The Instigator
Romanii
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
janetsanders733
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

The Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

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 2 votes the winner is...
janetsanders733
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/11/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,592 times Debate No: 40366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (2)

 

Romanii

Pro

The first half of the Bible (the Old Testament) is composed of ancient stories that were written by approximately 40 different completely unrelated authors. In addition, the stories were passed down mostly orally for hundreds of years. How could anyone possibly expect such stories to be even close to their original states? Taking Old Testament stories literally would be just like believing in Greek Mythology.

The second half of the Bible (the New Testament) is composed of stories that were written after Jesus's death by 4 authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) who were trying to promote Christianity and spread it to the general public. Obviously they would stretch the truth in order to appeal to a wider audience. Taking New Testament stories literally would be just like believing every word of every commercial you hear on TV.

Note that I don't mean to say that the Bible is completely false. The Bible's stories are great metaphors, allegories, and parables for portraying Christianity's teachings.
Also note that when I say "taking the Bible literally", I mean truly believing that...
-God created everything in 7 days
-Humans are sinful because a snake talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge
-Noah built a ship to save a bunch of animals from a global flood
-Language barriers were created by God to stop humans from building a really tall tower
-Hell is a pit of fire in the middle of the Earth where sinners burn for eternity
-Heaven is a realm beyond the borders of the Ptolemaic Universe where God and all his angels live
-Jesus resurrected 3 days after he died
-Jesus claimed to be the only one who could lead people to God

All of the above claims are either ancient mythology or Christian propaganda; not scientific/historical fact. The Bible is really good at representing Christian morals when read under the right lens, but when taken too literally, the Bible becomes a barrier between Christianity and science/other religions/secular government/society in general.

I look forward to my opponent's argument.
janetsanders733

Con

“The first half of the Bible (the Old Testament) is composed of ancient
stories that were written by approximately 40 different completely unrelated
authors. In addition, the stories were passed down mostly orally for hundreds
of years. How could anyone possibly expect such stories to be even close to
their original states? Taking Old Testament stories literally would be just
like believing in Greek Mythology.”

A false assumption that is far from the truth, The
Smithsonian Institution’s Department of Anthropology has an official statement
on “THE BIBLE AS HISTORY.” In it they say:

“... much of the Bible, in particular the historical books
of the old testament, are as accurate historical documents as any that we have
from antiquity and are in fact more accurate than many of the Egyptian,
Mesopotamian, or Greek histories. These Biblical records can be and are used as
are other ancient documents in archaeological work. For the most part,
historical events described took place and the peoples cited really existed.”

“The second half of the Bible
(the New Testament) is composed of stories that were written after Jesus's
death by 4 authors (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) who were trying to promote
Christianity and spread it to the general public. Obviously they would stretch
the truth in order to appeal to a wider audience. Taking New Testament stories
literally would be just like believing every word of every commercial you hear
on TV.”

Another false assumption that Con asserts, this is far from
the truth as well. Now it is true that the New Testament was written after
Jesus existence. But it was written by the first and second hand eyewitnesses
when they were still alive. In fact the New Testament documents have a
staggering quantity of manuscript attestation. Approximately 5,000 Greek
manuscripts, containing all or part of the New Testament, exist. There are
8,000 manuscript copies of the Vulgate (a Latin translation of the Bible done
by Jerome from 382-405) and more than 350 copies of Syriac (Christian Aramaic)
versions of the New Testament (these originated from 150-250; most of the
copies are from the 400x).

The dates of the manuscript copies range from early in the2nd
century to the time of the Reformation. This is very remarkable because that
means that the eyewitness were alive to write their gospel accounts of Jesus,
and that also means that their manuscripts were already going around within the
1st century.

Also almost every single apostle was martyred for
proclaiming that they saw Jesus risen. If they knew it was a lie, then why die
for it?

Note that I don't mean to say
that the Bible is completely false. The Bible's stories are great metaphors,
allegories, and parables for portraying Christianity's teachings.

The bible claims to be God-breathed, and God’s word, Pro
needs to realize that it stands or falls as a whole. These were not some
“stories” told to pass on, these were actual events that all point to the
coming of Christ.

Also note that when I say
"taking the Bible literally", I mean truly believing that...

-God created everything in 7
days

The bible could be referring to 24 hour days it never says
the earth is 6,000 years old. In fact in never even gives the age of the earth.
The Genesis account has been shown to be reliable, especially in the field of
molecular anthropology.

-Humans are sinful because a snake talked
Eve into eating the forbidden fruit of knowledge”

Is there not sin in the world? God gave Adam and eve the
choice to choose good and evil.

-Noah built a ship to save a
bunch of animals from a global flood

Early church fathers have talked about the location of the
ark, including Josephus. There has been satellite imaging done near Turkey.
Many people in the past have seen pitch from wood around that area and have
talked about. Much of the evidence so far is circumstantial although that does
not mean it did not happen, since Jesus proved to be God, then everything he
said and did was true in the OT and NT.

-Language barriers were created
by God to stop humans from building a really tall tower

In the southern Mesopotamia, Excavation at Babylon cannot
inform us of its history prior to the second millennium, because the shifting
water table of the Euphrates has obliterated the strata (Saggs 1967: 41-42).
Historical records do not mention Babylon prior to meager references in the Ur
III period, and a year date formula of Sarkalisarri during the dynasty of Akkad
(Gelb 1955). If it was the site of the event recorded in Genesis 11, it seems
to have been abandoned for over a millennium before it was again occupied.

-Hell is a pit of fire in the middle of the
Earth where sinners burn for eternity.”

Nowhere in the bible does it say Hell is located on earth.
Can Pro provide scriptural evidence for this please?

-Heaven is a realm beyond the
borders of the Ptolemaic Universe where God and all his angels live”

Heaven is where God dwells, but God can dwell anywhere,
since he is triune. Not three Gods, but one God in three persons. (Father, Son,
Holy Spirit).

“ -Jesus resurrected 3 days after he died”

FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb
by Joseph of Arimathea.

This fact is highly significant because it means that the
location of Jesus’ burial site was known to Jew and Christian alike. In that
case, the disciples could never have proclaimed his resurrection in Jerusalem
if the tomb had not been empty. New Testament researchers have established this
first fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

Jesus’ burial is
attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5:

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also
received:

. . . that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the
Scriptures,

and that he was buried,

and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with
the Scriptures,

and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.”

FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’
tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. The empty tomb story is
also part of the old passion source used by Mark. The story is simple and lacks
signs of legendary embellishment. Compare the wild legendary stories found in
the second-century apocryphal gospels, in which Jesus is seen coming out of the
tomb with his head reaching up above the clouds and followed by a talking
cross!

FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various
circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced
appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. The appearance traditions in the
gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of these appearances. This is
one of the most important marks of historicity. The appearance to Peter is
independently attested by Luke, and the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and
John.

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was
risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
Their leader was dead. And Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising,
Messiah.

-Jesus claimed to be the only one who could
lead people to God.”

“I and the Father are one.”
John 10:30 We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement
to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very
reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10:33.

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.” –John 1:1

Sources:

http://www.gotquestions.org...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

http://www.biblearchaeology.org...

http://www.bethinking.org...

http://www.bethinking.org...

Debate Round No. 1
Romanii

Pro

Do you know why the Bible is accepted as a reliable historical source? Because there is VIRTUALLY NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION of the history of the Hebrews, giving archaeologists no choice but to use the Bible. I am sure that many of the Bible's stories have historical basis; just like how Homer's "Iliad" was based on the very real event of the Trojan War.
There definitely was a kingdom called Israel in existence around 1000 BC, and David and Solomon were probably real kings who ruled over it. The Bible does have historical basis, but it many of its details (such as the ones that directly contradict science) were probably the results of the stories being passed down orally for centuries.
And by the way, don't even try to pretend that the Bible gets anywhere near the historical accuracy of Egyptian histories. Egyptians actually wrote down their history as it happened for almost 2000 years.

In your defense of the New Testament, all you said was that since the authors were alive during Jesus's time, they must have been accurate sources. I'm not doubting that Luke, John, Mark, and Matthew were disciples of Jesus during his lifetime; however, like I said, they wrote down Jesus's life story in order to spread Christianity, and they definitely stretched the truth to appeal to more potential converts.
Just because there were many copies of the New Testament made doesn't make it any more historically accurate, so I'm not really sure why you even brought up "manuscript attestation"...

I think that given how, when, and where the Bible's stories were written, it is safe to say that the Bible is DEFINITELY just a compilation of Christian stories that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Here are the rebuttals to the rest of your arguments in the order that you made them:

-Tell me exactly how "the Genesis account has been shown to be reliable, especially in the field of molecular anthropology". If I'm not mistaken, it actually directly contradicts evolution and several other aspects of science.

-I'm not saying there is no sin in this world; humans are stained to the core with sin. However, the Adam and Eve story directly contradicts everything that has ever been discovered in the field of anthropology

-The Biblical story of the flood sounds pretty much exactly the Mesopotamian story of the flood, with the only differences being in the names of the characters. This shows that Abraham and his Hebrew followers took some ancient Sumerian mythology with them when they left to search for the promised land. The story of the flood is borrowed from the pagan mythology you fundamentalist Christians disdain so much; how can you keep believing in it?

-Even if the shifting sands or whatever didn't happen and archaeologists did find the remains of a very tall tower, it could still just be some random tall tower that the Babylonians tried to build.

-Fine, maybe you guys don't think Hell is in the middle of the Earth, but the Bible does still imply that it is an actual pit of fire somewhere out there where sinners burn for eternity.

-Yeah sure, God can dwell anywhere, but the Bible still speaks of an actual realm outside the universe called Heaven

-You just used lines from inside the Bible to prove that the Bible is valid. If I were to say "Hippos can swim in Pianos," and then say "What I just said is true," would it automatically make my theory about Hippo's true?

-Not only did you use Bible quotes to prove your point again, but the the quotes aren't even relevant.

I hope I haven't offended you too much :)
I look forward to your next argument, Con
janetsanders733

Con

"DOCUMENTATION of the history of the Hebrews, giving archaeologists no choice but to use the Bible. I am sure that many of the Bible's stories have historical basis; just like how Homer's "Iliad" was based on the very real event of the Trojan War.
There definitely was a kingdom called Israel in existence around 1000 BC, and David and Solomon were probably real kings who ruled over it. The Bible does have historical basis, but it many of its details (such as the ones that directly

contradict science) were probably the results of the stories being passed down orally for centuries.

And by the way, don't even try to pretend that the Bible gets anywhere near the historical accuracy of Egyptian histories. Egyptians actually wrote down their history as it happened for almost 2000 years."


Pro, does not realize that the Smithsonian Institution is a Secular Instution. This means they are skeptics. The fact that they actually made that statment is not opinion it is fact. The bible is more reilable then Egyptian history. Why? Because it is God's word, and is consistent with history. Pro has not cited me a source to support how the Bible contradicts Science. You can not even compare Egyptian history, to Biblical History. The amount of archaelogical evidence for the OT is overwhelming. Which is why I quoted the Smithsonian Institution's statement about the bible. Egyptian history has purposefully lied about their wars and history in order to make themselves look good. The bible is constantly honest about its history. This just shows that Pro is not willing to accept the evidence.
Everytime the bible makes a claim about an artifact, the artifact has been found. I will go ahead and cite you some archaeological findings that have been found. I do not have enough room to write all of them, so here are just a few.

1 THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS- discovered in 1947, and not by archaeologists! Bedouin shepherds found seven scrolls or parts of scrolls and fragments, along with store jars and broken pottery jars in a cave overlookingthe northwest end of the Dead Sea. Among the more than eight hundred documents represented by whole scrolls, incomplete scrolls, and a myriad of fragments which have been recovered are complete copies or portions of all the books in the Hebrew Bible(our OT), except for the Book of Esther. These texts are older by at least a thousand years than any previous biblical texts written in Hebrew that we had prior to the discovery. They provide a window into the textual history of the OT prior to the closure of the canon.

2 THE HOUSE OF DAVID INSCRIPTION- The discovery was of a fragment of a large monumental inscription, measuring about 32 cm. high and 22 cm. at its greatest width. Apparently the stone had been purposely broken in antiquity. It turned out that the stele fragment mentions King David's dynasty,"the House of David."

3 AMULET SCROLL- The silver amulet thus dates to the end of the seventh or early sixth century. The prayer-like inscription containing the divine name provides the oldest extra-biblical evidence for the name of God thus far archaeologically recovered in Jerusalem. The scripture passage on the amulet is from the Aaronic or priestly blessing found in Num 6:24-25. The owner apparently wore the inscribed, rolled-up silver amulet during his/her lifetime, and people felt it appropriate that such objects should accompany the owner in death as in life.


"Just because there were many copies of the New Testament made doesn't make it any more historically accurate, so I'm not really sure why you even brought up "manuscript attestation"...
think that given how, when, and where the Bible's stories were written, it is safe to say that the Bible is DEFINITELY just a compilation of Christian stories that should be taken with a grain of salt."


Yes it does, Multiple attestation is one of the Historical Methdologies that Historians/Scholars use to verify a document. The New Testament is the most attested document in ancient history. Why? Because we have a wealth of manuscripts. I showed how the manuscripts verified that the eyewitnesses were still alive to write their testamony.


I do not think Pro knows how historical methodology works. I don't have enough room to write my answer, so I will be brief. Multiple Attestation, External Evidence, Internal Evidence, Lack of Motivation for Fabrication, archaeoogy etc. are all methods used to verify a document/event in history. When historians take these methods, and apply it to the bible. The Bible overwhelmingly exceeds these expectations. The Bible should not be taken with a grain of salt. It should be taken with historical certainty.

I do not have enough room to respond to Pro. Pro thinks that Adam and Eve did not exist, and that science contradicts the Genesis account. Instead I will post this link. http://www.reasons.org...


I will try and respond with little room I can about the flood account. Yes it is true that there are multiple flood accounts. This would actually confirm the Genesis account, since there is a Universal Source. No other flood account is scientifically and historically reliable like the Genesis account.

Using the most conservative estimate available for the length of the cubit (17.5 inches), Whitcomb and Morris have shown that the ark would have been 437.5 feet long, 72.92 feet wide, and 43.75 feet high. In its three decks (Genesis 6:16), it had a total area of approximately 95,700 square feet—the equivalent of slightly more than twenty standard basketball courts. Its total volume would have been about 1,396,000 cubic feet. The gross tonnage (a measurement of cubic space rather than weight, one ton being equivalent to 100 cubic feet of usable storage space) was about 13,960 tons (p. 10).
God’s command to Noah was to take two of each kind of unclean animal, and seven of each kind of clean animal (Genesis 6:19-20; 7:2-3). We should remember, however, that the Genesis word “kind” (Hebrew min) is not the same as the biologists’ “species” of today. Noah did not have to take two or seven of every species of animal. He had to take two (or seven) of every kind.

If the ark was thirty cubits high, and if it sank half of that, then it would sink fifteen cubits! If the waters prevailed upward “fifteen cubits,” that would be adequate to protect the ark to float for over a year!


No more room to write. Sources below.




Even if the shifting sands or whatever didn't happen and archaeologists did find the remains of a very tall tower, it could still just be some random tall tower that the Babylonians tried to build.


Pro is dismissing the evidence I see.




-Fine, maybe you guys don't think Hell is in the middle of the Earth, but the Bible does still imply that it is an actual pit of fire somewhere out there where sinners burn for eternity.


God does not want you to go there. That is why he sent his son Jesus to die on the cross for your sin and mine 2000+ years ago. Repent and believe in Jesus and you will be saved Pro.

-Yeah sure, God can dwell anywhere, but the Bible still speaks of an actual realm outside the universe called Heaven

Not sure where Pro is going with this argument.

-You just used lines from inside the Bible to prove that the Bible is valid. If I were to say "Hippos can swim in Pianos," and then say "What I just said is true," would it automatically make my theory about Hippo's true?


-Not only did you use Bible quotes to prove your point again, but the the quotes aren't even relevant.


No Con, I am not using circular reasoning to prove my point. I did not say the bible is true, because it says its true. Con is putting words in my mouth. I said the bible is true because it has a point of reference to confirm its validity, through history, archaeology, and science. I think Con has a misunderstanding of how History works.


Sources:
http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://biblicalstudies.info...
https://www.apologeticspress.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Romanii

Pro

Throughout your argument, you kept saying that I don't understand how history works. I am a very avid student of history, and I know exactly how it works. You are the one who is accepting invalid historical evidence.

I realize that the Smithsonian Institute is a secular institution; however, the Old Testament is literally their ONLY source of information on the ancient Hebrews so they really have no choice but to use the Old Testament as a historical source. If the Hebrews had consistently written down their historical records, historians would be more keen to use those than the collection of Hebrew folklore that is the Old Testament.
The Egyptians probably did lie about their victories, but ALL civilizations did, the Hebrews included. What makes you so sure that the authors of the Bible were completely honest? The Bible is also full of improbable victories that the Israelites may not have actually won. You claim that the Bible is God's word, but when looking at it from a historical point of view, it is nothing more than a bunch of fables belonging to the ancient Hebrew culture. The only reason that I would accept the Bible as God's word would be if Jesus himself had written it.

The Dead Sea Scrolls just sound like a rough draft of the Old Testament. Just because someone bothered to write all those fables down doesn't make them anymore true.
The inscription would serve as proof that a king named David existed, but if you hadn't noticed, I already accepted that because, like I said, the Bible DOES have historical basis, even if it is not totally accurate.
The Amulet scroll is just proof that people followed Hebrew teachings... I'm not sure how this makes the Bible anymore true. as many people today follow Christian teachings without taking the Bible literally.

The only reason people were copying down New Testament stories was to help spread Christianity. How does people making copies of a document make it more true? If I have various people write my "hippos swimming in pianos" statement over and over again thousands of times, should I expect future historians to believe it? No. Because logical people do not think that multiple copies of a document make it more valid.

You named 4 factors that historians use to validate a document and the Bible falls short on all of them
-Multiple Attestation: this factor doesn't even make sense (see above paragraph)
-External Evidence: the evidence that you provided (Dead Sea Scrolls, David inscription) at most show that the Bible has some historical basis
-Internal Evidence: just because the Bible's stories show a correspondence with known historical events doesn't suddenly make all the scientifically impossible details true. All those details are exaggerations that were added on through the ages as the stories were passed down.
-Motivation for Fabrication: there was LOTS of motivation to do some lying while writing the Bible. The first people who were compiling Bibles were trying the PROMOTE Christianity. They would obviously try to paint themselves, their ancestors, and Jesus in the best light possible, leading to plenty of lying and false statements.

Genesis TOTALLY contradicts science. Humans did NOT exist on the 7th day of the universe being created; they existed 500,000 years ago at the most, and Earth has been PROVEN to be 4.55 Billion years old. The story of Noah's arc insinuates that all the "kinds" of animals alive back the same ones alive right now, basically saying that extinct animals never existed and that Evolution, a theory which DOES have evidence behind it, is false. In addition, if a flood really did cover the entire Earth at one point, surely there would be geologic evidence to support it.

All you did to defend the validity of the story of the flood was describe Noah's ark, which doesn't really make a difference if it didn't EXIST. You also said that more versions of the flood story validate the Bible's account. However, all of the other versions are OLDER than the Bible's account, so it is actually more like the ancient Hebrews COPIED Mesopotamian mythology to use in their stories.

Once again, I will give a rebuttal to each of your points in the order that you made them

-Yes, I am dismissing your "evidence" because all you said was that it's impossible to find evidence for the Tower of Babel, so you are just going to assume it's true.

-I am not an atheist. I am very religious, and I understand God's unconditional love for us all very well. The reason I am doing this debate is to prove to all atheists that the Bible is invalid and can't be used as evidence disproving God's existence. Many of them claim that since the Bible is "God's word", and the Bible is full of scientific and historical inconsistency, God can't exist and all religious people are idiots. If I eliminate their premise that the Bible is God's word, then one of their major arguments disproving God's existence becomes invalid. I don't expect you to agree with me, but I just wanted you to know that I'm not doing this to bash on Christianity like some annoying atheists do.

-I'm not really sure where I was going with that either...

-You can't use Bible quotes to prove that another Bible quote is true. Simple. It doesn't have anything to do with my understanding of history. It just seems logical to use sources outside of the Bible when trying the prove the Bible's validity.

I guess that as the contender you get to have the last word in, but before you do I would just like to summarize my points:

-The Old Testament is ancient Hebrew folklore and has become outdated in face of modern science
-The New Testament is early Christian propaganda and has obvious fabrications that were meant to help promote and spread Christianity as a religion
-The Bible DOES have historical basis in all its stories, but it also has blaring contradictions with science
- In conclusion, based on the above 3 points, the Bible is NOT God's word; it is just a collection of stories that do a good job of collectively portraying Christian teachings. The Bible should not be taken literally word for word.

Back you, Con
janetsanders733

Con

Conclusion:

Pro has a gross misunderstanding of history. He claims to be a student of avid history, yet he challenges the historical methodology that all historians/scholars use to verify a document or event in history. Pro has not shown any evidence to that we should not take the bible literally. Meanwhile I gave credible sources and objective facts, and evidences to verify the bible from the OT to the NT. Pro has not given any credible sources, nor has he given me any facts to show his position is true. He has only given opinion on the matter. Opinions don't get anybody anywhere. I have shown how the bible reliable, and how trustworthy it is. Archaeologists don't use the Koran or Book of Mormons to do archaeology. They use the bible because it is the most reliable book in history, because it is God's word. I wanted to give more evidences in this debate. Unfortunately, I did not have enough room due to the 8000+ limit. Pro seems to deny the historical methodology that all historians/scholars use to verify an event/document. Genesis does not contradict science, Pro has failed to who how it has. The Bible does not give the age of the earth, nor does it say how old human beings are. Pro there is no reason at all for the apostles/disciples to lie about Jesus. Are you telling me that 12+ men got together to lose their jobs, and follow Christ. They had nothing to gain from this, they had no jobs, wealth, fame, fortune, or love. They were hated by all people Jew or Gentile. They were threatened and martyred for preaching that Jesus was risen. There is nothing, I mean nothing to gain from doing this at all. No historian/scholar denies Jesus existence, life, burial, death, and the 4 facts about his resurrection. 75% do believe in the resurrection, while 25% don't believe in the resurrection. The 25% that does not believe in the resurrection do not deny those 4 facts I mentioned about Jesus resurrection. They deny the most logical conclusion about these 4 facts. They will say it was a hallucination, but that has been disprove. Pro's agenda is to promote skepticism to all atheists. This kind of thinking gets us nowhere in life. There are many skeptics looking for truth, and for answers. And, by telling them that you want to 'disprove the bible', just shows how much you hate it. Pro is being dishonest to all skeptics who are searching for answers. I would advise any skeptic to not listen to this kind of thinking. You go were the evidence leads you. The bible is the most trustworthy book in history, and to deny it as historical fact is to shoot yourself in the foot.
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Romanii 2 years ago
Romanii
Janetsanders, come back. I want to destroy you in a debate...
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Such a terrible debate.... I wanna debate Janetsanders again on this and destroy him this time >:D
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
Wow, I was so bad at debating back then
-_-
Posted by SONOFGOD2013 3 years ago
SONOFGOD2013
You did pretty well my brother. You gave scriptures from the bible which is good. Nobody can beat god and his word(the bible)
Posted by SONOFGOD2013 3 years ago
SONOFGOD2013
You pretty legiate janetsanders. Nice arguments, both of you.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
You can keep claiming I haven't disproved the Bible if you want. I logically disproved every single point you made, but I've already given up on trying to convince you of that.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
Romanii has not disproved the bible. Of course Microevolution is true. Even the Bible in Genesis talks about changes within Kinds. Lizards are still Lizards.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
If Romanni can disprove one part if the bible, then he basically disproves it all because the rest of the bible would not be the true word of God or whatever......
I will say this: Evolution has been proven. Besides an amazing theory and being taught in schools, a study over the course of I believe 14-20 years was done on evolution. They had the same species of lizards out on different islands, and they were able to predict how the lizards would adapt and evolve. It has been proven. I will do my best to find the exact study for you.

Make good choices.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
And HOW does the Bible not contradict science???
It DIRECTLY contradicts the theory of Evolution!

You claim that the Quaran and the Book of Mormon are invalid because they aren't historically or scientifically accurate. Well, neither is the Bible!
No religious text can be completely accurate! Do you know why? Because the people who wrote the religious texts were NOT attempting to write a science or history textbook. They were trying to provide religious instruction as well as examples to live by.
Posted by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
"How many times do I have to say that there IS a motive to exaggerate because they wanted to SPREAD CHRISTIANITY!!!!
Just because the Bible is consistent with some major known historical events doesn't mean anything! It just means that the Bible has SOME HISTORICAL BASIS.
I've repeated those two statements several times, now."

Romanii, the bible does not just have "some historical basis", it is consistent in everything. Second if the Resurrection is a lie, and they purposefully knew it. Then why would they preach it knowing it was a lie, knowing that they would get killed by the Jews or Roman authorities, knowing they did not gain wealth, fame, fortune, or love? It makes no sense. They all witnessed Jesus's resurrection as well as 500+ people. They died for what they saw, not for what they were taught like Islam. If you know something is a lie, your not going to die for it. But, if you know something is the truth you will die for it.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by yay842 3 years ago
yay842
Romaniijanetsanders733Tied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Reasons for voting decision: GG
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Romaniijanetsanders733Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's format was more conducive to the line-by-line rebuttals being offered by both debaters. Con referenced sources (though I wanted links from Pro...) that made convincing arguments in support of the accuracy of the Bible. Insofar as much of the text is backed up by know historical fact (the people existed, the places exist, many events did occur) I tend to believe that--dogma aside--the Bible is generally accurate. But that is different from saying it should be taken literally--Con didn't prove this. But Con did successfully shift the focus of the debate from the resolution's wording to something more along the line of whether the Bible is generically accurate. Con did meet enough of this burden for me to give him the arg points. Pro needed to move the debate back to the precise wording of the topic. Anyway, I vote Con.