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

The Bible is flawed text that is not the literal word of God making Christianity a flawed faith

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,807 times Debate No: 84685
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (47)
Votes (1)




I am contending that the Bible should not be taken as historically accurate and cannot possibly be the word of God. Furthermore, the text shows that it indeed was written by various individuals who were not present at the time of Christ and who were not eyewitnesses to what they alleged happened in the New Testament. The anecdotes penned by these scribes, when analyzed, pokes holes in the Christian faith and their primary objective of following the word of God and the teachings of Jesus. My belief is that we cannot possibly really know what Jesus said based on the text, and that mankind, not God, implemented the Christian faith on humanity


Opening statement

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.
Debate Round No. 1


I ask my challenger a basic question which , when if correctly answered, will help prove that there is no way that the reported happenings that are depicted in the Bible happened verbatim, and therefore are hearsay at best. The apostle's supposed eyewitness accounts are the basis of the books of the New Testament, that is undisputed. What language did Jesus and the apostles speak, and when and where were the earliest books of the New Testament actually written?


Christ and the Disciples spoke in Arabic, the same language of most of the area at the time,

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
Debate Round No. 2


Actually , you are partially correct in your answer , but incorrect in other areas.

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.


Well, that is a good thought but just hear me out

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).
Debate Round No. 3
47 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TiG 2 years ago
Is it normal on this site to have debates with such a poor showing of votes? One vote??
Posted by TiG 2 years ago

Is it lack of historical knowledge or presence of confirmation bias?
Posted by SNP1 2 years ago
The lack of historical knowledge in this debate... it.. irks me...
Posted by TiG 2 years ago
"So... if i understand correctly, you sent me so many contradictions that it would be near impossible to address all of them? That doesn't sound fair... If you would like me to address the argument concerning the flood and the pairs on the ark, or the jedp theory, I gladly will."

Instead of twisting my words to the exact opposite meaning, just honestly read what I wrote. I did not ask you to rebut all of the contradictions in the Bible. I gave you the links to show you how many are out there. I specifically posted ONE contradiction because that is a practical way to proceed in a forum such as this.
Posted by TiG 2 years ago
"They brought more of the clean beasts, because those were the only type of animal that the Hebrew's were allowed to eat, so your argument is invalid in that sense"

That totally ignores the point. Why 7 pairs of clean animals were noted in Genesis 7 is entirely irrelevant. I provided an example of a contradiction. Can you address the contradiction between Genesis 6 and 7?
Posted by loomynarty 2 years ago
So... if i understand correctly, you sent me so many contradictions that it would be near impossible to address all of them? That doesn't sound fair... If you would like me to address the argument concerning the flood and the pairs on the ark, or the jedp theory, I gladly will.
Posted by JOHNCENA1738 2 years ago
They brought more of the clean beasts, because those were the only type of animal that the Hebrew's were allowed to eat, so your argument is invalid in that sense and BTW

"Rather than assign me a pointless, lengthy homework assignment, I suggest you make a counterpoint of some kind."

You have once again committed the logical fallacy of attacking me rather than the argument

Be kind sir :)
Posted by TiG 2 years ago

You asked me to deliver a contradiction (an error). I did so. My comment also provided two links giving you access to the plethora of other contradictions in the Bible. I included the links to give you a taste of how many contradictions have been identified. Given your challenge which requires that I provide but one contradiction, I doubt that you want to place yourself in the position of trying to explain away ALL of them. Thus one contradiction at a time is far more sensible.

My post purposely focused on ONE very straightforward contradiction: the number of animals of each kind Noah brought into the ark. I listed that particular contradiction as my answer because it is compact and clear with less room for wishy-washy opinion (e.g. "could have been ...").

So do you have a response for the SINGLE contradiction I posted as my answer? Repeated for convenience:

Much of the Bible is the weaving of multiple sources into one. The flood story comes from two sources (P and J) and arguably a third (the redactor who did the weaving). Here are passages that speak of one pair of animals and then 8 pairs.


Genesis 6:19-20 ...
19 And of all the living, of all flesh, you shall bring two to the ark to keep alive with you, they shall be male and female.

20 Of the birds according to their kind, and of the beasts according to their kind, and of all the creeping things of the earth according to their kind, two of each will come to you to keep alive.


Genesis 7:2-3...
2 Of all the clean beasts, take yourself seven pairs, man and his woman; and of the beasts which are not clean, two, man and his woman.

3 Also of the birds of the heavens seven pairs, male and female, to keep alive seed on the face of
Posted by TiG 2 years ago
Your previous question:

"You say that the Bible is part fable part history, can you be specific with what you think the fable's and what you think the actual historic facts are?"

You are correct. I did not answer that nor do I intend to. Your expectation that I am going to list the historical vs. fictional elements of the Bible is unrealistic. Rather than assign me a pointless, lengthy homework assignment, I suggest you make a counterpoint of some kind.

(A very well known example of fable, by the way, is Noah's ark.)
Posted by JOHNCENA1738 2 years ago
I would like to notice the fact that @TIG has yet to answer my previous question.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by HardRockHallelujah 2 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
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.