The Instigator
darthebearnc
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
mortalkombat
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is Literally True

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 3 votes the winner is...
darthebearnc
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 830 times Debate No: 67501
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (3)

 

darthebearnc

Con

First round is for acceptance only. I am arguing that the Bible is not literally true. My opponent is arguing that the Bible is literally true. You can choose whether to argue for the Old Testament, New Testament, or both. Good luck! :D
mortalkombat

Pro

Since the average man knows things through experience, imagination, and thought, his understanding of higher truths also begins in the mind. That is why spirituality is represented by art, stories, ect. Understanding such realities through logical thought is impossible for the masses of men - hence, the need for legends. Although it may appear that such is not a "literal" interpretation, error is only a weak truth. Such "myths" present a clearer picture of higher realms than abstract thought.
Debate Round No. 1
darthebearnc

Con

Introduction:

First of all, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this challenge and wish him the best of luck in this debate. Before beginning my opening argument, I would like to clarify a few things that I forgot to mention in the introduction (definitions, Burden of Proof, etc.) I would assume that the Burden of Proof in this debate is shared, as the debate will essentially revolve around whether there is valid evidence that supports the truth of a literal interpretation of the Bible (whoever makes the most convincing argument wins). As my opponent did not specify whether he wanted to use the Old or New Testament, I assume that he believes in a literal interpretation of both, and so I classify both as valid for targeting in my arguments. My opponent may choose which *reasonable* version of the Bible to use for the remainder of this debate, though I will be using the New International Version in my opening argument. With that, I thank my opponent once more, and wish him the best of luck in the debate!

Argument 1:

For my first argument, I will be pointing out contradictions between a variety of Biblical accounts and contemporary widely-accepted scientific evidence.

1. The Creation Myth - In Genesis Chapters 1-3, the Bible describes God's alleged creation of the universe and everything within it (heavens, earth, light, stars, water, land, plants, animals, people, etc.) This section of the Bible further describes Adam and Eve, the supposed first human beings to exist, and how they made the 'Original Sin' by eating fruit when they weren't supposed to. This creationist account (estimated by modern Biblical scholars to have 'occurred' around 6,000 years ago) is full of falsehoods and fallacies, as will now be explained:
a. Mainstream science has collected evidence for the age of the earth using two main methods. The first of which, calculating the age of the oldest known stars, helps to estimate the universe's age using the logical principle that nothing inside the universe is older than the universe itself (therefore, the universe must be at least as old as its oldest contents). To find the age of the universe's oldest contents, scientists have researched globular clusters, or large, dense groups of stars that all formed at around the same time. Scientists have calculated the age of these stars using ample evidence that mass (measured through brightness, orbit size, and distance from Earth) determines a star's life span. Due to this evidence, science has calculated that the age of the oldest stars is between 11 and 18 billion years old - much too long for any reasonable literal interpretation of the Bible to be true. The second method scientists use to measure the universe's age is to calculate the earth's expansion rate and use it to determine when the universe first started expanding. This is done using the Hubble Constant, a measurement that determines the universe's expansion rate. Using the Hubble Constant, science can determine that the universe is between 12 and 14 billion years old - using this method combined with the star aging method, science can safely determine that the age of the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old. This age is much to old for any reasonable literal Bible interpretation to be true, and shows that the Bible, as would be expected, is fallacious (tinyurl.com/ko53le).
b. In Genesis 3:1, a serpent talks to Eve. There is no scientific evidence that serpents can, or ever have, been able to communicate in any form of human language.
c. In Genesis 5:5, it is reported that Adam lived to 930 years old. There is no scientific evidence that any human can or has ever been able to live to such an age. In the late Neolithic period, when Adam was said to have been born, the average life span was 33.1 years for a male. This makes Adam's reported 930 year life span immensely incredible (tinyurl.com/2u3xhs).
2. Noah's Ark - In Genesis chapters 6-9, it is said that a man named Noah built a large wooden ark and loaded two (or more) of every animal species onto it in a seven day period. Allegedly, he then sailed this ship for forty days and forty nights, while withstanding a worldwide flood caused by a supernatural power. This account is incredible and extremely unlikely to be true due to the following evidences (for more information, go to tinyurl.com/44sku):
a. Building the Ark: Scientists and mechanical engineers have determined that, contrary to the Biblical account, cypress wood is not strong enough to sustain a 450 foot long ark without technologically-advanced metal supports (these supports couldn't have been found, created, or used in the time of Noah).
b. Gathering the Animals:
- Many animals cannot all live in the same environments. For example, some animals require an extremely humid and moist environment, while others require an extremely hot and dry environment. It is unrealistic to say that Noah and his counterparts could have, within a seven day time frame, created a ark so technologically-advanced that it could foster all of the animals appropriately.
- Many animals have, since the alleged time of the flood, lived on islands and continents other than Afro-Eurasia. These animals could not have known to come to the area of the ark within seven days, and would not have been able to nonetheless. An argument saying that the animals were already near Noah at the time preceding the flood is unrealistic, as these animals would likely have killed each other off in short time due to competition for food, water, shelter, etc.
- Since the Bible is incompatible with evolution, Noah must have (provided that the Biblical account is true) been able to load every single animal species currently on Earth (plus those extinct) into the Ark in seven days. This means (with 1,233,186 known currently-alive non-fish animal species and 604,800 seconds in a week) that Noah and his accomplices would have needed to load more than one animal every .25 seconds in order to get them all in on time - and that's just with the 1.2 million known species of the 7.7 million animal species estimated to be on Earth - and even that's just with the ones that are currently alive. Obviously, Noah and his family couldn't have been able to load every single animal on Earth into an ark in only seven days' time.
c. Global Flood: Currently, there is NO evidence whatsoever that a global flood could have or did occur in the past 6,000 years. If such a flood did occur, there would be ample scientific evidence showing the effects of such a large and recent flood. Proposing without a shred of evidence that a flood of such size and manner did occur is simply preposterous.
3. Rabbits Chew Cud - In Leviticus 11:6, a rabbit is said to chew cud. However, all scientific evidence says that a rabbit does not chew cud.

Argument 2:

For my second argument, I will be including just a few contradictions within the Bible itself. As nothing can be both objectively true and untrue, these contradictions show for certain that the Bible, literally interpreted, is not a book of truth:

1. Joseph's father is both Jacob and Heli (MAT 1:16 and LUK 3:23).
2. The Son (Jesus) is both equal to and lesser than the Father (JOH 10:30 and JOH 14:28).
3. The righteous both live and perish (PSA 92:12 and ISA 57:1).
4. Jesus's first sermon was on a mountain and in a plain (MAT 5:1 and LUK 6:17).
5. Judas died both through self-inflicted hanging and through explosion/bowel-gushing (MAT 27:5 and ACT 1:18).
6. Michal had both zero and five sons (2SA 6:23 and 2SA 21:8).
7. Baasha died both in the 26th and 36th years of the reign of Asa (1KI 16:6-8 and 2CH 16:1)
8. Jesus wore a scarlet robe and a purple robe at his trial (MAT 27:28 and JOH 19:2).
9. Jesus had three different sets of last words (MAT 27:46,50 and LUK 23:46 and JOH 19:30).
10. There were three years and seven years of famine (II SAMUEL 24:13 and I CHRONICLES 21:11).
^All information from tinyurl.com/ln29oad.

Conclusion:
I believe that I have successfully provided multiple pieces of evidence that show that the Bible is full of lies and falsehoods and therefore is not literally true. However, before I end this round, I wish to inform my opponent that if he or she attributes any of the above Biblical accounts as true due to the will of a supernatural power, he or she must also provide evidence that a supernatural power exists and is omnipotent. With that, I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and wish Pro the best of luck in the next round!
mortalkombat

Pro

My opponent claims the Bible's stories are not true, because there is evidence which contradicts them. However, drawing the conclusion that these ancient mythologies are false would be committing a larger, spiritual error. The Fall of Man is a teaching of all the major religions. Possessors of esoteric knowledge have throughout the ages transmitted these stories because they hold real symbolic powers, like words and abstract thoughts. Strictly speaking, it is impossible for the truth-seeking man to believe in Evolutionism.
Debate Round No. 2
darthebearnc

Con

1. Rebuttals - Unfortunately, I'm not really able to actually disprove most of my opponent's claims, as they're really vague and I don't understand what they mean at all. Because of this, I'll ask my opponent a few questions about what he means so I can properly rebut him once he has specified his views.

"My opponent claims the Bible's stories are not true, because there is evidence which contradicts them. However, drawing the conclusion that these ancient mythologies are false would be committing a larger, spiritual error. "

My opponent is correct in saying that I claim that the stories of the Bible are not true because there is evidence which contradicts them. How am I committing a larger, spiritual error by claiming so? I'm pretty sure that I'm not committing an error by claiming that the Bible isn't true, as there is overwhelming evidence that the stories are fictional and all that I'm doing is piecing together logical and scientific evidence in order to come to a reasonable conclusion. I can't see how any spiritual error is committed, as I'm not really doing anything wrong - all I'm doing is using evidences, facts, and proofs to support a justifiable claim.

"The Fall of Man is a teaching of all the major religions."

How so? Please provide reasonable evidence and or proof for this claim. Teaching every religion hasn't lead to the fall of man - of course, religion has led to an abundance of horrible things happening, but there's nothing wrong with just telling people what different religions believe in/practice (you haven't specified if 'teaching' a religion includes 'preaching' it - I can only assume that by teaching, you just mean explaining what a religion is like without actually promoting it). What are you referring to as the 'Fall of Man'?

"Possessors of esoteric knowledge have throughout the ages transmitted these stories because they hold real symbolic powers, like words and abstract thoughts."

What are the 'symbolic powers' of Biblical stories? Where is the actual evidence that these symbolic powers exist? Please explain.

"Strictly speaking, it is impossible for the truth-seeking man to believe in Evolutionism."

How? As far as I know, virtually all scientific evidence regarding the matter supports the theory that evolution is a valid theory that was responsible for how contemporary species came into existence. Please provide evidence for your claim instead of only giving a baseless assertion. For more evidence on why evolution is scientifically true, please see http://necsi.edu... click on the four further links at the bottom of the page for more specific evidences regarding evolution.

Overall, I'm pretty sure that I have shown why my opponent's argument is unreasonable and invalid (he provides no evidence for his claims). If my opponent wants to win this debate, he needs to show why his claims regarding the Bible's truth have evidence and rebut each of my claims regarding Biblical contradictions.

2. Contradictions between Jesus Christ and Science - I will now provide a variety of contradictions that show how science refutes the possibility of Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore shows how the Biblical accounts of Jesus as the Messiah are untrue.
- In John 11, Jesus supposedly raises a man named Lazarus from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can be raised from the dead.
- In Matthew 14:25, Jesus supposedly walks on water. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that any human being can walk water.
- In John 9, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been blind since birth. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a blind man.
- In Matthew 8, Jesus supposedly heals a man with leprosy. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human with the technology and medicinal knowledge of 2,000 years ago could have instantly cured a man with leprosy.
- In Luke 7:11-18, Jesus supposedly raises a widow's son from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that a human being can be raised from the dead.
- In Matthew 12:22, Jesus supposedly heals a man who had been possessed by demons. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that 'demons' exist or can possess people.
- In Luke 24:5-6, Jesus rises from the dead. There is absolutely no scientific evidence whatsoever that anybody can willingly give themselves life after death.

3. Conclusion - Overall, I believe that I have successfully rebutted my opponent's unreasonable argument, and provided more evidence that the Bible isn't literally true. Once more, my opponent must counter my evidences agaisnt the Bible and provide valid evidences for the Bible in order to win the debate. Thanks, and good luck! :D
mortalkombat

Pro

mortalkombat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
darthebearnc

Con

My argument is extended.
mortalkombat

Pro

mortalkombat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
darthebearnc

Con

Vote Con!
mortalkombat

Pro

mortalkombat forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Vajrasattva-LeRoy 2 years ago
Vajrasattva-LeRoy
The Bible written in English refers to me as Jesus.
My name back then wasn't Jesus-
I had a Hebrew name, pronounced Yeshua.
I hope this helps!
Posted by BoggyDag 2 years ago
BoggyDag
Undebatable.
IF the Bible IS true, then God wrote it, and God is almighty. So, He might just have miracled all contradictions not to be contradictory and you're left with nothing to debate.
Posted by Longline 2 years ago
Longline
meat ball. lets talk about meat ball.
Posted by Peili 2 years ago
Peili
It would help to define your topic more. For instance, I don"t know anyone who thinks that the parables of Jesus are about literal events. So I can"t imagine anyone arguing that all of the Bible is literally true.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Valkrin 2 years ago
Valkrin
darthebearncmortalkombatTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
darthebearncmortalkombatTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by PapaNolan 2 years ago
PapaNolan
darthebearncmortalkombatTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: pro ff