The Instigator
kwagga_la
Pro (for)
The Contender
Previan
Con (against)

The Bible is reliable

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Previan has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 332 times Debate No: 94462
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (27)
Votes (0)

 

kwagga_la

Pro

Trying the same the Debate again. The Bible is reliable in that it accurately recorded events as it happened. To show that the Bible is unreliable it will be up to Con to show that the events were not accurately recorded. Con may also use arguments that the Bible contradicts itself. Please use only one to two examples at most per round.
Previan

Con

This should be interesting. I'm christian myself but im willing to test your knowledge on the bible.
Debate Round No. 1
kwagga_la

Pro

Basically, my contention is that the Bible was transmitted accurately which makes it reliable. Even if some of the stories in the Bible sounds too good to be true it does not mean it was not transmitted accurately. The Bible is actually a collection of books that was written by people who did not know each other in some cases but yet in whole forms one unified book that compliment and confirm each other. Prophecy is an example of this.

People argue either that there are contradictions in the Bible or point out the "genocide" found in the Bible. War and genocide does not prove the Bible is unreliable. However, contradictions can question the reliability of the Bible. Some try to point out that the Bible contains scientific faults which would fall in the category of contradictions with so called learned knowledge. Evolution would be such an example. However, evolution without it's origins (how it started, cosmology) ends up being adaptation. People try to split evolution from it's origins to try and built a case that cannot be argued against, but as I pointed out, it because adaptation. The origin theory is a theory. It cannot be proven by scientific methods and cannot be verified using the scientific method, so in short, how can the Bible contradict something that cannot be proven? The Bible warns against science "falsely so called". Others point out events that seem to contradict who God should be and what He should and should not allow. I find that most of the time people who argue this way does not have a good knowledge of Bible theology.

Having said all that, let me hear your arguments!
Previan

Con

The bible is very contradictive. For example, God ordered the Israelites to go to war with other nations and kill those who committed crimes(Samuel 15:3 & Joshua 4:13). But then other verses tell us, "You shall not murder" and "Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death". The bible itself is very confusing and takes alot of time and work to fully understand it.

"Basically, my contention is that the Bible was transmitted accurately which makes it reliable. Even if some of the stories in the Bible sounds too good to be true it does not mean it was not transmitted accurately"
How do you know? There are other books out there that claim they're based on true stories. Most of these stories even have a mythical fantasy beast that sounds too good to be true. But according to you, just because it sounds too good to be true, doesn't mean it's not real. For example, the Quran, a book used by muslims. The Quran is nearly as old as the bible and it's followers claim that there is no solid evidence to prove the Quran has ever been altered/editied. But, the Quran is a book very different from ours. It rules are very different and they worship differently. So why don't we just believe in the Quran since it too was transmitted accurately and sounds too good to be true.



[SOURCES]
http://www.gotquestions.org...



Debate Round No. 2
kwagga_la

Pro

Murder is wrong under certain circumstances but justified in others. To generalize murder to claim there is a contradiction is a logic fallacy. Just about every country I know off work on the same principle. Murder or killing someone in self defense is not a crime. Murdering or killing someone for malicious reasons is considered murder. There is no contradiction. A contradiction will be that it is said that killing someone in self defense is justified but then in another place it is stated that killing someone in self defense is NOT justified.

First off, you misrepresent my position. I stated "Even if", not everyone thinks that there are too good to be true stories in the Bible. I did not say it is a fact, it is a conditional statement.

I said "sounds too good to be true" I did not say IT IS too good to be true. Something may "sound fanciful" to you but not to me.

"The Quran is nearly as old as the bible". This statement is not correct. The Quran was written about 600 years after the New Testament and about 900 years after the Old Testament was completed.

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

"So why don't we just believe in the Quran since it too was transmitted accurately". Believing in something and the reliability of something is not dependant on each other. I stated: "The Bible is actually a collection of books that was written by people who did not know each other in some cases but yet in whole forms one unified book that compliment and confirm each other. Prophecy is an example of this.". The Quran cannot make the same claim.

"and sounds too good to be true." Not everything in the Quran is too good to be true, but then again it might "sound too good to be true" to you. It contains factual statement as well. I cannot argue against something I did not advocate.
"and it's followers claim that there is no solid evidence to prove the Quran has ever been altered/editied". The Quran have been through a revision period. http://www.bible.ca...

"So why don't we just believe in the Quran since it too was transmitted accurately and sounds too good to be true". Because the God of the Quran and of the Bible is not the same God. The OT and NT says God has a Son. Islam denies that Allah has a son. It's obviously not from the same source. Muslims claim the Bible was Allah's revelation but that it got corrupted. The logic fails because that means the Muslims quote a corrupted book every time they to prove that Islam is the true religion quoting the Bible. Secondly, you have a god that is not able to preserve his words (in the OT) to all people that casts serious doubts on his abilities and power (Allah).
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
things are necessary.. im talking about any claim
Posted by kwagga_la 3 months ago
kwagga_la
@ vi_spex So basically you just proved yourself wrong. Some things are not reliable and therefore it is not a reliable statement that ANYTHING is reliable.
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
i mean you can rely on atheism for eksample
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
self is necessary, not reliable
Posted by kwagga_la 3 months ago
kwagga_la
@ vi_spex The argument here is about the reliability of a specific object naming the Bible. It is not a generalized debate about reliability. Your comments therefore is irrelevant. If you have something of meaning to add to the topic instead of creating a straw man argument where you want to generalize everything, then feel free to add to the topic of this debate. I f you want to argue about whether ANYTHING is reliable or not, then start your own debate.
Posted by kwagga_la 3 months ago
kwagga_la
@ vi_spex Ok then, I do not apologize, my mistake. I asked you the following: Can you really rely on anything? How about relying on yourself to do something not to get any older than you are right now. You did not answer the question. This should not be hard to comprehend but apparently you missed it. Maybe because "he ro in on a boat but past the point of logic".

How about: Can you rely on yourself to ALWAYS be reliable? The uncertainty about the future will make any reasonable person answer: No, I cannot. Your past mistakes will testify against you that you cannot and there is no way of altering the past.

Here are two examples that you cannot rely on ANYTHING like you claim. Your logic fails.

Now, I tried to explain this in the simplest way possible. Can I rely on you to comprehend this?
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
hilarious dude
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
do you seriusly not realize the retardation event taking place being this debate? you can rely on anything... there i said it twice now
Posted by vi_spex 3 months ago
vi_spex
you swing like a dead fish is all im saying
Posted by kwagga_la 3 months ago
kwagga_la
@vi_spex I apologise if I offended you. It was not my intention.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.