to rabbits as cud chewers is essentially that it was translated wrong. This doesn't support the accuracy of the bible, but rather raises more questions about it's inaccuracy. Why, if the correct translation is completely different, is it translated this way? Wasn't god 'divinely inspiring' the translations, just as he supposedly 'divinely inspired' the original writers? If not, then how can you claim the accuracy of the translation you are using? If so, then why did god inspire such a confusing translation?

DEATH OF JUDAS

Ok, so that is what Matthew 27:3-5 says, so what about Acts 1:18?

"Now this man [Judas] purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

Now, I'd be interested to hear how you rationalize such vastly contradictory accounts.

IS A BAT A BIRD?

I'm somewhat puzzled as to how this ended up being addressed at such an odd juncture in your argument, as it came under scientific errors, but oh well, I will answer anyway.
I didn't say that the bible said a bat is not a bird, the bible says a bat IS a bird, however it ISN'T a bird, but rather a flying mammal.

HOW MANY TIMES DID THE COCK CROW?

Although logically possible, I would consider it a bit of a stretch that anyone would describe a cock crowing twice in a row as a cock crowing a second time.

PLURALIZATION OF GOD

Then if god is referred to in plural, he is in fact gods and you are a polytheist, and cannot claim the existence of a 'one true god'....
I would be interested to know where you are getting all of these refutations (because they are clearly plagiarized). Whoever you are getting them from seems to be grasping at straws. Plurals exist, in any language, to describe more than one of something. You either worship a single god (Eloah) or a pantheon (Elohim).

ASHERAH/ASTARTE/ASTAROTH

This is just a sidenote, and has no bearing on the topic per se, but you brought it up, so I thought I ought to point this out to you:

Gods and goddesses such as Asherah, Baal, Ba'al az-Zubab, and the cultures that worshipped them, were destroyed for purely political (rather than spiritual) reasons. Any culture worshipping a different god was seen as a threat to the up and coming Judaic culture, and the best way to deal with them was to tell the people that these other cultures were worshipping demons, and that god wanted them to be punished for it, and with that they could justify genocide and religious persecution in the minds of the highly superstitious populace.
There is no evidence to suggest that, in their original mythologies, these gods and goddesses were viewed the way the Jews viewed them, and there is no evidence to suggest that the genocides that occurred (such as the Canaanite genocide described in Deuteronomy 7).
The effort made by religious leaders of the time to wipe out other cultures, and to create an alternative history (wherein they worshipped demons and practiced violent and atrocious rituals) was no different from what the Nazi leaders of Germany tried to do to the Jews in the mid 20th century.
The only difference is that the Biblical genocides have been justified and rationalized by religious leaders so many times over the last two millennia that the faithful never question, nor do they fail to inform the unfaithful when the subject is mentioned, that such actions need to be looked at in context.

Alright, to sum up my argument:

This debate was essentially an opportunity to you to provide evidence to justify your claim that the bible is 100% accurate.
You provided rather questionable (in my opinion) evidence, much of which seemed to hinge on an argument of mistranslation, which actually proves my position to a certain degree, as it raises questions of accuracy pertaining to translation (rather than the already mentioned questions pertaining to scientific errors, and contradictory accounts of events).
Dale.G

Pro

OK time to refute Paddy next questions, this is what Paddy said to me - Faith or works or belief? Ephesians 2:8-9 says that salvation is not of works, "lest any man should boast." James 2:24 says man is justified by works and "not by faith alone." Most justify it by saying it is both, but Paul is very clear that salvation is not of works, and even gives a reason why. Then, to add confusion to the mix, verses such as Acts 16:31 claim that belief alone is sufficient salvation. Not only that, but your entire household will be saved just by one person believing. Other verses show various conglomerations of the three.

/ Me Quote Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
/ me Quote yes I am saved by the Grace of the Lord Jesus Christ but i am justified by faith Paddy u may not of heard this said to u before I will tell u this Ephesians 2:8, 9; Romans 3:20, 28; Galatians 2:16 and James 2:24; Matthew 19:16-21

Saved by grace
(Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
(Rom. 3:20, 28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
(Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Saved by works
(James 2:24) - "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
(Matthew 19:16-17) - "And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."
God does not want a faith that is empty and hypocritical. James 2 is talking about those who "say" that they have faith but have no works. Therefore, people cannot tell if they are true believers or not, because there is no fruit. That kind of a faith is useless and is not a saving faith. True faith results in true works.

In Matthew 19:16-17, Jesus was speaking to a Lawyer who was self-righteous since he wanted to put Jesus to the test (Luke 10:25). He asked what he must do in order to obtain eternal life and Jesus responded with the requirements of keeping the commandments. If a person keeps all of the commandments, it would seem that they could obtain eternal life. However, nobody can keep all of the commandments. Therefore, Jesus' comments to this man show this man that justification can only be by faith since no one can keep all of the commandments. This is why it says in Ephesians 2:8-9
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Also, Romans 3:20,28 and Galatians 2:16 tells us that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law; that is, by the works that he can do.

There is no contradiction at all when we examine the contexts. We are justified by faith but that faith must be alive (James 2). The Law cannot save us because we are incapable of keeping it (Matthew 19:16-17). Therefore, salvation is by grace through faith.

/ me quote there is a lot more i can say for that question about what Paddy said to me but i wish this was a 5 round debate so I can show more but anyhow Paddy wanted a 3 round debate so i will try to refute all his claims and if i run out of Characters Remaining then there has to be a other debate with Paddy other questions OK

Paddy said this to me - Where is Jesus? In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Jesus is quoted as saying that he would return before the end of that generation. There are some interesting theories as to why he has not yet returned, the most common being that there is a gap or a figurative generation, however, it is obvious that the writer's of the text thought he meant that physical generation. I find it hard to believe that a theologian 2,000 years later can better figure out what Jesus meant than the people who were actually there. Some people think it is a mistranslation, and that Jesus actually meant "race," not "generation." This probably makes the most sense, but still is dubious and does not explain much.

/ Me Quote i do not fully understand Paddy question here why well in Matthew Mark and Luke Jesus Christ is mentioned
here is my proof Jesus was mentioned in Matthew the Bible say's in Matthew 24:14
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

/ Me Quote Jesus will come when he choose to not when we demand him to :) Jesus was mention in The Gospel of Mark the Bible say's in Mark 11:11
11 And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.

/ me Quote Jesus is also found in the Gospel of Luke Jesus Christ said in Luke 18:19
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

/ Me Quote Paddy said something interesting Paddy said this I find it hard to believe that a theologian 2,000 years later can better figure out what Jesus meant than the people who were actually there.
/ me quote so Paddy agrees there where people there so Paddy knows people where there wow nice one Paddy :)
Paddy other question is this - Freewill or not? There is almost no greater theological debate bigger than the idea of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, or freewill vs. predestination. Do we humans have any choice whether to believe in God or not? Though most Christians acknowledge the differing viewpoints, somehow the fact that the issue is confusing because the Bible is so contradictory on the subject escapes many.

/ Me Quote I say yes God gives us Free Will why well The Apostle Peter said in 2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

/ me quote I have a free will choose to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ
Paddy other question is this - Does God ever change? Ezekiel 24:14: "I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord GOD." (KJV) But God changed his mind about destroying or punishing people several times in the Bible, most notably in Genesis 18:23-33. The Bible also directly contradicts Ezekial 24:14 in Genesis 6:6: "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

/ me quote SOME PEOPLE SAY 'THE BIBLE SAY'S 'GOD REPENTED.' DOSEN'T THAT SHOW HE IS CAPABLE OF SIN

i can say God cannot sin

' repent' means to have a change of mind .' when the bible tells sinners to repent, it means to change their direction, to turn from their sins.
God's ' repenting' is when he turns away from his fierce anger to-ward sinners.
he warns men of the consequences of their disobedience.
if they repent ( Turn from their sins), he 'repent' by not pouring out his promise warth on thm.
for instance, Jonah 3:8-9
King James Version (KJV)
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.

9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?

'see also Jeremiah
Debate Round No. 3
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dale.G 4 years ago
Dale.G
Paddy Let me help u out with what Ezekiel 24:14 means

my interpretation is this God will not repent when God say's he will do something he dose not repent meaning once I pray and ask God to protect me and God dose God protects me God is perfect thus when I do something wrong like tell a lie i have to repent of that lie right God hates sin

Ezekiel 24:14
King James Version (KJV)
14 I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent; according to thy ways, and according to thy doings, shall they judge thee, saith the Lord God.

/ Me Quote so Paddy there cannot be any errors in the bible get saved ask the Lord Jesus Christ to come into your heart and ask Jesus Christ to forgive u of all your sins :)
Posted by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
Dale, save your rhetoric for another debate. You are blowing smoke into the wind. The debate is over and you lost, no matter what you put in the comments, it is not going to help the voting.
Posted by Dale.G 4 years ago
Dale.G
The Scriptures that are interpreted as God seeming to change His mind are human attempts to explain the actions of God. God was going to do something, but instead did something else. To us, that sounds like a change. But to God, who is omniscient and sovereign, it is not a change. God always knew what He was going to do. God does what He needs to do to cause humanity to fulfill His perfect plan. ""declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure " What I have said, that will I bring about; what I have planned, that will I do" (Isaiah 46:10-11). God threatened Nineveh with destruction, knowing that it would cause Nineveh to repent. God threatened Israel with destruction, knowing that Moses would intercede. God does not regret His decisions, but He is saddened by some of what man sometimes does in response to His decisions. God does not change His mind but rather acts consistently with His Word in response to our actions
Posted by Dale.G 4 years ago
Dale.G
Romans 3:23 teaches us that all men sin and fall short of God"s standard. Romans 6:23 states that the consequence for this is death (spiritual and physical). So the people of Nineveh were deserving of punishment. All of us face this same situation; it is man"s choosing to sin that separates us from God. Man cannot hold God responsible for his own predicament. So it would be contrary to the character of God to not punish the Ninevites had they continued in sin. However, the people of Nineveh turned to obedience, and for that the Lord chose not to punish them as He had originally intended. Did the change on the part of the Ninevites obligate God to do what He did? Absolutely not! God cannot be placed in a position of obligation to man. God is good and righteous, and chose not to punish the Ninevites as a result of their change of heart. If anything, what this passage does is point to the fact that God does not change, because had the Lord not preserved the Ninevites, it would have been contrary to His character.
Posted by Dale.G 4 years ago
Dale.G
Consider Genesis 6:6: ""the LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth." This verse even goes on to say "His heart was filled with pain." This verse declares that God had regret for creating man. However, obviously He did not reverse His decision. Instead, through Noah, He allowed man to continue to exist. The fact that we are alive today is proof that God did not change His mind about creating man. Also, the context of this passage is a description of the sinful state in which man was living, and it is man"s sinfulness that triggered God"s sorrow, not man"s existence. Consider Jonah 3:10: ""He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened." Again, the same Hebrew word is used, which translates "to be sorry for." Why was God sorry for what He had planned for the Ninevites? Because they had a change in heart and as a result changed their ways from disobedience to obedience. God is entirely consistent. God was going to judge Nineveh because of its evil. However, Nineveh repented and changed its ways. As a result, God had mercy on Nineveh, which is entirely consistent with His character.
Posted by Dale.G 4 years ago
Dale.G
Question: "Does God change His mind?"

Answer: Malachi 3:6 declares, "I the LORD do not change. So you, O descendants of Jacob, are not destroyed." Similarly, James 1:17 tells us, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows." The meaning of Numbers 23:19 could not be more clear: "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?" No, God does not change His mind. These verses assert that God is unchanging and unchangeable.

How then do we explain verses such as Genesis 6:6, "The LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth, and His heart was filled with pain"? Also, Jonah 3:10, which says, "When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened." Similarly, Exodus 32:14 proclaims, "Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened." These verses speak of the Lord "repenting" of something and seem to contradict the doctrine of God"s immutability. However, close examination of these passages reveals that these are not truly indications that God is capable of changing. In the original language, the word that is translated as "repent" or "relent" is the Hebrew expression "to be sorry for." Being sorry for something does not mean that a change has occurred; it simply means there is regret for something that has taken place.

Consider Genesis 6:6: ""the LORD was grieved that He had made man on the earth." This verse even goes on to say "His heart was filled with pain." This verse declares that God had regret for creating man. However, obviously He did not reverse His decision. Instead, through Noah, He allowed man to continue to exist. The fact that
Posted by JasonGlenn 4 years ago
JasonGlenn
I would like to that too. There are so many inaccuracies in the Bible that are proven that,,,,, there's no way possible to prove the Bible "100% accurate"
Posted by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
DeusMortisEst, you need to challenge Garret with this. I want to see how he can present evidence to show that the bibles are 100% accurate.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I dare anyone to challenge me to this same debate!
Posted by DeusMortisEst 4 years ago
DeusMortisEst
We aren't the same user, I'm not sure where you get that idea from...
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by rowsdower 4 years ago
rowsdower
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro lost conduct points for his unwarranted attack that con couldn't understand the bible because he was not a believer. S/g needs no explanation. Pro offered explanations that seem like they were created to explain away inconsistencies. For instance there is no reason to believe that the genealogies are different because of going through different parents other than than need to explain away an inconsistency. Both used the bible as a source, which is fine in a debate about the accuracy of the bible. Therefore no points awarded in that category.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 4 years ago
CIIReligion
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO does not even know his own bibles.
Vote Placed by Aceviper2011 4 years ago
Aceviper2011
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has allot of truth and evidences supporting his claim.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G was not a contest. As for the arguments, I cannot see or follow most of the arguments presented by Pro. I did see a concession, quickly recognized by Con: (I cannot refute your arguments...) I was personally fascinated by the discussion of Asherah.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe The Bible is 100% Accurate, but Pro did a scandalous job of defending this position with his ad hominem attacks, poor spelling and grammar, and general incoherency. I dare DeusMortisEst to challenge me to this same debate.
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Even after the previous debate, which I also voted on, PRO repeated his same fallacious claim that "you don't understand the bible properly". I spent a long portion of my youth as a believer, and "understanding" it, until I realized that such "understanding" is really just cognitive dissonance and double-think. In fact I would go so far as to say that CON understands better than any inerrantist alive by his correct identification of the existing contradictions. CON pointed out the contradictions, CON did not make glaringly bad and purposeful truncations of words such as "you" to "u", and PRO claimed inaccuracy of his own source, essentially conceding the debate.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 years ago
dylancatlow
DeusMortisEstDale.GTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm not sure who to give the points to: pro did such a good job debating himself, he might just have snatched the title. Dale is actually a better advocate for atheism than Dawkins, Hitch, and Harris combined.