The Instigator
DeusMortisEst
Con (against)
Winning
62 Points
The Contender
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
43 Points

The Bible is 100% Accurate

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 18 votes the winner is...
DeusMortisEst
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,654 times Debate No: 29096
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (73)
Votes (18)

 

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 four errors in the bible, taken from a list of ten on this site www.examiner.com/article/ten-errors-the-bible

- 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.

How can the bible be considered accurate, when it contains so many internal and external inconsistencies?
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

1. The Genealogy Of Christ

1a. "Matthew 1 and Luke 3 give two very different genealogies for Joseph"

Matthew and Luke provide different genealogies because they used different methods for formulating them. Genealogies could be formulated based on biology, law, or custom.

1b. "Luke admits that he isn't sure that Joseph was actually Jesus' father"

No, he doesn't. He says Joseph was supposedly Jesus' father because that's what people thought; Jesus' didn't actually have a biological father.

2. Scientific Errors

2a. "rabbits don't chew their cud"

Where does the Bible say otherwise? Cite your source.

2b. "the bat is not a bird"

Where does the Bible say otherwise? Cite your source.

3. The Story Of Jesus' Death And Resurrection

3a. "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?"

I don't know.

3b. "Did the rooster crow once or twice?"

Twice.

3c. "How did Judas die"by suicide or fall?"

That's a false dichotomy.

4. God or Gods?

4a. "Elohim is plural"

Because there are 3 persons in God.

I will no longer respond to anything other than arguments. Your plagiarism is lazy and careless. Also, you need to cite Bible verses. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
DeusMortisEst

Con

"Jesus' didn't actually have a biological father. "

Then Jesus wasn't born from the line of David. I was under the impression that the Messiah, to fit the prophecy, had to be born from the line of David. http://www.biblegateway.com...

---

The part about the rabbit and the bat both occur in Leviticus 11 http://www.biblegateway.com...

---

The question about Jesus' last words, how would you account for the differences in accounts? That in itself is a conclusive example of an inaccuracy (Either one is right, and the rest are INACCURATE, or all of them are INACCURATE). The fact that you admit to not knowing leads me to believe you have no way of accounting for them.

---

How is the manner of Judas' death a false dichotomy? There are two different accounts. Don't evade the question.

---

If there are three person in god then he is actually gods (plurals exist in language to denote more than one of something) and thus the bible is inaccurate, as it frequently refers to the Jewish gods as a single god, which is internally inconsistent with Hebrew mythology.
GarretKadeDupre

Pro


"Then Jesus wasn't born from the line of David"

He was biologically of the line of David through Mary.

"[hares] don't chew their cud"

The word translated into 'cud' refers to partially digested material. Hares mix their poop (digested material) with grass (undigested material) and chew on this mass of partially digested material.

"the bat is not a bird"

The original word used for bird in this passage was also used for bats and winged insects.

"The question about Jesus' last words [...]"

Christ spoke all 3 passages. The Bible doesn't specify the chronological order in which he spoke them, but this is not an example of inaccuracy.

"How is the manner of Judas' death a false dichotomy? There are two different accounts. Don't evade the question"

I'm not evading the question. You asked if Judas died by suicide or hanging, and I called it out for the false dichotomy it is; a man can commit suicide by hanging. Again, you need to cite your Bible verses if you want to claim that there are two different accounts. I'm not doing your work for you. This is a debate, not a Bible study.

"If there are three person in god then he is actually gods [...] and thus the bible is inaccurate"

Elohim is uniplural. It describes the 3 persons of the 1 Triune God, just as U.S.A. describes the 50 states of 1 nation. How is this inconsistent with Hebrew mythology?

Debate Round No. 2
DeusMortisEst

Con

"The original word used for bird in this passage was also used for bats and winged insects."

The original word? So, you're saying there was an original word? As opposed to what? A revised translation?

Now tell me how the bible can be assumed to be accurate if the translation has been revised...
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

"The original word? So, you're saying there was an original word?"

Obviously.

"As opposed to what? A revised translation?"

Of course.

"Now tell me how the bible can be assumed to be accurate if the translation has been revised..."

The Bible is the original meaning behind the original words, which is 100% accurate. Revised editions sacrifice accuracy for convenience. Without revised versions, you would have to learn new languages and study ancient cultures.
Debate Round No. 3
DeusMortisEst

Con

So you admit modern translations are not 100% accurate?

Now tell me, have you read the original texts?
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

"So you admit modern translations are not 100% accurate?"

Not necessarily. The true meaning behind modern translations are more likely to be lost on someone quoting the Bible out of context, but this doesn't change the fact that the Bible is 100% accurate. Besides, any confusion can often be cleared up with the commentaries usually provided with revised translations.

"Now tell me, have you read the original texts?"

Have you?
Debate Round No. 4
DeusMortisEst

Con

I haven't read the original texts, no, but then I'm not the one making assumptions about their accuracy. You are, so I assume you have read them, otherwise you aren't really in a position to be making a judgement as to their accuracy.

If you haven't read them (which I suspect you haven't, or you wouldn't have evaded my question) then you are just making the ridiculous assumption that what you have been taught about the original text is accurate, after all, people can get things wrong... Unless they're writing/translating/interpreting a holy text of course (if one follows your logic).

Even if you HAVE read them (which is highly unlikely, as original manuscripts are not believed to exist) you are making the assumption that these stories didn't exist as an oral tradition for centuries before being written down.
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

"I haven't read the original texts, no, but then I'm not the one making assumptions about their accuracy"

Yes you are; you instigated this debate, regardless of whether or not you hide under the label of Con.

"I assume you have read them, otherwise you aren't really in a position to be making a judgement as to their accuracy."

I won't contest your assumption.

"you are making the assumption that these stories didn't exist as an oral tradition for centuries before being written down."

No, I realize some of the Bible was oral tradition before it was written. But the fact remains that it's consistency, in spite of this, is a testament to it's truthfulness. You have tried to argue that it contradicts itself on several controversial points, but have failed. I now leave this debate to the voters. Thanks for the debate!
Debate Round No. 5
73 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by timou 3 years ago
timou
bible was corrupted. Jesus is prophet without father.

Adam is son of father= servent fo God
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

father of Jesus is our father. so Jesus have no real father(parent) because father =God.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

the wrong translation made christians lost
Posted by TheElderScroll 3 years ago
TheElderScroll
Jesus Christ may well exist even if his divinity is not unquestionable.

@GarretKadeDupre:
"Maybe from a political point of view, but the supremacy of Catholicism was established while Jesus was alive."

It is debatable. "Scholars generally agree that Jesus died between 30-36 AD", that means Rome was under the control of Tiberius (adopted son of Augustus). Although the Roman Emperor did not forbid polytheism, the predominate faith, during that time, was still paganism. Besides, Emperor Nero was very hostile to Christianity and he was considered an early persecutor of Christians, and since Titus (before he became Emperor) was sent to deal with the Jewish rebellion of AD 66, it is unlikely that the supremacy of Catholicism/Christianity was yet established.

@bladerunner060:
Thanks. I must forget the New Testament. I was talking about Old Testament.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
I only claimed it was for the purposes of this debate. I'm not sure whether it's 1005 scientifically accurate, and frankly, I don't care much.
Posted by DeusMortisEst 3 years ago
DeusMortisEst
Not as ridiculous as considering the bible to be 100% accurate...
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Lol, being skeptical of Jesus' existence is one thing, but claiming that you know he never existed is ridiculous.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
No, I believe you're under the mistaken impression that Jesus was real, and thus lived an actual life.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
We seem to be using a different definition of supremacy.
Posted by Deadlykris 3 years ago
Deadlykris
"Maybe from a political point of view, but the supremacy of Catholicism was established while Jesus was alive."

So, what, that means the supremacy of Catholicism was never established?
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
"Constantine (~ 600AD) established the supremacy of [Catholicism]"

Maybe from a political point of view, but the supremacy of Catholicism was established while Jesus was alive.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
@TheElderScroll:

Old Testament was Hebrew, New Testament was Greek (Not necessarily completely in either case, just pointing out a generality).
18 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JasonGlenn 3 years ago
JasonGlenn
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The Bible is in no way 100% accurate and, anyone claiming that it is,,,, has obviously a bias opinion to start with and ignores any and all refutation of the contrary.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 3 years ago
emospongebob527
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: 16K, He was countering Dale.G.
Vote Placed by Mangani 3 years ago
Mangani
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The debaters were completely incourteous, frequently erroneous, and downright disrespectful of the concept of debate. Even so, Con managed to eek out a more convincing argument simply by pointing out inconsistencies in the bible, and Pro not being able to rebut with maturity. Both indulged in back and forth banter, and neither took the task of debating a position seriously.
Vote Placed by philochristos 3 years ago
philochristos
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con dropped all of his arguments. It would've been so easy for him to have provided references to go along with his arguments, and that wouldn't made it a lot harder for Pro to win.
Vote Placed by popculturepooka 3 years ago
popculturepooka
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Countering tennis47's votebomb.
Vote Placed by tennis47 3 years ago
tennis47
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I believe in God.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Alwaysmorethanyou did not Vb, ask minstrel who he is countering, if its not alwaysmorethenyou I can retract the vote.
Vote Placed by minstrel 3 years ago
minstrel
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Just countering the vote bomb a few votes back.
Vote Placed by CIIReligion 3 years ago
CIIReligion
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO made no real arguments, just evaded the questions and had poor debating skills. PRO also stated, indirectly, he did not know his own bible by making statements that proved that the bible is NOT 100% accurate. CON could have done better with his sources, but his arguments were more valid.
Vote Placed by AlwaysMoreThanYou 3 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
DeusMortisEstGarretKadeDupreTied
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: Con just started dropping arguments like mad, eventually ending up trying to shift the burden of proof, so arguments to Pro. Edit: If you noobs want to vote badly, I can vote even more badly. Hmm... what's a good excuse. Well, Logical-Master said 'As I feel conduct/sources/spelling played no substantial role in this debate, I should allocate all 7 of my points at my own discretion.', and no one countered him, so that's my rationale for votebombing. Come at me.