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

The Bible is not a reliable source of information.

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: 3/1/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,177 times Debate No: 48148
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (1)




I open this debate proudly and I look forward to debating TannerJK, who does not agree with my view of that the Bible is not a reliable source of information.

The first round is only for acceptance. We will state our main arguments in the next round. I truly look forward to this debate.


I accept. I would like to thank WilliamsP for creating this debate. I look forward to debating this topic with you and respect your arguments. I would also like to point out to anyone who is reading this or voting in this that both debaters are 14 years old, so this should be very interesting. Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Allow me to state some basic points and then I will go into detail about each and every one of them:

1. The Bible has been edited numerous times. Also, the book has been translated from Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic into English. Therefore, some of the original ideas have been distorted.
2. The Bible is based on the hallucinations of peasants and distortions of facts.
3. There is no scientific evidence to support that the Bible is in fact God's Word.
4. Christians who believe in the Bible are not listening to facts, but they rather assume the Bible is telling the truth.

Point One: The Bible's Edits
The Bible has been edited numerous times. The original languages of the Bible were Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

"The Bible was actually written inthreedifferent ancient languages:Hebrew, Aramaic,andGreek. While (a modern version of) each of these languages is spoken today, most modern readers of those languages would have some difficulty with the ancient versions used in the Biblical texts. " [1]

Due to the "difficulty with the ancient versions used in the Biblical texts," the modern Bible is only a distortion of the original text. Not only has the language of the Bible changed, but the context has changed as well. Unfortunately, I cannot find any links on the internet to support this claim, but I assure you, it is fact. All the links I have attempted are absolutely terrible and I would not want to use them in this debate due to their format and wording.

Point Two: What the Bible is based upon
The Bible, my friend, is not based on fact. The Bible is based upon hallucinations, illusions, and distortions of facts. Tell me, what is the name of the person who wrote this book? What other evidence other than God's Word - which is untrue - supports the Bible's claims?

Point Three: Scientific Evidence
There is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the Bible is God's Word and that what is written in it is the truth.

"The archaeological evidence of the Bible is scarce. In fact, it is non-existent. After 200 years of Christian archaeologists digging up the wholeMiddle East, they haven't found any proof of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, Hebrew Slaves or the Ten Plagues. NONE!!! And this from a nation of people who wrote EVERYTHING down in stone!! And Sinai has no proof of any largegroup of peopletravelling through it EVER!!! The first evidence correlating to the biblical story doesn't appear in Canaan archaeology until around 100 years before the Babylonian Captivity (around 600 BC).
This lack of evidence includes persons such as David and Solomon who should be recorded in other nations and supposedly lived relatively close to those who wrote the Bible in theBabylonian Captivityaround 500 B.C." [2]

The evidence against the Bible is miraculous and cannot be denied. If you want to prove the Bible being true, you must prove Creation. Prove that the Earth is only thousands, not billions of years old. Prove the existence of Adam and Eve. Prove the existence of Noah's Ark. Prove the existence of the Ten Commandments. Prove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prove these things and my view may change.

Until you find solid evidence that supports Creation, I remain convinced that Evolution is the truth.

Point Four: Christians' Assumptions
I do not understand why Christians - or any person, for that matter - can assume the Bible is the truth. Just because it is written black on white and just because it speaks in a powerful way, does that automatically make it true? The evidence against the Bible is outrageously immense. TannerJK, you are a Christian. May I ask, why do you assume the Bible is true?

I have plenty more arguments, but I choose to save them for later. I await your response.


[1 ]



I would like to thank WilliamsP for creating this debate and challenging me directly. I truly look forward to debating this with you. Since your first round didn't state the setup, in this round I will post my first argument as well as a rebuttal to each if your points.

Opening Statements/ Introduction:
For the sake of the debate, I will define a few important terms to make sure we are on the same page and clear everything up.
Bible- The main religious text in Christianity.
Reliable- consistently good in quality or performance; able to be trusted.
So, we are arguing whether or not the Holy Book in Christianity is able to be trusted. My argument is yes.
In the following argument I will attempt to show you why.

The Dead Sea Scrolls:
In 1947, one of the greatest archaeological finds in history was made along the cliffs of the Dead Sea. In these cliffs were jars with many manuscripts containing many of what is found in the Bible.
"The leatherbound papyrus manuscripts include hundreds of distinct works. The predominantly Hebrew writings are a wellspring of information about the Holy Land from the third century B.C. to the second century A.D., including the birth and growth of Christianity and the new faith's religious and social relationships to Judaism... The finds include a nearly complete Hebrew Old Testament Bible, which has allowed scholars to date the existence of that text to no later than A.D. 70. In addition, the Copper Scroll was a sort of archaeological treasure map guiding scholars to dozens of other hidden texts. And the Temple Scroll contained detailed construction plans for the Temple of Jerusalem. Many scholars believe that the documents belonged to a Hebrew religious sect that lived in the area during the first century A.D. The scrolls' guardians may have hidden them from the Romans during the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66 to 70)."-
These were translated and found to match what is found in the modern day Bible.

Manuscript Evidence:
Some of the most famous writers, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer, have never had their authenticity questioned. However, the manuscript evidence for each of these is far less than the Bible's New Testament.
The Iliad and The Odyssey-
Written around 900 BC
Earliest Available Manuscript was 500 years later.
Total Manuscripts: 643

Works of Plato-
Written around 427-347 BC
Earliest Available Manuscript was 1200 years later
Total Manuscripts: 7

Works of Aristotle-
Written around 384-322 BC
Earliest Available Manuscript was 1400 years later
Total Manuscripts: 49

New Testament-
Written throughout the first century
Earliest Available Manuscript was 30-40 years later.
Total manuscripts: 5,800
(with some adaptations from

I could have written a little bit more, but WilliamsP asked me to post a little sooner and I was running out of space any way, since I'm so long winded. I feel that the Bible, even if it cannot be proven 100% true, is at least reliable, just like other theories such as evolution that only have some supporting evidence but are still accepted. No other book has had an impact on humanity like the Bible or has sold so many times. The Bible can be trusted. Here are my rebuttals to each of Pro's points, by number. You say that until creationism can be proven true, you will believe in evolution, but there is no actual certainty that it is true either.

1. This argument really doesn't mean very much in this debate. You said that it has been translated many times from its original copy. The topic at debate here isn't, "The modern day Bible is not a reliable source of information.", but rather, "The Bible is not a reliable source of information." That means that your case is saying that the original transcripts are not reliable, so saying that it has been translated to many times is almost irrelevant. You aren't saying that the new edits have been distorted and aren't reliable, your saying that the Bible in general, even the Greek and Hebrew version, are not reliable. Also, you cannot say that you just know something is a fact, but then say you can't find anything to support it. If I am misunderstanding what you meant, I apologize and ask you to let me know.

2. I expected this to be brought up, and am prepared because of it. The Bible does not have an author, it has authors. Many authors. About 39 authors wrote the Bible over a period of about 1,500 years. They started as scrolls that Jews and Early Christians used that were written by those people and they were the holy books. Then the Early Church, and this is historical, put together the books into one book for the religion. So, it does not have just one author. It was many authors accounts of things that were put together.

3. Discussed in my arguments above.

4. We can not know for a fact that it is true, we trust it because of the things you mentioned in this point. But, the topic we are debating is whether it is reliable. There is no 100% certainty that evolution is true, because nobody actually has seen it happen. We just assume it is because of other facts and say it is reliable.
Debate Round No. 2


This debate is about the reliability of the Bible, yes, but I would like to make a rebuttal of one of your Evolution points before we go on.

You wrote:

"You say that until creationism can be proven true, you will believe in evolution, but there is no actual certainty that it is true either."

Additionally, you write:

"There is no 100% certainty that evolution is true, because nobody actually has seen it happen."

TannerJK, I am afraid you don't realize the miraculous evidence of Evolution. Evolution is occuring right in front of you. It is happening very slowly, but it is still happening. There is 100% certainty about the truth of Evolution to all people who are reasonable and scientific. However, it is the one who is susceptible and weak that gives in to the Bible's lies. Besides the Bible, there is no evidence to support Creation. And really, the Bible is not evidence of anything. It is a book based on the hallucinations of peasants, distortions of facts, assumptions and unfounded opinions. That, TannerJK, you cannot deny.

I will continue making additional arguments and making rebuttals about your arguments:

I would like to point out your ability to assume the Bible's truth. Now, I will admit that the Bible has a few truths, but the general idea of the Bible is a giant lie. If I seem that I am disrespecting your religion, I apologize. I do, however, want to ask you a few questions. Answer those questions for me and then we can continue:

1. Just because the Bible says things happened, does that mean they happened?

2. Just because brilliant men such as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer have written works supporting the Bible, does that make the Bible true?

3. Exluding the Bible, is there any solid scientific evidence to support the things the Bible has stated?

4. What are the names of the Bible's authors? Tell me the name of every single author of the total 39 you claimed there are.

5. Are the miracles in the Bible scientifically possible?

6. Are the sources you listed reliable?

7. Do you even have any sources or is all of your argument a made-up piece of crap?

I would appreciate answers to all of these questions. Now, I apologize if my conduct is a little unfriendly. It is not my intent. I do, however, want to make strong arguments and I want to ask strong questions in order to get solid, valid evidence of the Bible's reliablity. Until you can prove the Bible's reliability, you must assume the Bible is unreliable. Also, I would like to clarify something before I close my argument. By "reliability", I mean that the events of the Bible actually occured and that the characters did everything the book claims. Now, I will admit that the Bible has some good moral lessons, but it is not a reliable source regarding historic information.

I now pause my arguments and I will resume my rebuttals and arguments once my opponent has done his.


TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent forfeits. I still await his rebuttal and his responses to my questions. If he fails to do so, I will be highly disappointed.


TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent forfeits. I am disappointed. . I believe I have made my points, unlike my opponent, and I will allow him to make up for the arguments he forfeited. I doubt, however, he still has a chance to win.


TannerJK forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Con appears to be using typical Apologetics, if I wanted to argue against all Apologetics, I'd go to the following Youtube site for some pretty funny debunking of Christian Apologetics:

Not that's helping somebody.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Actually, it's wise sometimes to ignore the comments section as the instigator of the debate usually has a plan of attack, prior to instigating the debate and to get sidetracked by comments can be detrimental to that plan.
I usually ignore comments in my debates as I don't like my train of thought getting derailed.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
I'm just questioning points already covered in the arguments, it's not good to to back and repeat points.
The other point is something that won't get covered, since Con has decided to take pointers from the Bible.
So they are points that have little or no effect on the debate.
Posted by Haroush 2 years ago
Umm, why are we giving people pointers? Shouldn't we just let people debate without interfering in any kind of way, whether it be helping or hurting?
Posted by ThreePointOneFour 2 years ago
I have noticed when Christians are defending the reliability of the bible they almost always start by referring to writers, such as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer. They follow the tired script that of comparing the authenticity of these to authenticity of those writings found in the biblical cannon.
The philosopher"s writings claim no divine origin. THAT"S the problem with the comparison! It"s an irrational and dishonest starting point for the theist.
Then step two; they call up the 5000+ manuscripts of the bible. Conveniently leaving out the fact that these are copies of copies of copies of copies. There is not one shred of original manuscript at all. NOT ONE.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Well Evolution is 100% true, as scientists use the laws and experiment with Evolution daily and it is 100% predictable, thus 100% true.
The Bible is a very reliable source!
That is, a reliable source of nonsense to attack the credibility of Judaism and Christianity with.
Which is why the Bible is often the best reason for Atheism.
So many people have become Atheists from studying the Bible, myself included.
Posted by jamccartney 2 years ago
Con's arguments are awful. He is not using logic.
Posted by TannerJK 2 years ago
Thank you Jabuticaba for pointing that out. I am currently constructing my initial arguments and rebuttals for this round and invite you to read them when they are posted and vote when our debate is over.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
Don't worry, Jabuticaba. I will win this debate. I assure you.
Posted by WilliamsP 2 years ago
Don't worry, Jabuticaba. I will win this debate. I assure you.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: FF