The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
14 Points

The Bible is Not Without Error

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,210 times Debate No: 17622
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (5)




In this debate, it is my job to prove that that the Bible contains errors. These errors include, but are not limited to: Contradictions, Science/Historical mistakes, Failed prophecies, and absuridies.

The Bible: 66 books of the canonical scripture rpthat is recognized by both Catholics and Protesants.

Without error: To be free from any errors or mistakes,

Round 1 is for acceptance only. In round 2, I will list the Biblical errors.

Good luck.


Thanks! I shall defend the position that the original manuscripts of the Bible are without error. I do not claim to necessarily hold this position, and this position could be wrong, and I am sure that there is much to learn concerning it (maybe from this debate), but I do find it defensible. One thing I ask is that you do not post a long compiled copy-and-paste list of such errors from all the websites you can find. I don't respond well to steam-rolling. I hope to keep this as fun and as light-hearted as possible. Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1


I wish to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. It appears that it is your first debate on so I give you a a warm welcome.

Contradictions in the Bibile

Contradiction 1: At what time was Jesus crucified?

A. It was the third hour

"And it was the third hour when they crucified him." -Mark 15:25

B. It was the sixth hour

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the 6th hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, "Away with him, away with him, crucify him." Pilate saith unto them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priest answered, "We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified." -John 19:14-16

Contradiction 2: Where did the disciples first meet the resurrected Jesus

A. It was in Galilee

"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17)

B. It was in Jerusalem

"And they arose that same hour and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven gathered together who were with them, who said, "The LORD has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon." Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. As they were saying this, Jesus himself stood among them" (Luke 24:33-36)

How are these contradictions? Well, first we need to know what a contradiction is. A contradiction is two statements that cannot both be logically correct. One has to be wrong, and the other is either right or wrong.

How can we trust the Bible? These were among the most important events in Christianity. Do you honestly think that they would pay better attention?

Science Mistakes

Mistake 1: The Earth is not a circle; it is a sphere.
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," (Isaiah 40:22)

If Isaiah was talking about a sphere, he would have used a different Hebrew word. Matt Slick of contends that, yes, it is a fact that it probably is talking about a flat earth [1]

Historical Mistakes

The flood is a myth.

Most historians do agree that the biblical of a world-wide flood is a myth. Andrew White says the 19th century Egyptologists found that Egypt had a long and flourishing civilization LONG before the supposed events of Noah. No flood has been found to enterupt it. [2]

Xerxes I

In the book of Esther, the book discribes Esther, a young Jewish girl, that was chosen by the Persian king, Xerxes I to be queen. He chose her because of a mistake he made with Vashti. Historians do know a great deal about this king; but no record of Esther or Vashti [3]

Other mistakes in Esther

In the book of Esther, it talks about 127 divisions of the provinces. We know that there was no such division . In addition, we also know that historians assure us that Xerxes did not order the Jews to attack in his territories.[4]

Gospel's mistakes

Randall Helms says that the type of census that was discribed in Luke was never taken into the history of the Roman Empire. He points out that it is ridiculous to think that the practical romans would require millions of people to travel enormous distances just to sign a tax form. [5] Isaac Asimov in Asimolv's Guide to the Bible, he affirms that the Romans did not, in any case, arrange such a ridiculous census. [6]

Daneil's BAD History

In the Book of Daniel, it discribes "Darius the Mede" capturing Babylon in the 6th century BCE. HOWEVER, we know that it was not
Darius, but rather it was Cyrus of Persia. [7]

| Summary |

I argue the following:

  1. The Bible contradicts itself:
    1. What time was Jesus crucified?
    2. Where did the disciples first meet Jesus?
  2. The Bible contradicts known scientific facts:
    1. States the Earth is a circle. A circle is, by definition, a 2-d object.
  3. The Bible contradicts known history:
    1. Esther and Vashti were not married to king Xerxes
    2. Daniel was wrong in stating "Darius of Mede" captured Babylon.
    3. Luke's discription of the Roman census did not take place.

| Conclusion |

I have shown several instances in which the Bible contradicts itself and contradicts known history. I have given sufficent evidence and can conclude beyond reason that the Bible is not without error.

Back to you.

2. White, Vol I, p. 257
3. Harris, p. 178
4. Harris, p. 178-180
5. Helms, Randal, Gospel Fictions (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1989), pp. 59, 60
6. Asimov, Isaac, Asimov’s Guide to the Bible (New York: Avenel Books, 1981), p. 929.
7. McKay, John; Hill, Bennett; and Buckler, John; A History of Western Society, Vol. I (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1983), p. 61.


Thanks Pro for the warm welcome. It is my first debate on here. You bring up some good points; let's see if I can do them justice.

Crucifixion time
Matthew, Mark, and Luke all follow the same timing system, that being Jewish. In the Synoptics the hours are numbered from sunrise which is about 6:00 A.M. Therefore Jesus would have been crucified at 9:00 A.M.

John, however, was giving the time based on the official numbering system of the Roman civil day. This can be understood since he wrote his gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia. He does this a number of times (20:1; 20:19). A civil day began right after midnight. Pliny the Elder records this in his Natural History 2. 77 and by Macrobius in his Saturnalia 1.3 It should also be noted that the time given in John is specifically at the trial. Therefore, what would have been the 6th hour according to the Roman system, would have been 6:00 A.M. for the Jewish system. And there would be plenty of things to fill the time between being at the trial at 6:00 and being crucified at 9:00.

You may not be convinced, but being that it is a possibility, then one cannot call it a contradiction.

First appearance of Jesus to disciples
While a reply to this apparent contradiction is not as technical as the least, neither is it as persuasive. However, using your definition of a contradiction, "two statements that cannot both be logically correct. One has to be wrong, and the other is either right or wrong," then this would not be considered a contradiction. Neither of the two passages use the word "first," nor anything implying first. Therefore, one cannot argue as you have that they each are claiming to have the disciples meet the resurrected Jesus for the first time. Matthew, for instance, does not deny, but simply could be passing over earlier appearances of Jesus. He simply may have wanted to focus on the occurrence in Galilee. Nevertheless, since neither case is claiming to be the first appearance, then both appearances could be correct. Again, you may not agree of course to the likelihood of my explanation, but it is not a contradiction.

The Earth is a circle
When one claims the inerrancy of the Bible, and takes it as literal, they must interpret it according the context, and as the author originally intended. For instance, there are parts which speak of God having wings and such, but it is being used as a literary device to describe an aspect of God. We know that such literary devices are being used throughout this chapter as well. We often use such literary terms taken from a point of view - the sun rising/setting. When one is sitting upon something, taken from that view, it would be understandable to describe it as a circle, especially when a term for ellipse in Hebrew did not exist. At least it shows that they knew there was a "roundness" to the Earth. The Hebrew word translated circle here, has also been translated as compassed or compass in Job and Proverbs. In context, it is clear it refers to the sphericity of the Earth, used in by a specific point of view.

However, there is another possibility. Since it refers to "he who sits above the circle of the earth," it could be referring to the bowl-like sky over the earth, such as in Job 22:14, or the outer horizon encircling the earth as in Job 26:10.

Of course, this isn't a clear-cut, obvious and easy verse. However, since it can be understood as a literary device depicting a point of view, or as a term used in reference to be a ball like object, or in reference to something else around the earth that is circular, then this is not a contradiction. As I said, you have brought up some difficult apparent contradictions, and you probably are not convinced otherwise by my explanations, however, to hold fast to it being an absolute contradiction one cannot.

A global flood
This will be difficult to discuss given the time and space allotted. Of course there are entire books published on the topic of the possibility of a global flood. Many historians of course disagree. Many historians would say there is the possibility. This technically is not a contradiction since it is arguable and not logically incompatible. The debate is basically over which side has the better evidence.

There are many ancient versions of a global flood all having the same basic core points. Myths perhaps, but because of the number, it appears some truth to it may be found. For instance, Ziusudra of the Sumerians, and Utnapishtim by the Babylonians, and the Greeks, Hindus, Chinese, Mexicans, Algonquins, and Hawaiians to name a few all have a similar flood story. One list of Sumerian kings treat the global flood as a historical reference point. "Then the Flood swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish."

There is geological evidence that points to a global flood. Such a flood would explain the partial skeletons of modern animals found in deep fissures all over the world, such as in high hills. None of these skeletons have been found complete so they did not fall into or were pushed in by streams. Calcite cemented their bones together, which gives credence to being deposited while under water.

But there are many evidences given, most of which I do not have enough knowledge to delve too deeply in to. Such would include the origin of civilization near the Ararat-Babylon region after the supposed Flood time; the dating of the oldest living things to the Flood time; the apparent convergence of population growth statistics to the date of the Flood; the worldwide occurrence of water-laid sediments and sedimentary rocks; the recent uplift of major mountain ranges; the finding of marine fossils on mountain peaks; the evidence of a former warmer worldwide climate; the necessity of a catastrophic burial and rapid lithification of fossil deposits; the recent origin of many datable geologic processes; the worldwide distribution of all types of fossils; the uniform appearance of many rocks from different ages; the mixing of fossils from different ages; the near-random deposition of formational sequences; the equivalence of total organic material in present world and fossil world; the worldwide distribution of volcanic rocks from the same age; evidence of recent bodies of water in desert areas; the wide distribution of raised shore lines and river terraces; the evidence of a recent drastic rise in the sea level; the occurrences of too small rivers in large valleys; sudden extinctions of prehistoric animals; a rapid onset of a glacial period; the existence of polystrate fossils; the preservation of tracks and markings throughout the geologic column; the worldwide occurrence of sedimentary fossil graveyards in rocks of all ages; the absence of physical boundaries between ages; the occurrences of all rock types in all ages; the absence of meteorites in the geologic column; the absence of hail imprints while there is an abundance of rain imprints in the geologic column; the evidence of man's existence during the earliest geologic ages; similar structural features in rocks of all ages; the absence of evidence of drainage systems; the hydraulic evidence of rapid deposition of each stratum; and finally, numerous possible sighting of Noah's ark. This is just to mention some of what I have found over the years of study.

While I don't intend for that list to necessarily prove Noah's global flood, I do intend it to show that at least there are arguments and evidences for the possibility of a global flood. I also understand there are historical proofs against such a flood, such as your Egyptian notation. However, one cannot honestly say that the Biblical flood of Noah is a historical mistake when one can amass considerable geologic and historical evidences lending support to the historicity of the biblical story. A historical mistake it may not be, and certainly not a contradiction of history.

Will respond to others as space allows.
Debate Round No. 2


Hello there, welcome to round 3. I wish to thank my opponent for his responses to my arguments.

Crucifixion Time

My opponent offers the simple explanation that they are using different methods of time. I do not buy this. I would like to offer my rebuttal to why this explanation fails:
  1. There is no reason to think that they were using two different time methods;
  2. Most damaging-the Jews and Romand used the same time method. [1]
First appearance of Jesus

My opponent has offered the simple explanation that there were two visits; one in Galilee, the other in Jerusalem.

This explanation would work until we actually read the verses in context. Allow me to give you the verses to prove that both gospel's were talking about the first appearance from the "resurrected" Jesus.

"And the angel answered and unto the women, "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucifid. HE is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Com, see the place whre the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and behol goesth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." And they [the women] departed quickly from the sepluchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "all hail." And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him. Then Jesus said unto them, "Be not afraid: tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me." (Matthew 28)

The context is clear. The women meet the angels, the angels command the women to tell the disciples to go Galilee. Galilee in this passage was the first meeting place. No mention of Jerusalem.

As far as Luke 24, here is what the Atheist Bible Companion has to say;

"The apparition of Jesus tells the women to have the disciples meet him in Galilee, which they do. Again, there is a direct contradiction in Luke, where Jesus meets the disciples in Jerusalem, and orders them to remain there “until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). See also Acts 1:4. This is not simply an omission on Luke’s part, for his timeline gives no opportunity for any meeting in Galilee."

You see, it isclear that there is no time for a meeting in Galilee, especially when considering the fact that Galilee and Jerusalem are very far away. Your explanation fails.

The Flood

My opponent is correct, there are numerous versions of the flood. The problem: They all contradict each other. [2] If this was a historical event, why do they all contradict itself?

Also, there are MANY different things wrong with the flood [3] that just cannot be explained away.

| Conclusion |

I have shown why each of my opponents "explanations" fail. In addition, my arguments fail. Know that I am arguing from a literal interpretation of....I understand many Christians do take it figuratively.

1. Life and Leisure in Ancient Rome, p.1


Thank you for your careful response. But first, I would like to point out that much of what is being argued about here is which interpretation is right; where does the evidence lie. This being the case, even if my case is not the strongest (which I believe it is), being that I do offer a possibility, one cannot honestly call it a contradiction.

Crucifixion Time

The Jews numbered their hours differently than the Romans. Wikipedia explains that "the Jewish day is of no fixed length… it runs from sunset to the next sunset."[1] When counting the hours of a day, Jews split it up into two periods of 12, one being during the dark hours and one being during the daylight hours. Each of these parts was known as horae. [2] As I said, it can be seen in the synoptic gospels that they all use the same time system. See Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44. It is universally agreed that these three books the hours were numbered according to the Jewish time scale, thus from sunrise. The third hour from sunrise (approximately 6:00 A.M.) was 9:00 A.M.

The Roman day began at midnight, proceeding for 24 hours.[3] This is well known, but is also shown in the writings of Pliny the Elder: "The day itself has been differently observed in different countries… by the Roman priests and those who have defined the civil day, as the Egyptians also and Hipparchus, from midnight to midnight." [4] Macrobius also writes, "The day, which the Romans have declared to begin at the sixth hour of the night." [5] (Again, I should point out that the ancients counted 12 segments of darkness and 12 of daylight.) John was likely using the Roman civil timing system because as J.B. McClellan writes, "St. John wrote his Gospel in Ephesus, the capital of the Roman province of Asia, and therefore in regard to the civil day he would be likely to employ the Roman reckoning."[6] We see this use in other places of his gospel, such as in John 1:39, 4:6, 12:1, and 20:19. The 6th hour according to this system would then be 6:00 A.M., when Jesus was still at the trial.

Given a proper understanding of the context, there is no contradiction.

First Appearance of Jesus

Again, my argument will continue as before. Neither passage says it was the FIRST appearance. Therefore, there is no contradiction. You are making an argument from silence.

John Haley describes it as "Matthew does not deny, but simply passes over, earlier appearances of our Lord, and dwells upon that in Galilee as being one of great importance. Then, probably, it was that the risen Saviour was 'seen of above five hundred brethren at once.' This manifestation seems to have been our Lord's last great act in Galilee, his final interview with his disciples in that region." [7] And since he walked around for 40 days after his resurrection, there is plenty of time to make the journey.

While you may not like the explanation, nor agree, since it is a possibility, you cannot claim a contradiction.

The Flood

You made two arguments against my many proofs concerning a global flood. The first is given the many flood stories, why do they contradict each other. Of course this is not in fact an argument against a possible historical event. Anyone who studies historical happenings knows that often through time, and event changes and mythologizes. Nevertheless, it is understood that something probably did happen. Yes, many of the details differ quite a lot. However, many of the basics stay the same. The basic includes that there appears in many of the world's different historical records, an event similar to that of the flood recorded in the Old Testament.

Your second argument was simply a statement, and not an argument. You said there are many things wrong with the flood that cannot be explained. That is a claim: now you back it up. However, I did follow your link, and what did I find on the same website as your link, but a response to all those things wrong with the flood. [8] If you want to discuss those problems further, please do. But you can't make a claim as you did, leave it, and expect anyone to take that as a reason why the flood is a contradiction to history.

Finally, I would like to point out that Pro did not even attempt to respond to my list of arguments for the possibility of a flood. I repeat, I don't intend for that list to prove the flood, just show that people who have done the research have amassed a large number of evidences leading towards Noah's flood. There are proofs against a flood, such as your Egyptian example, I admit. And there are people who have responded to them. [9]

This is a debate over who has the better evidence. It is not a debate over a contradiction. And I do believe that there is much evidence such as spoken of briefly above, to believe that there may have well been a global flood.


As I am sure you are well aware, your argument here is an argument from silence. And being such, you cannot prove anything, lease of all call it contradicting history.

However, Persia's queen is call Amestris in the Greek writings of the time. Xerxes had several wives and it is possible that both Amestris and Vashti were wives of Xerxes, with Amestris being the same as Esther.

There are many verified historical facts in the book of Esther, that when it is a sole speaker of other historical items which are not contradicted elsewhere, historical science gives it the benefit of the doubt. For instance, it correctly speaks of Ahasuerus, being the other name of Xerxes I. It identifies Susa, being in western Persia and one of the capital cities. It speaks of his third year (483 B.C.) and the presence of the army, which suggests he was building support for his invasion of Greece (preparations from 483-480). The name Mordecai appears in treasury records from the time period as a government official. Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) was the next to last king of Judah, being deported to Babylon in 597 B.C. He was "carried away from Jerusalem." During the feast honoring a new queen (Esther's feast), it was customary to forgive taxes and give gifts, as Herodotus notes in his history of the Persian Empire.

Herodotus also notes that Xerxe's father Darius had divided the realm into 20 satrapies, of which the rulers are mentioned in 3:12, 8:9, and 9:3. Provinces were smaller units under the satrapies. The Encyclopaedia Britannica writes, "The reference to the 127 provinces is in itself not improbable… it is at any rate in perfect harmony with history that the book of Esther includes India among the subject provinces."

It cannot be called a contradiction as it is but an argument from silence. And when it speaks accurately of other verifiable matters, the benefit of the doubt is given to the other unverified items. All that can be said, is that there appears to be some unique statements of historical matters in Esther.

Thank you for giving me this chance to do research and respond. It is an enjoyable debate. I have shown possibilities and probabilities. There are no contradictions. Cheers.


[2] Archer, Gleason L. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. p 364.


[4] Natural History 2.77

[5] Saturnalia 1.3

[6] McClellan, J.B. The New Testament, A New Translation. v 1, p 741.

[7] Haley, John W. Alleged Discrepancies. p 367.


[9] While I do not necessarily agree with all that AiG teaches, I link to them here to simply say that this has not gone unanswered.

Debate Round No. 3


I want to thank my opponent for his careful reply. You have proved yourself to be a worthy opponent. With that said, let's jump right in to my arguments.

At what time was Jesus crucified?

My opponent is still arguing for the Jewish-Roman time difference but still fails to respond to the fact that there is simply 0 evidence from the scripture that indicates that they are using two different methods of counting. In addition, I have responded WITH EVIDENCE to show that the Romans to counted time starting at dawn.

Here is what the Atheist Bible Companion has to say. " “And it was the third hour when they crucified him.” This flatly contradicts John’s account where Jesus was still with Pilate at the sixth hour (John 19:14). The theologians try to wiggle out of this one by claiming that John’s gospel refers to “Roman time” which supposedly began counting the hours at midnight, while the traditional Jewish manner of reckoning time started from dawn. But this rebuttal does not hold water, because the Romans, too, counted the hours from dawn! For more on the Roman manner of reckoning time, see the sources listed in the comment to Matthew 27:45."

See also:

| Conclusion |

My opponent's arguments beg questions. Those questions are:
  1. Where is the evidence they are using different time methods?
  2. Why would they use different time methods?

First Appearance of Jesus

I have provided internal evidence that hints to the 1st appearance of Jesus was that. However, you completely ignore it. Again, if you are interested, I will provide what the Atheist Bible Companion has to say.

"Jesus’s first appearance to the disciples after the crucifixion was only to ten of them, Thomas being absent. But Matthew 28:16 states quite plainly that the first appearance was to the eleven disciples who remained after Judas’s defection. Luke 24:33 agrees that the first appearance was to the eleven, although Luke (Jerusalem) and Matthew (Galilee) disagree over where the meeting occurred."

| Conclusion |

I have provided evidence that hints to the fact that BOTH Matthew and Luke are talking about the same events AND the fact that the two cities are very far apart.


Allow me to provide the evidence that based on the geneaologies of the Bible, the flood myth is nothing more than a myth. If we count up the geneaologies, we discover the fact that the flood occured roughly around 2500 BCE. We also know that the temple was built around 1000 BCE.

What does that prove? Well, we have found evidence of culters that existed long before 2500 BCE and long after BCE. (I say "long before" and "long after" to disqualify the argument that we just simply do not know and the 2500 year may be off by a few years.)

The great pyramids were built around 2650 BCE. Note that the BCE time is backwards so 2650 occured BEFORE 2500.

Therefore, there is a problem. More than 50 years before the flood happened.

There is also evidence the flood was based on earlier myths;

Questions you need to answer.

* If you were to take two of each kind, what would you do with colonial animals like ants and termites?

* Why doesn't mitochondrial DNA show that our population dwindled down to a few people several thousand years ago?

* How do you explain Plate Tectonics (The current creationist model would boil the ocean off)?

"There is geological evidence that points to a global flood. Such a flood would explain the partial skeletons of modern animals found in deep fissures all over the world, such as in high hills. None of these skeletons have been found complete so they did not fall into or were pushed in by streams. Calcite cemented their bones together, which gives credence to being deposited while under water."

This argument actually helps my case. If they were on top of hills, they should have been eroded away and brought down to valleys--NOT on top of the hills.

In addition, a big problem lies in misunderstanding of how mountains form. Mountains form slowly over time. For example, the Himalayan mountains were formed when India slamed into the continent of Asia. They as still growing today, which presents a major problem for creationists.

Scientific problems

The oldest living tree has been dated to over 4,000 years. Now, the creationist might say it began growing after the flood. But wait a minute, we have dead fossilized trees that lived before this one(nearly 9,000 years ago), as well as during its lifespan. How do we know this? The tree ring patterns (controlled largely by the weather, as to how far apart they are, etc.) match up. This poses a MAJOR problem to the flood. If the older fossilized trees had been alive, they managed to survive the flood. That's not possible. They would have drowned, or crushed by the weight of the water.

To break it down:

4,000 year old tree with specific growth ring patterns.

Fossilized trees with same ring patterns plus 5,000 years before 4,000 year old tree.

Keep comparing ring data....

IF there was a world wide flood, the trees would be killed off and there would be no overlap in ring growth at some point.

This is not what we see... So the trees continued to grow through a continuous period of time.

Carbon 14 dating is also in agreement with the ages.


| Conclusion |

I have shown why my opponent's arguments fail. I have shown historical and scientific reasons why a global flood is impossible.


Allow me to shed light on the subject. In efforts to find out if a document is historicaly reliable, historians ask the following questions:

  1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)?
  2. Where was it produced (localization)?
  3. By whom was it produced (authorship)?
  4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)?
  5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)?
  6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)?

Let's plug this back into Esther.

  1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced (date)? 4th-3rd century BCE [1]
  2. Where was it produced (localization)? Persia [2]
  3. By whom was it produced (authorship)? also unknown, most likely Mordecai or Nehimiah
  4. From what pre-existing material was it produced (analysis)? This to is unknown. Again, we have 0 evidence for this story outside of the scriptures. Some of it is probably oral tradition
  5. In what original form was it produced (integrity)? Written in Hebrew most likely.
  6. What is the evidential value of its contents (credibility)? The credibility is uncertain. The credibility of a texts goes up when there are more documents that colaborate with the same document. There is none.

Back to you!



Crucifixion Time

My opponent said that I have failed to give evidence for two differing time systems, whereas he has given evidence to show that Romans time also started at dawn.

1) If he gave evidence to show that Romans time "also" started at dawn, this implies he agrees that the Jewish way is to start at dawn. Therefore, I only have to show that the Romans had a different time system.

2) You did not respond with such evidence. Your only response was a quote by the Atheist Bible Companion, which also didn't actually give evidence but simply restated your assertion. You gave no evidence.

3) I already gave internal, external, and contextual evidence which apparently was missed.

-John uses the Roman timing system throughout his gospel including in John 1:39, 4:6, 12:1, 20:19. Only by use of the Roman system and not the Jewish system does the times given in these passages make sense.

- I quoted from Pliny the Elder who said that the Roman day ran from "midnight to midnight," and I quoted from Macrobius who said the Roman day began "at the sixth hour of the night," with the sixth hour being the middle hour of darkness: midnight.

-I gave two other external sources which also explain the Roman timing system: and J.B McClellan.

3) My opponent ignored my evidences and gave no evidences except for someone else's mistaken quote. There is no contradiction when one has the integrity to look at the verses in their proper contexts.

First Appearance of Jesus

1) My opponent writes that he provided internal evidence that proves Matthew and Luke each claim to record the first appearance of Jesus. I have looked for such evidence and they only thing written was a quotation of the passages themselves. This is not evidence. In fact, given the quotation, it should be easy to see by the audience that neither passage says it was the first. They each only mention one or the other. He also quotes from the Atheist Bible Companion which basically copies his stance, but also gives no argument whatsoever to their side. What he calls evidence is simply a statement/opinion with no proof.

2) In reference to Matthew 28, my opponent wrote that “Galilee in this passage was the first meeting place.” However, to be completely honest, one must say that it is the first meeting place mentioned in Matthew. Again, Matthew does not say that it was the very first meeting place. One can infer what they want, but if one is to maintain a semblance of intellectual honesty, it must be recognized that neither Matthew nor Luke mention that it was the first meeting.

3) My opponent says that in Matthew there is no mention of Jerusalem. This is correct. However, this is admittedly and obviously an argument from silence. Nothing can be concluded.

4) Over and over my opponent uses claims from the Atheist Bible Companion as evidence for his stance. The only time such quotations (without evidence) can be used as evidence is when the source/person is an authority on the subject. I don’t think many would agree that the Atheist Bible Companion is an authority, especially when it doesn’t back up its assertions either. Concerning these passages, the Companion is also being completely dishonest in its comments. It is creating a contradiction where the passages are completely silent. Neither says first.

5) Again, my opponent concludes that he has given evidence for his side. All he has done is quoted the passages concerned. He has not pointed out where in the passage it says this was the first appearance. It is a complete argument from silence.

6) The point that the cities are far apart is begging the question. However, if neither of the passages say “first” or “only” appearance, then given that Jesus is reported to have been around for 40 days, he would have plenty of time for the journey.

The Flood

Again, the argument over the flood is much too large to give it the deserved attention on here. There is a preponderance of evidence on both sides, and based on philosophical presuppositions, one tends to come to their appropriate conclusion. I will respond to what I can given the limited space on here. I know much will be lacking due to lack of space. But, let it be shown though that there are arguments on both sides and to simply assert that the flood is a historical error is to be unjustifiably dogmatic.

1) My opponent used the existence of the pyramids as being evidence against the flood. The dates of Egypt are typically given from inscriptions on tombs of lists of dynasties. Often, scholars then line up the dynasties sequentially to give such dates as you have given. However, the dynasties often ran along side each other, concurrently, or were not independent dynasties but a part of larger ones. [1]

2) Some have dated the Israelites in Egypt to be during the 12th dynasty. Josephus wrote, “They [the Egyptians] set them also to build pyramids.” [2] Given the shortened/concurant dynasty chronology, this would be in agreement with the accepted timeline of the pyramid construction. The type of pyramids of that period (mud-brick) is consistent with the Biblical record-Exodus 5:7. A.R. David also agrees with the possibility of the Israelites building at least some of the pyramids. [3]

3) Biblical dating of the flood is usually a range, not a set date. The dates vary, such as the infamous Ussher dating it around 2349 B.C.

4) My opponent asked questions concerning the technicalities of Noah. While there are answers, the debate is not over Noah or how many animals were on the ark, but on whether a global flood as recorded in the Bible is a historical error.


1) Concerning the attack on Esther, my opponent has concocted an argument from silence. It basically is: because there are no other documents verifying these particularities of Esther, then it certainly never happened. Of course, his conclusion does not logically follow for he is arguing from silence.

2) When reviewing historical documents, when a document records a number of externally verifiable facts, the typical rule is to give it the benefit of the doubt when speaking of other matters not verified. This is the case for Esther.

3) My opponent ignored my whole previous reply. In fact, it appears he did not read it. He asked about the evidential value of Esther. I previously gave a number of verified examples which give credence to the historical accuracy of the book. To say “there is none” is to ignore my previous examples.

4) In your response, you have shown little we don’t agree on. But you have ignored my basic argument for the historicity of Esther, including possible external references to the lady Esther. And you respond with an entire argument from silence.


The "Babylonian Chronicles" tells us that Babylon fell on October 13, 539 B.C. Historical records and Akkadian cuneiform say a Mede named Gubaru was ruler in Babylon at this time, having been appointed by King Cyrus. Gubaru was born in 601 B.C., giving him the exact age of Darius as recorded in Daniel, and the same man as Darius. Even more, Darius is not a proper name, but a title appearing in Avestan meaning "Holder of the Scepter" or simply "king." Daniel used the title in reference to Gubaru. And Josephus records "Darius the Mede, who along with his relative, Cyrus the King of Persia, brought an end to the Babylonian empire." It appears that after the fall of Babylon, Cyrus was needed on another front and placed Gubaru-Darius in charge to rule for a year or so until he could return. Darius was then retained as the governor of Babylon with the crown given back to Cyrus and eventually Cambyses. I could go into much greater detail on why this is thought to be true, but as my length has reached its limit, I shall for now stop.

Nevertheless, my opponent is again making an argument from silence. There is no error.

[1] James, P., Centuries of Darkness.

[2] Josephus, Antiquities, II-IX-1.

[3] David, A.R., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt.

Debate Round No. 4


I want to thank my opponent for such a great debate! You proved yourself a worthy opponent and I wish to debate with you again.

I cannot keep up with the large number of debates thus I urge voters to VOTE CON!

I would, however, wish to continue sometime.


I too thank you for the enjoyable debate. I look forward to future ones.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago

You take debates that you have proven you are incapable of winning. You consistently argue the exact same arguments against the Bible, and a simple Google search reveals not only the website you lifted the argument from but also the counter to the argument.

Of course you are going to keep losing the debates if you keep taking ones that you can't win unless your opponent is an idiot.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
What, I was losing thos debate
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
What? Kohai withdrawing from a debate that he is losing?!? What is the world coming to?

Stop taking debates you can't finish kid.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
it's fine. You're proving a fairly good debater. Oh, and AiG is full of it.
Posted by cabio 5 years ago
sorry for spacing it out so much in round 3...
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
@Reformed show me.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
Hey Kohai,

You do know that ancient kings like Cyrus usually went by multiple names... and that we have documentation of Cyrus being called the King of the Medes... and that the leading theory is that Darius and Cyrus are the same person going by different names...

You know all that right?
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Haha, I have no reason to hate you. Even if I did have a reason, I wouldn't hate you.
Posted by kohai 5 years ago
sure. I thiught u hated me.
Posted by Davididit 5 years ago
Glad to see that you're back........again, Kohai. Thanks for forfeiting your other debate with me. Care to debate on God's existence since you bailed out on me?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: cancel
Vote Placed by Meatros 5 years ago
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: Pro's augments petered out and he conceded.
Vote Placed by darkhearth 5 years ago
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: .
Vote Placed by thett3 5 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: kohai better not forfeit my debate with him.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
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: Kohai needs to stop taking debates that he can't finish.