The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith
Debate Rounds (3)
The Bible is the most accurate piece of literature to ever be written. It is also very easy to prove that it was written by individuals who did know God, and people that God used to write His word. My belief is that the conservative group is the most accurate group, who are true in what they say.
I wish the best of luck to my opponent.
Book of Matthew- Written to a Jewish audience, that would know most of the OT by heart. And was most likely written in Judah
Book of Mark- Written by Mark, a gentile, when he was traveling with Simon Peter. This was written to a gentile audience, and was written for Romans
Book of Luke- Written by a gentile doctor named Luke. Written for Greeks
Book of John- written by the apostle John to a Jewish audience , most likely was written in the land of Judah
Christ and the disciples spoke Aramaic, and the first recorded gospel was written about 70 to 90 years after the death of Christ. Some of the other books of the Bible were written centuries after the death of Christ, The Books of the New Testament were not written by any of the disciples..Mark, Luke, Paul or John. They were written generations later based on stores told by the disciples that had been told from person to person. Nowhere in the books of Mark, Luke, John or Paul do they claim first person eyewitness account. The books are all written in the third-person, which is further proof that the disciples them selves did not write them. Lastly, the first recordings of the Bible were written in Greek.
So, given these facts the following can be ascertained logically; There is NO possible way that the Bible contains the literal words of Christ and his teachings. There are words in Aramaic that do not translate to Greek, so what Christ "supposedly said" could not have been translated accurately. Just that fact alone proves my point. Furthermore , since the texts were first written almost a hundred years after Christ died, and were based only on storytelling since the disciples and Christ were dead...literal accuracy of what was said and events that happened could not have maintained their integrity when stories were passed from person to person to person over the years. It is impossible that these individuals all could have told the stores the same each time from decade to decade so they could later be written down. Finally, if one wants to ignore that the first gospels were written centuries after the death of the disciples and Christ, and argue that the disciples themselves actually penned the gospels during their travels with Jesus, then their argument is also flawed based on the company that Jesus reportedly kept. Only few could actually write because they could not afford to learnt to do so or afford the materials of which to compile such a narrative. Only the rich could afford the education to learn to write or the materials. The gospels allege that Christ admonished the rich and traveled with the poor. Therefore, it is extremely unlikely hat the disciples could read and write.
Thanks for accepting the debate and for your perspective. I suggest looking into the historicity of the texts outside of just using the Bible. The Bible is full of contradictory substance and historical inaccuracy and is not a reliable source. if you are going to believe in something, make sure you are knowledgeable about its origins, do the research on your own and discover for yourself whats behind the stories you hear at Church. Dont be told what to believe, go out an find out for yourself the truth behind the dogma. Then your belief , whatever it may be , will be based on facts that you have discovered for yourself and not what you were spoon fed from a young age.
I appreciate the discourse.
1. Why would they be named after the disciples?
A. Because the books were actually written by the disciples. In fact the book of Mark should really be called the book of Peter. Mark and Peter were evangelist buddies that were the best of friends. Mark named the Book after himself because it was still his work.
And i am speaking from the conservative side of this topic. Christians debate over this topic all the time, and my question to you is if you are an atheist or a liberal?
And you say in the topic that the Bible is a flawed text, you have only given debate about the Gospels.
2. The Septuagint
You say that there are words that do not translate from Aramaic to Greek, they were translated into different words in the Bible yes, but if you are honestly a Bible Scholar then you know what words could mean other things. How do you think the Septuagint wrote the Old Testament? It was read and approved by Jewish Religious Leaders that knew Aramaic and would have shut them down very quickly.
3. Roman Takeover
The world became Helanized after the takeover of Alexander the Great. When I say Helanized I mean that the whole world was influenced by the Greek way of life. So most nations during the time of the Roman Takeover would know Greek, along with their native language. The Jews would have known Hebrew and Greek, along with Aramaic (sorry for the auto-correct earlier). Ancestors language, Conquerors language, and modern language. The Hebrews would have read the Old Testament like we watch television. So if there were words in one language that was not in another, wouldnt they know what text would be different? The claim that you have presented is that the Bible is a flawed text, how can that be if the Israelite's were so strict in their teaching? They actually tried to throw Jesus in prison for healing on the Sabbath (they had a law that you could not do any sort of physical activity on the Sabbath).
4. Historical facts
It has been proven that Jesus was indeed a real character in history that did claim that he was God, and who was hung on a cross for His belief
This link will take you to the letter that Pontious Pilate(governor of Judea) sent to Tiberius Ceaser (Roman Emperor).
It gives proof to my claim that Jesus was a real historical being, who had real disciples. You say that it was oral tradition that kept the Bible going, and at the same time talked about how some Aramaic words cannot translate to Greek. Some words in Aramaic mean more then one thing ( EX: Pneuma- Wind, Spirit, breath, anything that is blown).
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by HardRockHallelujah 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: Con backs up what he says. Pro on the other hand made a number of demonstrably false statements. He says no Gospel claims to be written by an eyewitness - wrong. In John 1:14, the author claims to be an eyewitness to the person of Christ. He says the first Gospel was written 70-90 years after the time of Christ - wrong Even according to the Liberal dating of Mark, he is wrong. The latest possible date for Mark is 72 AD; which means Mark was written 42 years later (assuming the 72 AD date is correct), not 70-90 as Pro falsely claims. He says no book of the NT was written by Paul - wrong again. Among the 13 epistles attributed to Paul, the consensus of scholars accept 7 of the 13 as from Paul. Pro says other books of the Bible were written centuries after the death of Christ - that is a bold faced lie All books of the NT were written in the 1st century. Based on the number of errors I pointed out in Pro's case and many others I haven't mentioned, I vote for Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate