The Instigator
LDG
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
modetola
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

The Bible is not historical fact

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 3 votes the winner is...
modetola
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 82878
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (13)
Votes (3)

 

LDG

Pro

I may not know that much about The Bible. But what I do know is that it is NOT historical fact. When people claim that a man named Johan was eaten by a large whale, an old man named Noah building a wooden boat big enough for two of every animal on earth to fit in, and three old men crossing the dessert to see a baby who is the son of God himself, to be historical fact, I immediately raise an eyebrow of doubt. The way I see it, The Bible is a source of moral and religious inspiration.
modetola

Con

What proof do you have that proves that the bible is illogical>
There is relevant material pointing to the accuracy of the bible such as the red sea scrolls, testimonies from witnesses etc. We have more records on the Bible than Alexander the Great.

' I immediately raise an eyebrow of doubt. The way I see it, The Bible is a source of moral and religious inspiration. ' -- As you should, but that does not disprove the bible's claims. I think you should do more research regarding the historicity of the bible before coming to a conclusion.
Debate Round No. 1
LDG

Pro

Do you REALLY think a man named Noah built a giant wooden ship that held two of every animal on earth, which then weathered out a giant flood? Do you REALLY think that a snake spoke HUMAN ENGLISH and tricked Eve into eating that apple that allegedly gave her knowledge? Do you REALLY think that God himself told a man named Moses ten rules in which humans should live by? The reason I cant take The Bible as historical fact is how outlandish and impossible most these stories are, As for these "witnesses", did they have pictures? video proof? Word of mouth is very weak. Anyone can lie. I wont lie, for moral inspiration The Bible is great. But as historical fact...no...not really.
modetola

Con

Asking me repeatedly do I really think?, means nothing as the answer will be YES. I'm a Christian so I do believe these claims.
It is important to understand that these claims are radical and were consider miracles. The people who saw these events wrote them down, which is what we use as proof,

' Word of mouth is very weak ' .. Everything in the previous history was through word of mouth, cameras did not exist, does that mean we should disbelieve in everything that we don't have video proof for? You have to understand that everything in history can be challenged since we was not present, We can only use the evidence we have to prove how accurate the claims are.

Experience claims in general can not be proven objectively. If you saw an alien or flying monster, and you told everyone, nobody would believe you but does that mean you never saw it. You have to disprove these claims which you can not. We have a lot of evidence through writings from different sources proving the existence of Jesus Christ. You have to show inaccuracies in the historical text.

Repeatedly saying ' Do you really believe ' is not a good way to argue against the claim that the bible is inaccurate, I can say that for any claim...
Debate Round No. 2
LDG

Pro

Its not just that these stories are outlandish, they are scientifically impossible. Snakes cannot speak to humans. Meaning that snake did not speak to Eve. Speaking of which, if all these stories had "witnesses" how was the story of Adam and Eve even witnessed if they were supposed to be the first two people on earth? It is simply not possible unless the story was made up. And so what if you are Christian and believe these tall-tales as historical fact? Just because you think they are does not mean they are. I say this all from an Atheist POV. I don't go to church on Sunday. I don't have a copy of The Bible in my house (before you call me out, just because I don't own a copy of The Bible does not mean I have not read it), I don't think God created man I think evolution did, I don't believe in any of that. If God loves us all, why does he make bad men who make the world a crappier place? Which is not to say that some kind of God or Higher-Power does not exist. Just that I think said God or Higher-Power has had zero involvement in human affairs. The pure idea of a God or Higher-Power was created as a something early human beings could use to explain anomalies they did not understand back then (such as why the sun set, why plants grew, etc.) Now that we as a species are wiser, we understand better. We understand that most of everything can be explained by science.
modetola

Con

' Its not just that these stories are outlandish, they are scientifically impossible '... You have to understand that these stories are miracles, even people in the bible people disbelieved in the prophets who foretold future events and performed miracles.
it may be scientifically impossible for snakes to speak english because they do not possess the capability but you have to understand that these miracles were ' divine interventions ', this means they could not have happened without an interference from god

It is important to note that these miracles are not 'logically impossible' so it is not like god creating a stone he can not lift or making a round triangle. These are all plausible within god's power.

The rest of your argument does not follow the topic of discussion, You state that the bible was not a historical fact, then you went and starting claiming that if god exist why is there evil, then you touched on evolution etc. If you want answers to those questions , I advise you to visit here --- http://www.godandscience.org...

So far you have not disproven the bible's historical accuracy, you said they are unlikely or scientifically impossible, Within god's power, they are perfectly plausible. I advise you to do more research on the bible history, so you can actually bring evidence to this debate rather than mentioning baseless opinions.
Debate Round No. 3
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: twsurber// Mod action: Removed<

1 points to Con (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Neither side really made a convincing case, yet the burden of proof, which lies with the pro, was not achieved.

[*Reason for removal*] If this is truly how the voter feels, then the voter needs to explain what the burden of proof was and why Pro did not meet it. In any case, saying that one side didn't meet their burden of proof doesn't justify an S&G point allocation.
************************************************************************
Posted by makeadifference 1 year ago
makeadifference
Many events in the bible did actually happen but the entire book is not a historical fact. In many cases though, the bible talks of METAPHORICAL situations. For example, the story of Adam and Eve did not actually happen and is rather a lesson to be taught about obeying the laws of god.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Jonbonbon
Most of the stuff in the Bible is more historically accurate than any ther ancient documents. Even the Smithsonian agrees. The only thing disagreed on is the parts that mention God, and believe it or not, but most of the Bible is a history book, and it isn't all filled religious teaching. The stories from Sunday school are a minority of the stories in the Bible.
Posted by LDG 1 year ago
LDG
The thing about a burden of proof. I don't need physical evidence for most my points. Like i said; Half the stuff that happens in The Bible is way too outlandish and scientifically impossible to have actually happened, therefore become historical fact.
Posted by toretorden 1 year ago
toretorden
To answer my own question posed earlier, the first way to recognize a lie would be by looking for fantastic claims. LDG pointed out the claims are fantastic and hence likely to be lies.

But aside from that, he did a horrible job debating and should have provided much better arguments (his position was easy to argue from), so that's something we can agree on.
Posted by AaronD 1 year ago
AaronD
Satan is the only righteous entity close to what you would call God.
Posted by modetola 1 year ago
modetola
You guys need to understand the argument. The title is that ' The Bible is not historical fact ', Pro had no arguments towards this other than ' Do you really believe ' etc. Remember he is trying to prove the bible is not factual.

I'm not claiming that the biblical texts are facts, I'm claiming that they are likely and in any case, I won the debate simply because pro did not offer any argument in disproving the biblical historicity.
Posted by LDG 1 year ago
LDG
Look, "The Bible is not historical fact" is my opinion that I find to be correct. It does not matter if it is or not. I can believe what I want to believe. That is what true religion should be.

Side Note: If the Snake talking to Eve was "Divine Intervention" from God, then why was the snake evil? Also "The Bible is historical fact because I am a Christian and I said so" is not a good argument either. I disagree with you, but I have not been calling my opponents beliefs "Baseless Opinion"
Posted by toretorden 1 year ago
toretorden
modetola, here's a thought experiment. Let's pretend that all the stories in the bible are made up. How would you be able to recognize that they are not truth?
Posted by modetola 1 year ago
modetola
Pro argument is inconclusive.
The evidence for Jesus Christ is overwhelming, They could not find the body once Jesus had died, there was several testimonies, also the numerous amount of texts that document the bible stories.

I stated that these stories were divine intervention, that within god's power ,they were plausible, He did not respond to that claim. There are many stories throughout history that are hard to believe, and are only known through word of mouth but you cannot not disprove those.

I argue that the bible's history is very likely, since we do not have a time travel machine, we can only use the evidence present. Based off what we do have, there is more evidence pointing to these claims than not.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by HardRockHallelujah 1 year ago
HardRockHallelujah
LDGmodetolaTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's whole case presupposes: 1) God doesn't exist 2) Since God doesn't exist, any miracle like a snake talking is impossible. 3) We can't trust what the Bible says because we have no video proof that any such events occurred (yeah, as if video cameras existed during the writing of the Bible). Rather than pre-supposing naturalism, maybe Pro should've gave his evidence that our existence can be explained purely naturally, rather than super-naturally, which he failed to do. For that reason, I think Con made a more convincing argument.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
LDGmodetolaTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate revolved around whether I believed Pro's or Con's assertions more. The only source used was a source that Con used to advise Pro to visit to learn more about the Bible. This was not used to back up claims and therefore does not affect my vote or sources points. Pro began by making assertions regarding the reality of the Bible. All Con did was advice Pro to review his facts. This is not sufficient and is not a rebuttal to anything Pro said. Pro then basically repeated his round. Con basically just repeated his answer,saying that repetition does not change his mind. This is still not a rebuttal to anything that Pro has said. In the final round Pro states that these are scientifically impossible. Con finally makes a point by responding and saying that these are miracles not scientific inconsistencies. This doesn't really change the outcome because this was so late in the debate that Pro did not get a chance to respond. Pro's arguments remain un-refuted and so I vote Pro.
Vote Placed by pie5434 1 year ago
pie5434
LDGmodetolaTied
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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: The reason why I voted Pro was because the resolution is "The Bible is not a historical fact" and the Con fell into the trap that Con had to prove everything in the Bible is a fact. This matters because when the Pro said that "Speaking of which, if all these stories had "witnesses" how was the story of Adam and Eve even witnessed if they were supposed to be the first two people on earth?" that went unanswered in the final speech and is a big issue because the Con said "We have a lot of evidence through writings from different sources proving the existence of Jesus Christ. You have to show inaccuracies in the historical text." and to have a lot of people writing the same thing when there is no witnesses proves that this story is not 100% a historical fact since there was no one to see it happen. Other Notes: Jesus Christ was a real person (In case Pro didn't know) When you use sources don't cite that are look biased but even then good job using sources to back up your claims