The Instigator
Romanii
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
chengste
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The Bible is not God's Word

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 2 votes the winner is...
Romanii
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,139 times Debate No: 41351
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (32)
Votes (2)

 

Romanii

Pro

The Bible is most certainly not God's word because of...

1) The manner in which it was composed:

- the Old Testament is a collection of ancient Hebrew folklore, written by almost 40 different, unrelated authors, passed down orally for hundreds of years, and finally compiled into a single book decades before Jesus was even born.

-the New Testament is a collection of stories written decades after Jesus died by 4 authors: Luke, Mark, Matthew, and John. These guys were writing solely for the purpose of spreading Christianity and obviously stretched the truth in hopes of appealing to a wider audience of potential converts.

A bunch of ancient story tellers and a couple of Jesus's disciples doesn't exactly make up the most divine group of writers in the world...

2) The sheer amount of contradictions in it:

-In response to my argument about how "un-divine" the writers of the Bible seem, most Christian fundamentalists will argue that all of them could have been inspired by God to do their writings, so the Bible is still pretty much God's Word.

-However, this argument is easily countered by how many CONTRADICTIONS are in the Bible. How could God's word contradict itself so many times? God is perfect, and his holy book wouldn't be so IMperfect.

-If you would like examples of such contradictions, please watch the videos I have posted here, and feel free to try and prove how each and every one of them is a "misunderstanding".
Video 1 points out specific contradictions in the Bible, and Video 2 shows what God would be like according to a literal interpretation of the Bible

The only way for the Bible to be God's word would be if it was all written directly by Jesus, or if it really was totally consistent and non-contradictory throughout it.

Sources:
(1) http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
(2) http://www.skeptically.org...
(3) http://agnosticreview.com...
chengste

Con

First lets explain what this debate was supposed to be, a debate on the historicity of the Bible this is a bit of a bait and switch move by my opponent as he freely admits in the comments. To take on this debate to me is daunting for I am defending the Holy word of God, my prayer is that I do His word justice and bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ thru this.

Even so I will give my best and see how this goes. First if God is who the Christians believe all knowing, all present, the creator of all things not bound by time or space. Then to create a book written by 40 authors over the span of thousands of years would be a simple thing for such a being. What my opponent seems to forget is that very point God is the author and the one who watched of His word.

It is quite interesting how 40 different authors could write anything that would carry a single theme through the entirety of the word is staggering at the thought. However my opponent wants to look at the idea of 40 people, some poor men, doctors, kings, and prophets, and the fact that they agree would be impossible. That would be very true unless of course God was involved as Christians believe.
Now I have used a term several times that needs to be defined, Christians, many people in this world today claim the term Christian even if they believe Christ is not the messiah for Example Jehovah Witness will tell you they are Christian even though they do not believe Christ is the messiah. Then there are those who say they are Christian but believe that they can someday become a god, again a very far separation from the belief of the Witnesses so either one or the other is correct or both are wrong. According to Vines Expository Dictionary the term CHRISTIAN OR CHRISTIANOS, a word formed after the Roman style, signifying an adherent of Jesus, was first applied to such by the Gentiles and is found in Act 11:26, 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century says "The vulgar call them Christians." (1). So the term was a derogatory term in the 1st century however later it became the word we know today , however today the term is used very loosely as I have shown above. So do to these facts using others statements on their "Christian view" of the Bible and its authority is unreliable for we do not know the heart of the person making the statement, only God knows the heart. In my opponents first citation he uses the Huffington posts article with statement from the Pope, where the Pope carries some authority for the Catholic religion he does not speak for all Christians or their belief so his comments can only be related to the Catholic church and nowhere else.

Next, my opponent reveals the concept of contradictions in the Bible this is not a new idea in any shape or form but in an attempt to bolster his position he makes a veiled comment of having many contradictions, "The sheer amount of contradictions in it" in fact there are over 800 so called contradictions in the Bible as documented in the book When Critics Ask by Norman Geisler (2). Each and every one of these so-called contradictions are fully explained in this short 600 page book. The typical reason that these so called contradictions occur is that they do not follow the principles for interpreting Scripture.

Let"s look at what would happen if the Bible completely agreed, what would be said then? This in fact would be reason for Scripture to not be accepted it would be said that there was some plagiarism that occurred. The next common argument is that these words where not written down at first but they were shared by storytelling, invoking the thought of the old telephone game where someone would whisper a phrase to one person and that person would whisper what they heard to the next and so on only to the get to the end where the story was much different. However that is not how storytelling occurred in the past. A better example would be a person would whisper the story to the one next to them who would then say the story out loud to be corrected by everyone who knew the story. This is the exact same way we get the life of Alexander the Great whose work was not written down for over 100 years after his death.

Finally, my opponent says this "These guys were writing solely for the purpose of spreading Christianity and obviously stretched the truth." It has been said that someone will die lie that they believe is the truth however no one will die for something they know was a lie. This has been proven throughout history and many times for example James Fry wrote a book that the most important parts where fabricated later the truth came out and under pressure admitted the truth (not even under death pressure just pressure), or Janet Cooke won a Pulitzer prize for her book again under some pressure admitted the truth and returned the prize. (2). All of apostles and many of the disciples suffered horrible deaths none of them recanted their position.

There are a great many proofs to include corroborative evidence as to the work of Jesus and the record recorded on the Bible, again I would have preferred to do the debate we agreed upon and then this one, because what will happen is even after I show that these books are Gods word you will state they are not historical.

(1)Vines Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, copyright 1981 by Fleming H. Revell
(2)When Critics Ask: A Popular Handbook on Bible Difficulties; by Norman L. Geisler and, Thomas Howe
(3)http://www.healthdiaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Romanii

Pro

I am sorry if you didn't approve of my slight change in debate topic. I didn't mean any harm.
Nonetheless, thank you for your argument.

You said "It is quite interesting how 40 different authors could write anything that would carry a single theme through the entirety of the word is staggering at the thought"
That can actually easily be explained. All of those writers came from the same Judaic culture, so obviously their writings would share similar themes. In addition, the priests who compiled the Bible made sure to only include stories whose themes didn't contradict each other. There are quite a few writings that are included in the Torah but are missing from the Old Testament of the Bible.
However, I didn't say that the THEMES of the Bible contradict each other. I said the actual details of the Bible contradict each other, which is why the Bible can't be God's word. The Bible cannot be taken literally, word for word.

You said "Now I have used a term several times that needs to be defined, Christians,"
I don't see how the definition of a Christian is relevant to this discussion. I realize that various Christians differ in their views, based on their interpretations of the Bible. To me, this is just even more proof that the Bible is God's word; the Bible is so vague and contradictory that it can be interpreted in so many different ways.

You said "Each and every one of these so-called contradictions are fully explained in this short 600 page book. The typical reason that these so called contradictions occur is that they do not follow the principles for interpreting Scripture."
All you did is reference me to a book which I don't really have access to. It would be better if you could actually use your own knowledge and logic to respond to the contradictions shown in the videos.

You said "Let's look at what would happen if the Bible completely agreed, what would be said then? This in fact would be reason for Scripture to not be accepted it would be said that there was some plagiarism that occurred."
This is absurd. Basically what you just said is that contradictions prove the Bible to be correct! That makes no sense logically. Non-contradiction doesn't imply plagiarism; it would imply that all the authors really were all inspired by the same divine being.

You said "All of apostles and many of the disciples suffered horrible deaths none of them recanted their position".
They could have been willing to sacrifice their lives because they knew they were guaranteed Heaven. We have seen this before. Some Muslim terrorist leaders have managed to convince their agents that they will go to Heaven for dying in a suicide bombing. REALIZE THAT I AM NOT COMPARING THE APOSTLES TO TERRORISTS. I'm just trying to show that people aren't afraid of dying when they truly believe they will go to Heaven for their deaths. Please don't be offended... the Apostles probably did go to Heaven, whereas the terrorists surely went to Hell.

I really don't have anything else more to add, as I gave most of my proof for the Bible's non-divinity in the first round, and I have already countered all of your rebuttals.
The only other thing I would like to add is that there are pretty much NO Christians in the world who follow the Bible exactly, even those who claim that the Bible should absolutely be taken literally word for word. Please reference the video I have posted, as it shows this very well.
chengste

Con

Cool round 2 this again I ask that God be uplifted and glorified.
In your 2nd paragraph where you are commenting on the common theme in the Bible you state this, ". All of those writers came from the same Judaic culture, so obviously their writings would share similar themes." Do you know who the writers were? You had kings, shepherds, prophets and poor men a simple study of the life and culture of people in the time shows how greatly the culture differences where for these groups. There is a vast difference in the culture of a poor man and King, a King with living the "easy" life when compared to others yet yielding himself to the guidance of God, and a poor man who risks his life at the very thought of going against the grain yet they did. Why?

You then type of this line, "All you did is reference me to a book which I don't really have access to. It would be better if you could actually use your own knowledge and logic to respond to the contradictions shown in the videos." I thank you for the laugh, do you not even see the contradiction in your own writing? Here in case you miss it you want me to use my knowledge and logic to respond to a video that is not yours or your logic. Why is ok for you to use the work of others but when I reference the fact that these so called contradictions are all addressed in a book already, all you can do is say why not use my own logic? Really thanks for the laugh, now we can go back and forth on the contradictions you can go to your skeptic web site and copy what they say and I can tell what the rest of the story is using the book I cited for you.. It"s your debate if you want to do this we can.

Next, we move to the fact that these differences, not contradictions, are proof that they are not just copies of each other. In fact many historians consider minor variations to be evidence in favor of the truth of an account, and in fact if they all totally agreed then it would be said that they are only copies of one another. There is a major difference in contradictions and not understand what you are reading or misinterpreting the parts you are reading. For example the Bible records the fact of Jesus healing a Centurion"s daughter one gospel records that the Centurion asked Jesus to heal her, another states that a messenger form the Centurion asked some people foolishly point to this and call it a contradiction. Let"s look at a common example that could be show the same facts by today, suppose the press secretary of the President of the United States made a statement today proclaiming in a national sales day. The headline in the news would read what? President declares national sales day. Yet he never said the words and it would be quite possible he was not even in the building, this is a common practice now and before so it would be very easy for writer today or in the past to say either the major person made the comment or the helper.

Next I displayed the fact that at times people will die for a lie they believe is the truth, however no one will die for something know is a lie. I thank you for proving my point with this line "Some Muslim terrorist leaders have managed to convince their agents that they will go to Heaven for dying in a suicide bombing" see these terrorist believe that what they have been told is the truth so they do the actions they do, notice though that the leaders are not doing the bombings for the know what they are teaching is a lie.

For now lets us stick to the New Testament, this by far is the easiest to prove, the first question is why the apostles would and those close to Jesus write it? Why would they risk their lives for something they knew was not accepted by the local authority? How would these fishermen, tax collectors, a doctor, a Pharisee and just common people get the courage and knowledge to stand before the very people who crucified Christ and speak with authority? So it easy to see something must have happened to them, something changed them. They claim it was Jesus alive and the Holy Spirit that changed them and gave them the courage and ability to speak with authority for they have seen God in the flesh.

But how do we know their writing are accurate and reliable accounts? By all even the most liberal standards the gospel of around 70 AD, the gospels of Mathew and Luke in the 80"s and John in the 90"s, these where all written (even with these late dates) within the lifetimes of both friendly and hostile eye witnesses. So if these writings were false they could have easily been challenged and changed, or shown to be totally false, take notice to the total lack of these type of writing anywhere in history. The apostle were teaching that Jesus rose from the grave how easy it would have been for the Sanhedrin to either produce the grave with a body or even the body of Jesus, again neither occur in any historical writings.
So then did the early church see these writings as authoritative and authentic? The best way to determine this is to look at the writings of the early church fathers did they recognize the writings as fact? For example Papias, one of the early church fathers (circa 130AD) comments on the Gospel of Mark where he wrote "Mark made no mistakes and did not include any false statements. Papias also commented on Mathew and John however some question his connection to John.(1) We also have the writing of Irenaeus (circa. 180 AD)" Irenaeus of Lyons wrote his Against Heresies c. 175-185 CE. His work is invaluable to modern scholarship in the attempt to recover the content of Gnostic teachings in the second century. Irenaeus also provides the first explicit witness to a four-fold gospel canon."(2)

So the early church recognized the gospels as be authentic and authoritative is there other corroborating evidence to support the claims from the Gospel and the beliefs of the time? In fact there are many I will mention just a few:

First lets look at Josephus, a Pharisee and 1st century historian in one of his most famous works, The Antiquities (completed 93AD). In this writing he wrote of how Ananias took advantage of the Roman governor to have James killed. He wrote, "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned."(3) The Bible speaks of James in Galatians 1:19 and other places. Proving again the level of accuracy in the Bible.
Josephus also speaks of Jesus in his book Testimonium Flavianum where he write this; "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one out to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. ... On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvelous things about him. And the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared."(4) There are those who think that the first line was not from Josephus this is why I italicized it, even without it we see that the followers of Jesus believed him to be the Christ, Jesus was crucified and that Jesus performed many "surprising feats" some would call these miracles.

So what have I shown you to prove the New Testament, first the major changes in the Apostles from mile and quite men to men willing to stand up against the authority of the time. Then you have the writings of the early church fathers what they believed about the Gospels and of Jesus. Next I gave you a sources outside of Christendom that show what the Christians believed and the extent they believed, there are more I ran out of room

(1)http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...
(2)http://www.earlychristianwritings.com...
(3)http://clas-pages.uncc.edu...
Debate Round No. 2
Romanii

Pro

Romanii forfeited this round.
chengste

Con

Out of fairness I will not post this round
Debate Round No. 3
Romanii

Pro

Thank you so much for understanding, Con :)
I was forced to automatically forfeit the last round due to my internet connection shutting down on me.
I suppose I will just pick up with what I would have written in round 3.

You said "You had kings, shepherds, prophets and poor men a simple study of the life and culture of people in the time shows how greatly the culture differences where for these groups. There is a vast difference in the culture of a poor man and King."
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. They all still came from the same region and share the same cultural values. Take the example of the USA, a region many times larger than Canaan. While there is a rigid division of social class in our society, all Americans generally agree that freedom is good and oppression is bad. In the same way, all Israelites would have generally agreed that absolute faith and love in God is good and disobeying God is bad (major theme of most of the Old Testament stories). In addition, you did not address the fact that the compilers of the Bible purposely included only stories with similar themes for the Bible; there are several stories left out of the Old Testament that are included in Hebrew scriptures.

You said "...you want me to use my knowledge and logic to respond to a video that is not yours or your logic. Why is ok for you to use the work of others but when I reference the fact that these so called contradictions are all addressed in a book already, all you can do is say why not use my own logic? Really thanks for the laugh."
This sounds like an attempt to stall time so that you can just make a general claim that all Bible contradictions are misunderstandings, rather than actually address specific contradictions. I can list every single Bible contradiction I know if that is what you want; I simply thought that it would be more interesting and convenient for everyone if I presented them in an easily accessible video; your book is not accessible at all to me. That is why I would rather that you disprove specific Bible contradictions, or maybe find and post your own anti-Bible contradiction video. I don't mind if you use your book as a source, but don't just name a book and think that you have convinced anyone that the Bible is the non-contradictory word of God.

You said "...many historians consider minor variations to be evidence in favor of the truth of an account, and in fact if they all totally agreed then it would be said that they are only copies of one another."
When I say "Bible contradictions", I do not mean minor variations in how the story is told, like the Jesus-Centurion-Daughter story. I mean when it clearly states one thing, and blatantly states the opposite of that somewhere else. This occurs several times throughout the entire Bible, especially when describing God himself. (SEE VIDEOS IN ROUND 1). Historians don't invalidate a source based on minor variations between accounts; they will, however, invalidate a source if it clearly contradicts itself over and over and over again.

You said "...at times people will die for a lie they believe is the truth, however no one will die for something know is a lie."
I am not saying that parts of the apostles' stories couldn't have been true. All those miracles Jesus did, including the Resurrection and whatnot could have been true; after all, God made the laws of nature, so he is not limited by them.
However, the apostles are only human, and the blatant contradictions between their writings prove that they were not all inspired by God, even though they were most definitely writing for God's cause.
They were no doubt very devoted to Jesus, which is why they were so dedicated to the spread of Christianity and were willing to tell white lies in order to achieve that goal (e.g. Christian exclusivity, all Christian prayers being answered, etc). The Romans weren't punishing them for their white lies; they were punishing them for encouraging disunity in the empire through the introduction of a new, monotheistic religion that went against Rome's polytheism. The apostles weren't risking their lives to defend their white lies; they were risking their lives to defend the spread of Christianity as a whole.

You said "[the Gospels were written] within the lifetimes of both friendly and hostile eye witnesses. So if these writings were false they could have easily been challenged and changed, or shown to be totally false, take notice to the total lack of these type of writing anywhere in history."
Also take notice that to most people, Jesus was nothing more than random homeless preacher who had gained some really loyal followers. Not many people knew Jesus personally during his lifetime. Many of his followers were most probably illiterate, as they came from the poorer classes of Judea. Meanwhile his haters couldn't care less about his life or teachings; all they wanted was to remove a threat to the Roman Empire's unity. There was no motivation to write anything about Jesus other than to spread Christianity, and that is what the apostles were doing in their writing of the New Testament.

The rest of your argument seems to be about the historical validity of the Bible, and I must remind you, that even if the Bible was a valid source of historical information, it does not mean that it is God's word. A book can be historically valid without having any trace of divinity in it.
We can have a separate debate purely over Biblical historicity later.

To summarize, the apostles were risking their lives to spread Christianity because they were just that devoted to Jesus, their Lord and Master, and they were willing to stretch the truth to accomplish that goal.
But honestly, the single most convincing argument for the Bible's non-divinity is how self-contradictory it is.

And by the way, the Old Testament is an even larger part of the Bible than the New Testament, so even if you could prove the New Testament's divinity (which you haven't) then you would still have left out the majority of the Bible.

Once again, thank you for your consideration, Con.
Back to you.
chengste

Con

Round 4 May Jesus be glorified

So once again my opponent wants to stick to his the video someone else made without doing the work for himself, and then when I attempt to refer him to one of the many book that speak about the alleged "contradictions" he comments that I should do my own study, "It would be better if you could actually use your own knowledge and logic to respond to the contradictions shown in the videos." So it is ok for you to use someone else"s work, the video, but you want me to respond to these misinterpretations of the Bible, as I have told you already there are several books out there that speak about these misinterpretations and correct them well over 800 of them, so if you want to play the game of you show something that you believe is a contradiction then I will respond with the proper interpretation, and we can go around in circles like that. I thought you really wanted to debate this not just look on some skeptic"s web site and type what they say.

Next, I spoke of the fact that the entire Bible holds to one thought, your reply was of course it was written by Jewish people so they are all from the same culture, so I pointed to the lack of logic in your statement and you missed so I will try again. A king in any culture lives the good life, anything he wants is his from life to death, and he can do and say as he pleases. Then you have the poor man, like a Shepard, one of the lowest people in the Jewish culture, no one would listen to what they have to say much less give them any respect. Yet both of the groups have written parts of the Bible, the learned King and the uneducated Shepard, and they both hold to one thought, how can this be if they were not guided?

You also replied that the apostles and as you put it "they were willing to stretch the truth to accomplish that goal." What goal, being killed, scorn, families murdered, loss of work, if you had actually read the Bible you would know that the followers were starting to break apart with some leaving the group and returning home, when Jesus returned. Then you attempt again to say that they would be willing to stand in front of the people who just crucified Jesus, and call them out on it, that they would start speaking with authority to these same people, they didn"t make up a lie, Jesus returned from the grave and gave the grace, mercy and strength to spread the good news.

Next you posted this "Jesus was nothing more than random homeless preacher who had gained some really loyal followers. Not many people knew Jesus personally during his lifetime." Once again I believe you have never even read the Bible for if you had you would see events like this, Jesus feed 5000 men (plus women and children) who followed Him to hear Him teach. Or, how about the teaching that occurred in a home, that was so full inside and out that the men tore a hole in the roof to lower their friend down the Jesus, then you have the entry of Jesus into Jerusalem where peopled lined the streets to see and worship Him. Upon his resurrection Jesus appeared to more than 500 of his followers. Sorry not a small group at all. Also, as I have pointed out historians who where "hostile" to the teaching of Jesus still comment on Him, this as you put it homeless preacher.

So, on to the debate if you commit a sin who is it against? God and only God, we harm each other with these acts but the sin is actually against God. So then who can forgive sin? Only God can forgive sin and yet Jesus did this many times, how? Many different religions believe Jesus lived a totally sin less life, for example in Islam, "that Jesus alone of those born on earth was exclusively born without being touched by the devil." (1) and many more comments like these, so if the Bible and the Quran both say that Jesus lived a sinless life, which is to say He could not lie. Why would Jesus then quote from the Old Testament as it was the truth and fact? Jesus believes it to be God"s word, and yet He lived a sinless life. If there ever was an authority it is Jesus.

So if the Bible where Gods word it stand to reason that it would have facts and information that people do not have or do not know. Up to the 6th century BC it was believed that the earth was flat, even after that Socrates believed it as late as 400 BC (2), so then does the Bible say the earth is round if so when did that appear? The Bible does in fact call the earth round (3), now these are written in Job and Isaiah, Job is believed to have been written around 1500 BC and Isaiah written around 750 BC both well before we figured out that the Earth was round and both while the leading wise men of the age said the earth was flat. How about the flood of Noah that is recorded in the Bible surely there would be some data to back this up, and what we find all mountains have marine fossils on them how can this be unless all mountains did not exist until marine animals evolved or the mountains where covered with water from a worldwide flood. There are more but for the sake of room let"s move on.

If the Bible where from God then it would be able to predict the future and events, we call these prophesies that would occur in the future, what do we see? In Jesus alone we see over 300 prophecies fulfilled like the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:1), that he would spend time in Egypt (Hosea 11:1) so the Bible successfully described over 300 things that would be true in one person, Jesus , hundreds of years prior. In fact the odds of Jesus fulfilling just 8 of these prophecies are 1:100,000,000,000,000,000 (4).

What about other prophecies does the Bible speak of other things before they happened? For example the fact that Jericho would be rebuilt by one man (Joshua 6:26) the odds of this coming true 1:10,000,000 there are a great many more one more for good measure. The exact location and construction sequence of Jerusalem"s nine suburbs (Jeremiah31:38-40) fulfilled 2600 years later, odds of this happening 1:1,000,000,000,000,000,000.(5)

So we see the commonality of Bible thru thousands of years, over many classes of people. We see the Jesus himself fulfill prophecies that where written about Him hundreds of years before He was born. We see that Jesus himself believed the Old Testament to be true and God"s word, Jesus who could not lie. We see hundreds of other prophecies fulfilled all given hundreds of years prior to the events. We see that the Bible has no contradictions and that the claims of such are always misinterpretations of the scripture.

1.http://www.farsinet.com...
2.Dick's, D.R. (1970). Early Greek Astronomy to Aristotle. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. pp. 72"198. ISBN 978-0-8014-0561-7.
3.http://www.answersingenesis.org...
4.http://christiananswers.net...
5.http://www.reasons.org...
Debate Round No. 4
Romanii

Pro

Congratulations, Con!
You have successfully managed to stall even more time! Rather than defend the Bible's contradictions, all you have done is criticize me on how I chose to present my examples of Bible contradictions! Now, even if I plainly list out all of the Bible's contradictions, you will rebuttal them in the next round, and I will never have a chance to show how weak you defense is! Well played, Con! Well played.

I would just like to point out to everyone that contradictions are one of the biggest red flags proving that the Bible isn't divine, and all Con has done thus far is make excuses to avoid having to address specific contradictions.
In conclusion, Con has failed to prove that the Bible is God's Word.

Either way, I will continue to disprove the rest of his arguments.

My opponent has written "...both of the groups have written parts of the Bible, the learned King and the uneducated Shepard, and they both hold to one thought, how can this be if they were not guided?"
This sounds like he completely ignored my last argument, that despite social class, all members of a single religion would have the same religious views. The rich Jews is subject to the laws of Moses just as much as the poor Jew is. I don't understand why Con isn't able to comprehend this.
And once again, he has failed to address the fact that the compilers of the Bible purposefully selected only certain stories.

My opponent has written "...if you had actually read the Bible you would know that...Jesus returned from the grave and gave the grace, mercy and strength to spread the good news."
First of all, I have read the Bible in its entirety several times, so it would be nice if you could stop assuming things like that.
As I have done before, I assert that I am not saying Jesus couldn't have been resurrected. The apostles were very devoted to Jesus and that is why they were able to overcome the odds and spread Christianity in hostile territory. However, they could easily have made up some white lies to help increase Christianity's appeal.
AND ONCE AGAIN, the Gospels CONTRADICT each other SO much, that it is impossible for them to all have been inspired by God. But of course, rather than prove me wrong on that, Con would criticize me on using a video instead of boringly listing each and every Bible contradiction out.

My opponent has written, "... Jesus feed 5000 men (plus women and children) who followed Him to hear Him teach...Upon his resurrection Jesus appeared to more than 500 of his follower. Sorry not a small group at all."
A very small group compared to the total population of Judea at the time, which was around 4-5 Million (1)

My opponent has written, "The Bible does in fact call the earth round... well before we figured out that the Earth was round and both while the leading wise men of the age said the earth was flat."
Completely false. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle all taught that the Earth was round (2). Are they divine too, now?

My opponent has also written, "How about the flood of Noah that is recorded in the Bible surely there would be some data to back this up, and what we find all mountains have marine fossils on them how can this be unless all mountains did not exist until marine animals evolved or the mountains where covered with water from a worldwide flood. "
OR the ancient marine life lived in an ocean covering the region long before the mountains sprung up (3).

My opponent has written, "If the Bible where from God then it would be able to predict the future and events, we call these prophesies that would occur in the future, what do we see? In Jesus alone we see over 300 prophecies fulfilled."
Con forgets about all the prophecies that were NOT fulfilled (4)

Honestly, all of your arguments were pretty decent and they actually took quite a bit of thinking and research to disprove. However, in the end, none of them matter if you can't prove that the Bible is non-contradictory, and you didn't; you made excuses to avoid having to take on the impossible task.
God is perfect, and his word would never contradict itself.

If the Bible was truly God's word, that would make God a schizophrenic, jealous, merciless control-freak who plays favorites and is the world's biggest hypocrite.

Thank you for reading. Have a nice life.

SOURCES:
(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(2) http://www.infosources.org...
(3) http://www.nytimes.com...
(4) http://forum.thefreedictionary.com...
chengste

Con

Round 5 may Jesus be glorified

Well it seems as if pro has decided that a video created by someone other than himself to be the most reliable document around, he first mentioned this as his one and only thing to disprove the Bible being Gods word, this is a tired and old attempt to discredit the word of God. So many have tried that there are now several books that deal with over 800 supposed contradictions, each and every one of them have been shown to be either a blatant misrepresentation of the Bible or a misinterpretation of the Bible. As I pointed out to pro we could have this silly little debate where he would type something he believes is a contradiction and I would type the reply, I also offered in every round the opportunity for pro to do just that. Guess what instead of doing the work he continued to rely on the video short, all and every one of these items have been addressed more than once by several authors and doctors of theology why should I retype what they wrote just to fill space. The contradictions argument holds no water and has been played and lost many times.

Next once again pro tries to put Jesus into this little box as if he had no effect and just had this little band of followers, he once again failed to realize that even in the writing by other historians from the time it shows the great impact Jesus made, how would this, as pro states "homeless preacher" be even considered important enough to be commented on by the most prestigious historians of the time? He fails to even attempt to address this. He also conveniently overlooked the fact that other major religions of the world actually acknowledge Jesus, maybe not as the Son of God, but as a great man, why is this? How could this "homeless preacher" have such a large effect on the entire world had not the number of followers been much larger than pro gives credit for! Another question why is that this "homeless preacher" is the only one that misusing His name is considered a curse? Ever hear someone say Buddha d****it?

Next we move on to the Bible showing major things before man even figured it out, for example the Bible states the Earth is round way before anyone else did. Pro writes "Completely false. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle all taught that the Earth was round and used InforSource.org as proof text (1). Had he bothered to read he would have learned that Pythagoras lived 570 BC, Plato lived (427- 347 BC), Aristotle (384-322 BC), and had actually read my post he would have seen that Job was written 1000 years before any of the people he posted and Isaiah written 2 hundred years prior to those he posted, only proving my point I would like to thank him for proving my point with his source.

Next he moved to the flood and why they are marine fossils on the highest mountain tops his answer was this, "the ancient marine life lived in an ocean covering the region long before the mountains sprung up". I think my opponent is forgetting some basic earth science, you see the continents that these mountains are found on are actually floating, and as the move and collide they push up the mountains. Yet so again how did all the areas of the earth get covered in water so that these marine fossils would be there? See the thing pro did not do was actually read the proof text offered, for in the same article it mentions that the entire world has the fossils, not just the mountain tops. So either pro is saying the entire earth was covered by water, which sounds like a global flood that the Bible speaks of, or he failed to answer the question of the marine fossils. Once again I believe the pro has assisted me in proving my point that the entire world was under water.

Next he attempts to discredit the fact that the Bible correctly identifies things that are to happen in the future called prophesies. His only come back was not all the prophecies have been fulfilled, this is a true statement the Bible has a total of about 2500 prophecies in it. Of those 2000 of them have been fulfilled, leaving 500 yet to be and pro attempts to use these remaining 500 as proof that the Bible is not God"s word completely ignoring the 2000 that have been fulfilled. The remaining 500 are all about the end times, which only by God"s grace has not occurred yet. Pro"s inability to see that the 2000 fulfilled show how very accurate the Bible is.

One final proof, if the Bible is God"s word then the facts it states would eventually be provable, again this is true even though some things take a long time to be proven wrong so far none to date. For example, in Acts 13:7, mention is made of Sergius Paulus, the proconsul of Cyprus. For a long time, skeptics contended that Luke should have called him propraetor instead of proconsul since this was the usual title however years later a coin was found that stated this "Paulus the Proconsul"(2) There are a great many more like the tunnels under Jerusalem or the walls of Jericho, the proof of Caiaphas, etc.(3)

Thru out this debate Pro"s whole stand "proof" that the Bible is not God"s word, was a video that speaks of some supposed "contradictions" these misinterpretations are nothing new and have been addressed many times, I attempted to point this out to him by showing the work of a prominent scholar but he refused to budge. So then I showed that Jesus himself who many believe to be the Son of God and lived a sinless life (myself included) believed the Old Testament to be God"s word, Jesus quoted verse and passage many times with authority. Then I marked the change in the Apostles and Paul, who was previously a murderer of Christians known as Saul, and their change. Next I brought up the prophecies in the Bible, with over 300 fulfilled in Jesus the odds of which are astronomical, to the 1700 other prophecies fulfilled in the Bible no other book in the world could ever come close to these kinds of predictions. What was my opponents comeback "NOT all have been fulfilled" which is true showing how the Bible still is very relevant to us know. Then there are the points where the Bible points out facts well before men have figured them out, my opponent in his rebuttal only proved my point and I thank him for that. Finally, there are the historical facts that the Bible proves people, places, times and events all proven over and over again.

I thank pro for this opportunity however his only evidence was supposed "contradictions" all of which are easy to explain with proper interpretation of the Bible, yet I have shown many other facts showing the accuracy of the Bible for both in history and prophecy, these facts can only lend to a vote that the Bible is God"s word..

Vote for Con

1.http://www.infosources.org...
2.http://www.biblicalarcheology.net...
3.http://israelsmessiah.com...
Debate Round No. 5
32 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Chegste, Romani Is actually a believer in god though to...
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
True. I had a theist (Jesus Freak whatever) vote on my debate regarding god before. She voted for me, and checked the boxes for who she agreed with before and after to the other guy...

I would be careful in saying that all atheists are good voters... But atheists such as I are always open to proof of this "GOD"
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Notice that I said *most* theists.
Posted by chengste 2 years ago
chengste
That only athestic voters have open minids, how very close minded of you
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Fine. Though on a subject like this, it won't matter how well we did; most theistic voters will choose the side they agree with. Only the atheistic voters will vote without bias.
Posted by chengste 2 years ago
chengste
again up to the voters
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
disprove*
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
At the end of the day, you failed to prove the fact that the Bible is self-contradictory.
I offered forth something. You did not.
Posted by chengste 2 years ago
chengste
no you did not prove it was you attempted to use someone else's work and failed
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
I'm not trying to debate in the comments section. I'm just bringing notice to the fact that you never did prove that the Bible isn't self-contradictory.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 2 years ago
Skeptikitten
RomaniichengsteTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling and Grammar to Pro for obvious reasons- half of Con's arguments were nigh incoherent. Sources also to Pro- Con used some extremely biased and in fact non-credible sources like answersingenesis.org. Conduct also goes to Pro, as Con made several personal attacks. Arguments to Pro. Con repeatedly and insistently avoided providing any rebuttal of Pro's arguments regarding contradictions in the bible. In fact, since Con simply references a book not available to either his opponent or the voters, it is beyond me how Con expected anyone to just take his word for it that this book allegedly answers all those issues. Con did not back up his assertions with evidence, but rather relied on Bare Assertion fallacy and a repeated and illogical attempt to claim martyrdom means the bible is correct (particularly since the bible did not yet exist at the time of the alleged apostles' martyrdom).
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
RomaniichengsteTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This vote is going the way of Pro except for conduct points which were split as Pro forfeited one round (though it was out of his hands) but Con made personal attacks. The better grammar goes to Pro, as Con had long garbled sentences which made no sense often. Reliable sources go to Pro as Con cited answersingenesis, which is not science in any way and so should never be offered as a source. This is especially true when you are telling your opponent to not cut and paste from skeptic websites. Convincing arguments go to Pro, as his arguments were never countered convincingly by Con. Con made multiple appeals to emotion, but had no facts. Also Con should realize that Socrates and Plato are essentially the same person in the written form. Hence if Socrates believed the world was flat and Plato said it was round, this is a contradiction.