The Instigator
Chob
Pro (for)
Winning
25 Points
The Contender
Leonitus_Trujillo
Con (against)
Losing
21 Points

The Bible is a work of man, not God.

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
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2007 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,798 times Debate No: 1091
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (16)

 

Chob

Pro

To begin, the Old Testament was written thousands of years before the birth of Jesus Christ, so those who wrote it really had no idea of God's true word. Furthermore, the Old Testament depicts God as vengeful and full of hatred, which logic and reasoning tells you he is not. So many people today attempt to use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, when they are only just small and scared people, hiding behind what they claim to be a work of God in order to justify themselves. This cannot possibly be a work of God.

Furthermore, the New Testament was written years after Jesus's death, so there is a great possibility that the individuals who wrote the book improvised on or misquoted Jesus's teachings. The Bible does contain some good guidelines to live by (such as do unto others as you would have done unto you), however, too often are pieces that justify hatred taken out of context for bigots to use at their leisure.

The Bible also states many fallacies, such as the world being created in six days, the Earth only being about seven thousand years old, and that we all got here because of "Adam and Eve." Whereas science (which is widely supported as truth) has gathered that the Earth was created in a slow process, where it was first all molten rock, then cooled down to form land and then water formed from hydrogen and oxygen molecules in the atmosphere, not because God felt like creating it. The world is much older than seven thousand years, for scientists have found fossils much, much older fossils of dinosaurs, which cannot really be disputed, unless you take the low road of "fossils are a test of your faith. Lastly, Darwin's theory of evolution is present to dispute humans simply being "poofed" here. The oldest human fossil was discovered in Africa and is estimated to be approximately fifty thousand years old. Many people disregard evolution because they do not want to believe that humans "came from monkeys" and they do not want to believe that we arrived here by "accident." However, not wanting to believe in something and something being a lie are two very different things. There has to be a point where these individuals mature a little bit and accept our true history, not fantasy tales.

Make no mistake, I am not disputing the existence of a God in this debate. I am only arguing that the Bible was not written by God nor Jesus Christ. For if the Bible was, I would think that such large human assumptions (such as the science I mentioned in the last paragraph) would be stricken from the book, for I would think that God would know the origins of humans, our planet, and, not to mention, the entire universe.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Well first of all you have not yet proved that the bible is not a work of god, yet you use that as a proof that the bible is not a work of god. That really doesn't make sense. Its akin to me saying "the sky is blue because the sky is blue"
Your contemplating that the bible isn't written by god because the Old testament was written a thousand years before the birth of Jesus Christ. You further answer that those who wrote it really had no idea of God's true word.
By I say to you that the situation is worse than just what you claim. The bible is not one book its 66 different books. And that it was written by one person , get this it has over 30 authors! Whoah if I was using your logic that would make the bible worth the same as a book stand.
But the same evidence that you use is the same reason why the Bible is a work of god and not man. Two human beings are so completely different that if two different people where to go about creating their own religion they would be completely different. And the bible isn't two different people its more than 30! So 30 people who have never met each other write more than 66 different books, and yet they fit together? And yet we have people prophesying things in Isaiah and Psalms that come true in Mathews and Acts. We have a book that has never been altered to be more ‘cohesive.' With every few pages of the bible your flipping a few hundred years. And yet the bible re-affirms the bible. It is consistent with itself and that is a miracle in itself it's a testament that the bible is indeed a work of god.
". So many people today attempt to use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, when they are only just small and scared people, hiding behind what they claim to be a work of God in order to justify themselves. This cannot possibly be a work of God."
Your argument also isn't very clear You have a run on sentence that is confusing me, who are you calling sacred the gays and lesbians or the small group of people. Also sacred means devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated. and lastly Christians aren't a small group of people so I'm going to dare to assume you mean the gays and lesbians are the small group of people your refer to because the are a minority, but then why do you call them sacred?
"The Bible does contain some good guidelines to live by (such as do unto others as you would have done unto you), however, too often are pieces that justify hatred taken out of context for bigots to use at their leisure."
It's interesting to note that Yourself admit to hatred coming from text taken out of context. I don't see how that helps your argument.
And yes the New Testament was written after Jesus's death, what would you rather have them give an account of Jesus before he was born? Years after his death, but all come from eye witness and personal accounts, hey that's good enough for your newspaper.
Your last claim is that the bible is wrong because science is right, and science Is right because …science says science is right? That's All I could tell you said because you used scientific theories to defend science. If we're truly measuring the winner of a debate by the strength of his argument I don't think we should just accept the fact that science is true and then using against the opponent. Than the opponent should be able to accept the fact this his argument is true and use it.
The thing is science relied on carbon dating a system that has been proven over and over again to be wrong, and at the very least you can accept the fact that there is a certain factor of unreliability. If you can't let me help you. The Carbon dating system relies on radio-active carbon atom isotope carbon-14 (14C). A sample of something is broken apart by an acid, and turned into a liquid. this liquid is then tested to determine the amount of carbon decay. It then uses the results in a calculation that is dependent upon a certain ratio to find a date. However carbon dating always yields "extraneous" solutions. Solutions that don't match the sate of data. So then Scientist take the one that makes most since to them, and or the ones that fits with their theories. So all of science is relying on a non-objective, system of measurement. Carbon dating cannot be completely trusted. Not to mention there are also technical reasons why it is inaccurate. I don't want to make the debate about carbon dating there's enough controversy to have a separate debate on that.
"Make no mistake, I am not disputing the existence of a God in this debate. I am only arguing that the Bible was not written by God nor Jesus Christ. For if the Bible was, I would think that such large human assumptions (such as the science I mentioned in the last paragraph) would be stricken from the book, for I would think that God would know the origins of humans, our planet, and, not to mention, the entire universe."
Now you're saying that your not refuting the existence of god, your just saying that the bible was written by god. Yet your asserting that if god did exist man knows more about the world than god does. That doesn't make any sense if god is the creator than god would know about the world then we do. And if God is the creator he knows more about the origins of humans our planet and the past, and if there is an inconsistency with what god says and what man says , if god exist, he would be right. And yet you recognize that god exist in this debate, but you don't recognize that humans could be wrong, and that god is superior to humans.
In another approach who is more credible to being infallible? The bible who in its 66 book original virgin has never been changed in the course of human history. Or science, who's goal is to constantly change, and weed out errors that it previously thought were true.
The bible has more credibility for being infallible than science. I don't think science ever claims to be infallible. However your pitting science against Christianity and there has to be a winner. And I would take the bible something stable that has never changed and that no one has been able to find a decisive irrefutable error, over science , where a breakthrough could see previous long lasting scientific proofs come crashing down in a second.

Refuting that man knows more than god.
Debate Round No. 1
Chob

Pro

Yes, the Bible consists of many books compiled into one. How does this make a work of God? I don't understand this argument. People are different, but so are the parts of the Bible.

In my sentence (So many people today attempt to use the Bible to justify discrimination against gays and lesbians, when they are only just small and scared people, hiding behind what they claim to be a work of God in order to justify themselves.) I said that bigots are using the Bible in attempt to justify their hatred towards gays and lesbians. I said that those who commit these acts of hatred scare (you thought I wrote "sacred") and intimidate such a small group of people (gays and lesbians).

I did not say that hatred only comes from taking the passage out of context (that was worded confusingly by me, so I apologize) because the Bible is teeming with hatred already. People do not need to twist the words of the Bible to make it sound any less hateful. What I meant is that people often jump to these passages promoting bigotry when they ignore basic guidelines like "love thy neighbor as thy would thyself." The books do not fit perfectly together, as we can see this as an example in the Bible of hypocrisy. Or maybe you can tell me why we should ignore one guideline in order to smite another group of people.

When people are attempting to quote someone years after they die, or to recall incidents at a crime scene several years later (for example), details, sometimes important ones, get left out or forgotten. It is not any different in the times of Christ. And, for the record, I certainly hope my newspaper does not use biblical methods for writing articles. I'll have to look into that. Maybe a few days after, but years? That argument doesn't really make sense. And I did not mean to write about Christ before he was born, but, rather, the Bible should have been started to be written much sooner than years after.

And if you are going to sit here and say that science is all wrong, when thousands and thousands of years of research among millions of scientists has been documented, supported, and pretty much proven, then you do not have very much credibility on this issue. Or is it because science conflicts with religion? Excuse me for saying so, but your argument is similar to how you claim mine to be. "The Bible is right because... THE BIBLE IS RIGHT!!!"

I found it to be slightly comical that you suggested that there is a conspiracy among scientists with the carbon dating system, in that scientists alter their findings in order to make the Bible look nonsensical... just on a side note.

I never said that man knows more than God, which is why the Bible is essentially a slap in the face to God. Man wrote the Bible and therefore assumed on such issues as the origin of the universe. It is not I who say that humans are superior to God. Those people who say they know what God commands of us, an act partly of assumption, that makes people feel like they are at God's level, and then attempt to legislate morality in the government. I can not think of people who do more disservice to humanity and to religion than Bible-belters.

You have not really proven that the Bible is a work of God. Instead, rather, you have pointed out that the Bible was written by man. Once again, I never said that humans know more than God does. The point of my argument was that if God has inspired the Bible then minor details, like the origins of man, would be a little bit more accurate, as opposed to us appearing on Earth magically. And please explain to me what you think of dinosaur fossils? A liberal conspiracy?

You claim that the Bible is "infallible" because it has never been altered. This makes no sense whatsoever. Hitler claimed he was right, but did that make it so? If anything, science is more logical, due to the fact that theories are updated and altered when it is found that there are falsehoods present. Science will continue to update itself in this way, as it should. I find much more credibility in science due to the fact that individuals admit that certain aspects are wrong and then correct these aspects, as opposed to "self-righteousness" and refusal to admit when the scriptures are wrong. Once again, you state that there is not one error in the Bible. Why? You do not support this in any way, shape, or form. You want example of how the Bible is wrong? I will use something that was used in another debate you took part in:

"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)"

I would love to see you attempt to justify that passage. That is an example of barbarianism, not God. Unless you believe that God is a barbarian, which is, once again, probably a slap in the face to God, provided you believe in faces.

What baffles me is that you believe that Bible is infallible, even though it was written by humans. Then you even go on to say: "And yet you recognize that god exist in this debate, but you don't recognize that humans could be wrong, and that god is superior to humans."

It is one thing to believe in the existence of a God, and to believe that Jesus Christ is the savior of man. However, if you are going to say that science is wrong, after science has accomplished such things as to finding cures for raging diseases, put a roof over your head, and warm clothes on your body (unless you are a nudist), then we have some serious problems. I will take logic over fairy tales strewn together any day. Having faith does not mean throwing away coherent thought. God gave humans the most well-developed brain of any of his species. When will humans start to use theirs?
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Leonitus_Trujillo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Chob

Pro

Your response has rendered me speechless. I must now make sure this response is 100 characters in length, which I just accomplished.
Leonitus_Trujillo

Con

Firstly I was thrown that scripture in another debate but I refused to take up issue with it. The debate there was that the bible is not infallible and this didn't offer any evidence to support his argument so I skipped refuting it. This debate is whether or not god divinely inspired the bible. In that case this it is a good scripture to support your argument that because it is barbaric it is not inspired by god . Well you mastered the art of tacking a scripture out of context and twisting its meaning, something very important for any anti-Christian.
Now I double checked the version that you provided as I always do, and you are using the New Living Translation and in the NLT that is the way it is printed. However because of the translation differences you have to look at the original text sometimes , and upon examination the word ‘another' is not in the original text what we see is ‘ yiqach' means to marry . but ‘low is traditionally used for marriage so the translates wondered why ‘yiqach' was used. Since we are referring to the son of the person who bought the daughter ‘yiqach' had to be used because ‘low' means to take for himself – which is what traditionally was used when explaining a marriage. But because he wasn't taking it for himself ‘yiqach' was used, in the translation difficulty the writers of the injected "another" to smoothen the translation, but many others such as the New International Version (NIV) does not.
That was a quite of bit of research and I thank Adam Clark's commentary of the Bible.
It reads like this. Ex 21:1-11
"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.
NIV
Now It is Jewish custom ( and you can look it up or ask a friend) that you can only sell your children if you are extremely poor. That you have no commodities , food to feed yourself, or clothes to put on your back. In this situation you are allowed to sell your children. And not to help yourself, but because wait a minute….if you can't feed yourself, you cannot feed your children either! And so this is where Jewish law was issued so that the children could be taken care of and the parent would have some money to hopefully use to improve his situation. Now this isn't whites owning blacks here. This is Jew's owning other Jew's so the situation is completely different, there is not superiority status. Now the women are not free to go for another reason. See when a man sells his man child to another Jewish family it is to work. And so after 7 years he must be set free, as you will find it printed in the 10th verse of the same chapter. However when females are sold they are sold to see how they handle domestic life and hopefully that a member of the family can find it suitable to take on as a spouse. So her status is differentiated. Now the technical translated term is slave so many translations are justified in saying this. But because Jews didn't treat Jews as slaved other translations give us a much more fair picture and refer to them as servants. Now if a man buys a woman with intentions of seeing how she handles domestic life for the purpose of marrying her to a son or servant, and he turns around decides he doesn't like her and sells her off to some foreigner who will take her away from the fathers community, and might not even be Jewish? I wouldn't like that , and that is why the ‘barbaric' bible commands that he cannot sell her to a foreigner. Everyone is shocked that even if people are starving that they have the right to sell their children who will starve alongside them. Of course not they rather have them aborted. Yet we give our children away to military academy's and apprenticeships, and especially in apprenticeships the money gets sent back to ?....the parents. And in apprenticeships no one cares if the family is poor or is rich and just wants to get rid of the kid and get money, they'll take them anyways. The ‘barbaric' bible doesn't allow for this. The ‘barbaric' bible say's alright if you cant afford to live you can sell your children, if it is a male he will be free in seven years, if is a female she will marry into a family that can provide for her. The ‘barbaric' bible goes on to say not only can you not turn around and sell your daughter away if you change your mind, but you also cannot treat her like crap if you choose another women as spouse instead. You must provide her with what you would provide a wife because that was the situation that was agreed upon the purchase. And if you cannot grant her these thigns, you have to let her go.
What is so barbaric about that? Come on there are better scriptures to preach how the bible is a work of man, this one affirms your ‘guidelines' of "treat others as you would like to be treated yourself" which by the way is more than just a guideline its Jesus' commandment unto Christians.
And I'm glad that you toss aside the problems with carbon dating as comical, I on the other hand don't think its comical when an earnest scientist is put into the position of having to decide which data is accurate and which data is extraneous. Having to decide if he will uphold the mainstream or go with what he believes it is or go for a compromise. Many scientist are face with that , some just repeat the trial until they get the majority of the results to match something. The new method is to provide a window of time. But I don't think any of it is funny, or any of the many more controversies of carbon dating to being funny for example the assumption that there is as much radio-active carbon 14 molecules and non radio-active carbon molecules in the air today as there was thousands or "millions" of years ago. This may not be relevant for you but that ratio between air carbon and carbon in the artifacts are used in the calculation. I don't think any of that is funny at all.
And no fossil's aren't any liberal scheme. Fossils are found by legitimate scientist called paleontologist and they do they best they can with the system's at disposal, but the bible can explain them and no one has disproven the bibles historical accuracies, they always coincide with available historical text. Now fossils aren't historical that is more scientific. But the bible does talk about a huge flood that covered the earth. This would explain how all the dinosaurs died, and how they're fossils ended up in odd places like for example the Mt. Everst, and other mountains. They frequently find aquatic fossils in the middle of land, the flood explains that. Science provides an alternative that that land was once under water …oh wait that isn't an alternative. Which goes to how science re-affirms the bible in many many circumstances. Now if you go further you will hit the circumstances were science goes against . it Believes that area was under for different reasons. Reason(s) science not only goes against the bible but it goes against science where in unsure area's often theories compete with each other.
So because I choose to stick with the bible where science and the bible split and not science doesn't make my argument any less valid. And because you stick with science and not the bible were science and the bible split doesn't make you any less valid. Lets focus on the question , which is that the bible is a work of god and not man, and your support to that statement and my opposition.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
I have my response on word, ready to go, I just barely missed the deadline. If you would be so kind as to waste your round two and proceed to round three that would be fair. However It's up to you, if you choose to go I'll just double up my effort on round 3 and refute your both round 2 and 3.
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by shaffaq0589 9 years ago
shaffaq0589
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by big_sexy 9 years ago
big_sexy
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by cLoser 9 years ago
cLoser
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 
Vote Placed by Debaitisfishy 9 years ago
Debaitisfishy
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by goldspurs 9 years ago
goldspurs
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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 
Vote Placed by rebe2688 9 years ago
rebe2688
ChobLeonitus_TrujilloTied
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