The Instigator
MilitantAtheist
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
joshizinfamous
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Bible is Unreliable

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 2 votes the winner is...
joshizinfamous
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,594 times Debate No: 16905
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (30)
Votes (2)

 

MilitantAtheist

Pro

The Bible is Unreliable

Hello DDO, it is MilitantAtheist and in this debate, I will attempt to show how the Bible is unreliable.

Structure

Round 1 Will be for acceptance only, NO ARGUMENTS
Round 2: Opening arguments
Round 3: First rebuttals
Round 4: Second rebuttals
Round 5: Closing arguments and last rebuttals.

Rules

1. Good conduct must be shown from BOTH
sides.
2. Neither side can state why the voters should vote for them until the last round.
3. Any breach in terms, rules, or structures will result in forfeiting the entire debate.
4. At any time, if one side has good reason to believe the terms have been breached, he/she can declare victory in the next round.
5. Whoever accepts this debate MUST
be a Christian.
Thank you to whoever accepts this challenge. Good luck and may the best debater win!
6. Forfeited arounds will result in an immediate 7 points to the opponent!
joshizinfamous

Con

I accept the resolution as is without anything outside affecting it(I.e Comments, Forum discussions, ect) I accept the rules however will submit definitions since they are not arguments and my opponent has not stated any.

Reliable- suitable or fit to be relied on [1]
Rely- to have confidence based on experience[2]
Bible- the collection of sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments.[3]

[1]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2]- http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3]- http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 1
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting this challenge. I wish you the best of luck as we debate. In addition, I agree with my opponent’s definitions.

Opening Arguments

Contention 1: The Bible is unreliable because of the historical inaccuracies and contradictions.

Many Christians like to pretend that the Bible is the Word of God because of the reliable history. Well, my friend, I’m here to tell you that it is not a good historical book.

Evidence 1: Jesus’ birth

1 Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying…-Matthew 2:1 NASB

http://www.biblegateway.com...

The verse makes it very clear that Jesus was born in Bethlehem when Herod was king. We must understand when Herod was king.

King Herod was king from 30 BCE to 4 BCE. We know from Matthew it has to be at least two years prior to 4 BCE so we can put the date of birth around 6 BCE. (1)

However, we see in Luke that it was when Quirinius was governor of Syria.

This was the first census taken while [b]Quirinius was governor of Syria. Luke 2:2

http://www.biblegateway.com...

We know from this verse that Quirinius was governor and it was his first census.

Where is a problem? Quirinius became governor a decade after Herod’s reign.(2) Therefore, Jesus could NOT have been born both in the days of King Herod and in the 1st census. Furthermore, I would like to see one secular source that shows the nation-wide census where everyone went back to his hometown.

Furthermore, if Jesus was born in Bethlehem, what was the purpose of the trip if not the taxes?

Contention 2: The Bible is not reliable because of the medical errors.

These signs will accompany those who have believed: in My name they will cast out demons, they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” Mark 16:17-18 NASB

According to this, a true believer is marked by those who cast out demons, speak in tongues and drink anything deadly, it won’t hurt them. If they lay hands on sick, they will recover. I contend this is an error because many faith healings has failed. (3)

This is unacceptable as to why children are dying because they have not received proper medical treatment. The only excuse is because of their parent’s religions. I’m sorry, I believe that the child’s right to proper medicine trumps the right for religion.

In addition, I’m curious as to why I have seen Christians in hospitals and calling 9-1-1 instead of faith healings.

I have many more arguments that cannot be addressed due to the length. Sources below.

Source
1.
^ Peter Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and friend of the Romans, (Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999) pp. xv–xx.
2.
Encyclopedia of theology: a concise Sacramentum mundi by Karl Rahner 2004 ISBN 0860120066 page 731
3. http://deism.com...

joshizinfamous

Con

As long as I can prove a reason or reasons why the resolution as stated is invalid I have won the debate.
OPENING ARGUMENTS:

1. As stated by the resolution the resolution has only been restricted in terms of the bible being a sacred collection of writings. It is also of course a book. Keep this in mind.

I: The bible ,in terms of physical reliability, is very sturdy.
Over the course of my life I have not had an incidence where a bible has ever broken on me even though rigorous reading. I read the bible semi regularly and I am a practicing Christian. I posed the question to my pastor and he said he has never had a case of an unreliable build of a bible.

II: Little to no errors exist in the literary aspect of the bible. They also do not differentiate much.
This makes each bible reliable because we have the assurance that one bible will not have different text than another one. Since they will not have a different wording we can depend and rely on the bible in this aspect.

III: I can always rely on the bible for a good source of entertainment and spiritualist-ism.
Whenever I need to hear a story about my God or just a bedtime story I can always rely on the bible.
Thanks. I turn it over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
MilitantAtheist

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and for such a hard laugh!

RC1) I've never heard of a case where the Koran broke on a person while he was reading it! Therefore, this Koran is reliable.

RC2) Actually, no KJV bibles are similar! There are lots of different versions of the bible. KJV, NASB, NIV, Catholic Bible and so forth. Therefore, his assertion that little difference is absurd.

RC3) this is most laughable. I can also rely on other sacred text for the same thing. There are errors in the bible as I pointed out in round 2.

Thank you for not responding to a single argument I made. The resolution is calling to see if it can be relied upon in ways such as:
1) is it trustworthy
2) Is it a good source?
3) Are there any mistakes?

By me stating that the bible is unreliable, I am putting the bible to the test to see if there are any mistakes found and if it can be trusted.

Back to you
joshizinfamous

Con

Just as an opening note I came for a serious debate. Not a laugh. YOU left the resolution so open ended. Also in your rules I am not supposed to respond to your arguments until this round. Please read them.

On my first contention my opponent said that the Koran has never broken on someone reading it. Well this means there are two physically reliable books in the world, not too surprising. This is not a valid attack.

Next to my second contention, he stated that different bibles have different words. Of course. Italian and English books have different words. Within the same version the words will be very similar and convey the same message. I stated that the literary aspect (meaning punctuation, capitalize, and grammar) will be the same, and they are.

Lastly to my third contention, he said he can also rely on his sacred writings that means we have both found reliable sources. I am very glad.

I have another rebuttal and I have shown three valid reasons why the resolution as standing is false.
Debate Round No. 3
MilitantAtheist

Pro

Just as an opening note I came for a serious debate. Not a laugh. YOU left the resolution so open ended. Also in your rules I am not supposed to respond to your arguments until this round. Please read them.

All what I have to do is show how there is one part in the Bible that is unreliable, then I win. Remember, your definition of unreliable is not able to be relied upon. Therefore, if I can show how just one place it cannot be relied upon, then it is a win for me.

On my first contention my opponent said that the Koran has never broken on someone reading it. Well this means there are two physically reliable books in the world, not too surprising. This is not a valid attack. Just because a book is physically reliable, does not mean that it is completely reliable.


Next to my second contention, he stated that different bibles have different words. Of course. Italian and English books have different words. Within the same version the words will be very similar and convey the same message. I stated that the literary aspect (meaning punctuation, capitalize, and grammar) will be the same, and they are.

What is that suppose to prove?

Lastly to my third contention, he said he can also rely on his sacred writings that means we have both found reliable sources. I am very glad.

I never stated that I have my own sacred writings. I stated I can take other sacred writings and get a good laugh.
I have another rebuttal and I have shown three valid reasons why the resolution as standing is false.
I'd like to see that.

My opponent fails to realise that there are more than one way for it to be unreliable. Furthermore, my opponent still has not rebuted ANY of my round 2 contentions.

I never stated that the resolution was that the Bible is COMPLETELY unreliable.
joshizinfamous

Con

Resolution: The Bible is unreliable. Once I find a single way why that is not a valid statement I must be awarded the victory. Let me remind you of that. To prove that the bible is unreliable you must discredit all other reasons why it could be reliable.

1. My opponent has conceded to the fact that the bible is physically reliable. This is no longer a point of debate and is a mutual agreement. Since the bible as agreed by both debaters is physically reliable this discredits the resolution "The Bible is unreliable" This is in agreement from Pro and means he has discredited his own resolution. My opponent has not discredited the reason.

2. It is supposed to prove that within the same version the message is the same and words are similar. Which makes it a reliable source and it will not differentiate much. My opponent only questioned this and did not attack it.

3. Actually he hurts himself here. Again to show how reliable the good ol bible is we see it can provide a reliable laugh too. Again, he hasn't attacked this.

Even though I have not attacked any contentions I have more than a plethora of reasons why the resolution is false.
Debate Round No. 4
MilitantAtheist

Pro

1. It can be easily discredited as everything can be physically reliable. but that doesn't make it 100% reliable, as shown in the 2nd round.

2. Same is true for every book.

3. This is also can be true for every book.

In order for me to win, I just need to show how the Bible is unreliable in just 1 way. I have done that so vote pro.

My opponent forgot that there can be more than just the physical aspects for the Bible to be reliable, furthermore, he did not attempt at any of my arguments so my arguments still stand.

Vote pro!
joshizinfamous

Con

My opponent is trying to "steal" my stance if possible. He is trying to say The Bible is not Reliable or in other words unreliable. To discredit that I as con want to prove that that blanket statement is not true. He as Pro AND the Instigator bears the burden of proof and must discredit all of my reasoning which he has failed to do.

1. It can be easily discredited as everything can be physically reliable. but that doesn't make it 100% reliable, as shown in the 2nd round.
I do not have to validate that it is 100% reliable. As con I must only show why your reasoning is false, as I have remind you of this entire debate.

2. Same is true for every book.
This means there are more than one reliable book. Again I am not surprised.

3. This is also can be true for every book.
Again same logic from above.

However here is where this gets interesting. The resolution which Pro made is The bible is unreliable. I as con must prove that false. He is looking at it as if the resolution was. The Bible is reliable and I was Pro. If this was the case he would be correct. As con you must just shown 1 way in which the presented resolution is false. However, since I am con to the resolution "The Bible is Unreliable" I must show one way in which it is.

So in Summary my opponent has not discredited any of my reasoning to show why the statement The Bible is Unreliable is false. Since he has failed this. Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 5 years ago
wjmelements
PRO made impressive use of the new debate formatting.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
I didn't say it was, I simply said that if a person refuses to have sex with a member of the opposite gender, their reproductive fitness greatly reduces.
Posted by Ore_Ele 5 years ago
Ore_Ele
It's not impossible for a homosexual to have a child. They may not be attracted to people (or fellow animals) of the same sex, but they still physically can have sex and reproduce.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
SEXUALLY. I'll respond to those possible contradictions in the debate.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
You already acknowledged in the debate that it is impossible for sexual organisms to reproduce without a member of the opposite gender in nature.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
Really? How
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
Not without artificial means, and not without contradicting yourself earlier in the debate.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
And ReformedArsenal, I'll just show you that it is possible for a homosexual to pass on genes.
Posted by MilitantAtheist 5 years ago
MilitantAtheist
okay, well at any rate, I can prove there are some unreliabilities in the physical sense of the Bible.
Anyway, I challenge you to the debate I have in the challenge period.
Posted by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
It's the same reason that you're going to lose our homosexuality debate. I am succeeding in showing that at least one perspective has a secular reason to view homosexuality as negative and therefore your resolution is false.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 5 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
MilitantAtheistjoshizinfamousTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Josh, semantic but clear loophole exploit. Pro should have more clearly defined the conditions to satisfy BoP. 3:1 Con.
Vote Placed by ReformedArsenal 5 years ago
ReformedArsenal
MilitantAtheistjoshizinfamousTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't seem to understand how burden of proof works. In a debate like this, Con must only show a way in which the resolution is false, not that it is false in all ways. Con demonstrated that the Bible was reliable in at least one way, and therefore invalidates the resolution. Con loses conduct for attempting to shift BoP by saying Con must prove the resolution 100% false rather than understanding that he must prove the resolution 100% true.