The Bible is Historically Accurate, and can be counted as a historically accurate document.
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals and Followup Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Comments no Arguments Allowed
Bible: 66 books as accepted Canon, not the Apocrypha.
Historical Accuracy: Can be substantiated with other historical evidence from the time.
If other definitions need to be added please put them in comments for review.
I accept and look forward to another interesting debate.
The BoP is on Pro to demonstrate that the entire Bible is historically accurate.
Archeology has uncovered many artifcats that confirm events described in the Bible.
The worsk of Josephus (a respected historian) coincide and confirm a lot of the Bible's historical events.
No information that is widely accepted and validated that is contradictory to the Bible has been presented.
The Bible was also written by the all-knowing Creator of the Universe, He doesn't make mistakes.
The Works of Josephus
Archeology Study Bible Notes
My opponent makes a number of unfounded claims.
He claims archeology has uncovered artifacts that confirm the Bible. This remains unsubstantiated.
Pro continues by saying that the works of Josephus confirm a lot of events in the Bible. Josephus lived in the 1st century. I see no reason to consider him a respected historian.
Next my opponent makes an extremely big claim:
"No information that is widely accepted and validated that is contradictory to the Bible has been presented."
This is false. There are so many examples that could be given to demonstrate this, but in this round I will only use one very simple one.
Genesis 1:1. There is no evidence that a Garden of Eden or an Adam and an Eve ever existed. There is, however, evidence that humans were not just magically created out of dust. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that is supported by a massive body of evidence . The theory of evolution is contradictory to the way creation is described in the Bible. Science has shown us that the Earth was not created in six days, as well as showing us that humans were not created directly by God, but rather evolved over time.
My opponent's last claim is as unsubstantiated as the rest.
Here is a list of things for my opponent to prove happened in order for the Bible to be taken as a historically accurate source:
1. Prove that God exists.
2.Prove the world was created in six days and that snakes could talk, the Garden of Eden existed, and Adam and Eve existed.
3. Prove that a flood happened that destroyed humanity except for Noah.
4. Prove that God made everyone speak different languages because of the Tower of Babel.
5. Prove that God impregnated Sarah at 90 years old.
6. Prove that God caused the Ten Plagues.
7. Prove that God gave Moses the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai and the Israelites wandered in the desert for forty years.
That's enough for now. Of course there are many more if he gets finished with these.
A note on my opponent's references: Please note how vague they are.
davidtaylorjr forfeited this round.
And yes, the Bible events of the crossing of the Red Sea are just one of the events confirmed by archeology. 
My opponent has asked me to extend my reasons why Josephus should not be considered a respected historian.
First of all, the burden is not on me to prove that Josephus is not respected, is is on the person using his writings as evidence. Pro claims he is largely accepted by scholars across the world without any evidence for that fact.
Even though it is not my burden to begin with, I will explain why Josephus should not be considered a respected historian on Biblical matters.
Josephus lived in the 1st century, so he did not have access to the modern tools of archeology or science to properly research Biblical matters.
Until my opponent presents a source proving Josephus's world wide respect as a historian, his work cannot be considered a good historical record.
My opponent describes the archaeological record of one biblical event. I could challenge this evidence because Pro has still not responded to the other, more more important, events I challenged him to prove in R2.
I do need to make some brief clarifications on those: In number one, I realized that Noah and his family all survived, and on number 5, I realize that God did not impregnate Sarah, but rather allowed her to become pregnant at age 90.
Regardless, my challenge went unchallenged, it was not even touched on.
The resolution is negated.
My opponent likes to take things out of context, and not look at the whole picture. God's word has, and always will stand and is absolute truth.
I yield to the voters.
I am not sure if I even need to say anything in this conclusion, but I will anyway because I like saying things.
1. My opponent claims the Bible is written by God, yet he provides no reasoning behind this.
2. If the Bible is to be used as a historically accurate document, we must have proof that the document is true. I gave my opponent seven things that would need to be proven as true in order for us to accept the Bible as historically accurate. He did not even attempt to answer any of them.
3. Pro claims I have not presented any arguments showing the Bible as untrue. Even though this was unnecessary, I pointed out that the theory of evolution, which is accepted by virtually all scientists and is supported by a lot of evidence, contrasts with the way creation is described in the Bible. Pro dropped this point.
My opponent claims that I am taking things out of context and not looking at the whole picture. He provides no examples of this from the debate. I did not take things out of context, so this unfounded accusation is entirely false, and perhaps should cost him the conduct point.
As I have previously said, I brought up numerous points, yet almost all of them went unchallenged.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Axiom 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and barely any offense. Kind of an empty debate really.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.