The Bible was inspired by God
Debate Rounds (5)
For this debate I am proving that the King James Bible is true, and am allowed to use the original Greeek and Hebrew texts.
The first round is acceptance.
But in order for it to be God's inspired word it must also be infallible. Since God is perfect, His Word must also be perfect, otherwise it was just written by men and everything Christians live for is for nothing. There would be no Heaven and no Hell, and there would be no such thing as wrong. But don't many people today say there are many contradictions in the Bible. Is this true, or is it not. I say there are none and to prove my point I will be presenting 2 popular "contradictions", and I will show why they are wrong.
The first so called contradiction appears in Genesis 1,2. In Genesis 1 it gives the account of creation as first the trees were created, then the birds and fish, then land animals along with man . But in Genesis 2 it seems to suggest that first man was created then the birds, beast, and plants were created afterward. People many times use this as a clear contradiction and so prove that the Bible was only written by man. After all if they can't get past the first few chapters without making a contradiction, then it can't be inspired. But Answers in Genesis provides a good explanation for this. The Hebrew word translated to mean formed in Gen. 2:19 is yatsar. But this word could also be translated to mean had formed, which makes this passage, not another creation story, but a more detailed account of day 6.
The second is what actually happened to Judas? In Mathew 27:5 (And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself) it says that Judas hung himself. But in Acts 18:1 (Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.) it appears to give a different story of how Judas died. This is another popular "error" that people use to prove the Bible wrong, but if you study it more you learn that once again it isn't the Bible that is wrong. An error only occurs when you view this from a perspective that these are two separate descriptions of how he died. Instead this is an order of what happened to him. Matthew writes about how Judas died, by hanging himself. Luke (the author of Acts) writes what happened to Judas after he died, there isn't any mention that this is how he was killed. Now as to how both these things happened to him there are 2 explanations. The first can be found at this link https://answersingenesis.org.... The second is that Judas fell off a cliff when he hung himself. It would be easy for Judas to hang himself over a cliff from an overhanging tree branch. The branch would just need to break and this verse becomes true. This isn't a contradiction like many claim it is.
Right now you may be thinking, "so there weren't so many errors in the Bible, so what? Many books don't contain errors but that doesn't mean God inspired them." But the fact that there are no contradictions in it is truly amazing. The Bible was written by over 40 authors from various areas of life. It has been written by shepherds, farmers, tent-makers, physicians, fishermen, priests, philosophers, and kings. Not only that but it is filled with topics that today many people have different opinions about, but in the Bible they all agree! Do a test and try to get 5 people today to agree 100% on only a few matters of opinion. Yet as if this wasn't enough, the entire Bible was written book by book over a 1,500 year time period. And some of the authors never read or heard any of the others' writings. And we still don't find any contradictions. This is one reason why I say the Bible is divinely inspired.
For my second point I would like to observe how the Bible has always been ahead of the "scientific facts" of that time. One example is Leviticus 15:13 (And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean.) This is telling those that are sick or have a disease to bathe in running water after they have been healed. Yet it was more than 2 thousand years later when it was discovered that washing your hands in a basin or in still water does not remove all germs. Only running water will get rid of most harmful germs. But how were the Jews supposed to have known about that? It was only a couple centuries ago when people found out about harmful germs. Now if this was the only example then the Jews might have just got lucky when writing down the Bible, but this isn't the only one.
Leviticus 17:14 (For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof: therefore I said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh: for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whosoever eateth it shall be cut off) talks about not being allowed to eat the blood with the meat because it is the life. However this was practically the last thing people thought at that time (that was the reason for the process of bloodletting). So why would they make this law? Today we know that blood is what gives you life. It's what brings your body the oxygen and nutrients it needs. It's what fights off sickness and infections. Without blood we would die. Yet the Israelites had no way of knowing about this. They didn't have the technology or the knowledge about the human body that we have. Only an all knowing being could have known about this.
Still another example is Jeremiah 33:22 (As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me.). This verse says that the stars cannot be counted. Once again this contradicts the thinking of this time. This verse was written around 2,600 years ago, probably around 600 B.C. But in 150 B.C. Hipparchus, said that there were less than 3,000 stars. Ptolemy in 150 A.D. said he that had counted exactly 1,056 stars. It wasn't even until around the 1600's, when Galileo observed the heavens with a telescope, that people found out it is impossible to count all the stars. These 3 times people had thought the Bible was in error, but it turned out they were wrong. If you still aren't convinced then you can look up Job 26:7, Genesis 3:19, Isaiah 40:22, and, Job 37:7.
In conclusion, it is simply impossible for the Bible to not be inspired by God. It has been the most persecuted book in all history, yet we still have it with us today. So many attempts have been made to get rid of it but all have failed. It has been blasphemed, burned, and hated more than any other book but it is the worlds best-seller year after year. Even though countries have outlawed it, it always is able to grow inside that country. Wherever it's persecuted the most is where it thrives the most. This must be God's Word.
Breed writes: "That is, the text is transmitted (and sometimes changed) by scribes who copied the ancient scrolls over and over again. In time, editions of these books were collected and religious communities gradually narrowed down the list of books they deemed authoritative. However, different communities used different criteria. This process of including certain books as Scripture and rejecting others is called canonization." 
In other words, the bible was put together by scribes or clergymen who picked and choose what went into the bible.
Furthermore, The Bible was created from the many tales that had been passed on through generations orally and through writing, and these tales were collected into 'books,' some of which would find their way into the Bible. Finally, the Bible was put together by the Church, and both the contents of the Old and New Testament were put together over hundreds of years. 
It would indeed be miraculous if, as Pro implies, 40+ authors had written the books separately, and the bible was created by simply putting all of these books together. But this was not the case. Even if the original authors were diverse and independent, it was the Church, not they, who was the final author of the Bible. Additionally, the church was composed of scholars and clergy members who would have spent their career studying the books that would eventually be canonized. As I will explain in the next paragraph, this is why the Bible is not necessarily a miracle.
Let us suppose the bible was not divinely inspired, in which case the stories and books most likely contained contradictions and errors. Given the extensive attention the bible received, and the length of time it took before the bible was canonized, it is plausible that the scribes or clergy members edited the text to remove contradicting stories improve the text. The Church, which would have sought to maintain its authority, would have an obviously incentive to produce a solid, consistent text, and with the scholars and scribes in their ranks, they had the means to. Thus, the Bible's could have come about without divine inspiration.
I move on to Pro's second claim: that the bible contains scientific knowledge ahead of its time that was impossible to ascertain without divine guidance.
First, Pro claims divine inspiration was required to call the stars innumerable. However, this was often used as a more poetic way to describe the many stars in the sky. For instance, here is an excerpt from Greek mythology, "his shoulders rested the whole vault of heaven with all the innumerable stars."[g] Here's one from Dante's Paradiso, "Those sparkling, innumerable stars that I saw in the Sphere of Jupiter" (Canto 18: 115-16). These works were written before Galileo's time, one by a pagan author, and its shows that the term 'innumerable stars' was well within the realm of an author's imagination. If one looks at the sky, it does indeed appear that there are an extraordinary number of stars, perhaps more than we could number.
Pro claims that a passage in the bible associating blood with life was a stroke of divine inspiration because, as evidenced by bloodletting, people considered blood unimportant at the time. This is false. Blood was considered one of the four fluids essential to life. Bloodletting arose due to the belief that all four fluids had to be in balance, and that sickness was caused by an excess of blood .
Lastly, Pro claims it is miraculous that the bible recommends that sick people bath in water after they have recovered, and that this is an example of the Bible being ahead of its time. However, the connection of bathing to health was nothing new. "The Romans understood that dirty conditions made people ill, and provided many facilities - such as public baths, sewers and toilets - to promote public health" . "By 33 BC there were 170 baths, public and private in Rome alone" . In this case, the Bible was not ahead of its time at all. Quite the opposite, the Bible was actually behind.
If the Bible had explained the existence of bacteria and viruses, that would have been truly miraculous. However, none of Pro's examples come close to this. The Bible does not contain any texts that mirror the major discoveries humans would later make in medicine and science, including the discovery of penicillin, atoms, evolution, quantum theory, and so forth. This observation would make sense if one assumed that the bible was, as I suggested earlier, a compilation of stories created and edited by men untouched by divine influence.
For the above reasons, it certainly is possible that the Bible was not inspired by God.
Also you would first have to prove that this had actually happened. Here this is merely speculation, you have no idea if this actually happened. There has to be evidence that it was changed, otherwise the benefit of the doubt is given to it.
The Church, which would have sought to maintain its authority The church had no trouble with this. The public wasn't even allowed to read the Bible (for some time the Bible was even chained to the pulpit), they would have had no worries about them finding a contradiction or something. Also, if they could just change it to fit their requirements, why were they afraid of the public reading it. If they did change it they
the connection of bathing to health was nothing new. Of course it wasn't. Most people knew that bathing makes you cleaner. But nobody knew that running water that makes you completely clean. People didn't know that washing your hands in a basin does not completely clean them. Even doctors didn't know this until several hundred years ago, long before this passage was written, or the King James version was written.
As I close I would like to ask you, have you ever read the Bible? If you have, how much of it have you read?
In this passage regarding bathing, the Bible does not demonstrate any knowledge of bacteria or viruses. Claiming that bathing in water for seven days will make one clean is quite different from claiming that bathing in water will cleanse one . Furthermore, bathing in water does make one "completely clean," since water does NOT remove all germs from one's body. This is why we use soap.
Debunking the other verses Pro cites:
Pro claims that since the bible claims the Earth is flat, and that people did not think the Earth was circular, this is evidence that the Bible was divinely inspired. This is false:
"The ancients were well aware the world was a sphere. Pythagoras (6th century B.C.) is generally credited with having first suggested a round Earth. Aristotle (4th century B.C.) agreed and supported the theory with observations such as that the southern constellations rise higher in the sky when a person travels south. He also noted that during a lunar eclipse, the Earth"s shadow is round. Eratosthenes (3rd century B.C., head librarian at the Library of Alexandria) built on their ideas and calculated the circumference of the Earth with remarkable accuracy at about 252,000 stadia." [c]
Job 26:7 (He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing):
People saw that nothing held up the moon and sun, and furthermore, no one would have seen anything holding up the Earth. It would be reasonable to suppose the Earth was hung from nothing based on these two observations. This is far from a miraculous claim.
Job 37:7( He sealeth up the hand of every man; that all men may know his work)
Pro claims this passage was not possible without knowing about fingerprints. Pro is simply misreading the passage, and it appears Pro did not carefully read the verse in question. "His work" refers to God's work. The passage is saying that God will seal up the hands of men so that the men will know God's work/power. Fingerprinting has nothing to do with this passage.
Gen. 3:19 (for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return)
The people were aware at the time that dead corpses would decompose into dirt (dust), and they were also able to observe that many living things (such as plants) sprung from the ground. For this reason, it is not a far stretch to guess that humans also came from the ground. I also note that this response is not at all surprising, since when asked where did humans come from, the only logical answer is "the Earth." After all, If humans did not come from the ground, where else could they have come from? The moon? Thus, this observation is hardly miraculous.
I suggest Pro cite sources for any more verses he brings in. I also request that Pro research his own claim before arguing. Pro has made several factually incorrect claims in his arguments so far. It undermines his own reputability, and I view the lack of effort as disrespect.
I move on to Pro's claim that "There has to be evidence that [The Bible] was changed, otherwise the benefit of the doubt is given to it." First, experiments have shown that eyewitness accounts are often inaccurate.  This suggests that even if the original storytellers were writing of their experiences, they did not give an accurate account. Furthermore, humans are notorious for their inaccurate storytelling and memory, especially when the story is passed from person to person. A simple game of telephone demonstrates this. Considering that for the bible, the stories were passed down for hundreds of years before being written down, it makes far more sense to assume the story was indeed changed, unless evidence is provided otherwise.
Pro also claims that "the public was not allowed to read the Bible," and therefore the church did not have any motivation to revise the Bible. I ask Pro to cite his source. This is simply untrue. Pro also asks: "Also, if they could just change it to fit their requirements, why were they afraid of the public reading it." Neither I, (nor any historical sources, to my knowledge), have suggested that the church was concerned about the public reading the bible.
As a friendly reminder, I remind Pro that the burden of proof is on him. Pro's entire argument is based on the claim that it was impossible to write the Bible without divine inspiration. The moment i present a plausible explanation (I note Pro himself acknowledges that it is plausible), Pro's argument no longer applies.
I suggest Pro cite sources for any more verses he brings in. This is a good job, not taking me at my word and asking for proof. But con also needs to listen to their own wisdom. In the last round they only cited two sources, which only had to do with us having faulty memories and people thinking the earth was round. Con made many other claims against mine but didn't cite any sources for them. If your going to call me out for lack of evidence, then I will have to call you out.
This is why we use soap. We are given no source for this claim, and in fact many times soap adds germs to your hands. The only thing soap does (beside antibacterial soap, which doesn't even kill all types of germs) is loosen the bacteria on your hands so, running water will wash it away easier. Studies have found out that washing your hands with running water (as told to do in Lev. 15:13) is almost as effective at removing germs as washing with soap. Even those that you cited such as the Romans used basins and other forms of stationary water to wash with.
Pythagoras (6th century B.C.) is generally credited with having first suggested a round Earth. The verse I cited was out of Isaiah, which is accepted as being written in the 8th century B.C., 200 years before Pythagoras had suggested this. So I wasn't factually incorrect with this passage, at this time they didn't think the earth was round.
People saw that nothing held up the moon and sun, and furthermore, no one would have seen anything holding up the Earth. No evidence is given for this argument. It could have been just as plausible, actually more likely that they didn't notice this since for a while they thought the earth was held up by elephants or a man called Atlas.
Pro is simply misreading the passage. Once again no evidence is provided. This is just con's opinion which has just as much credibility as mine. But to prove I'm right, in the King James Bible (which is what I'm proving in this debate) all references to God are capitalized. For some reason I don't see any capitalization on his work in my Bible. And all other copies are the same, which means it was on purpose. Paul Fergus, when talking about this verse, states in his book God and the Atheist, "It wasn"t until 150 years ago that it was definitely recorded that every person in the world has a unique fingerprint. This led Sir Edward Henry in 1901 to devise a workable classification system when appointed Assistant Commissioner of Police at Scotland Yard in London. The first British court conviction by fingerprints was obtained in 1902. The Bible tells us this amazing fact 3,500 years ago that God has put a seal on the hands of every man that can show crimes they have committed."
Blood was considered one of the four fluids essential to life. But only blood is mentioned in this verse (Lev. 17:14). If this was just written by man, then like everyone else, they would have labeled all the fluids necessary for life and condemned people from eating them. Also, Leviticus was written about 1400 B.C., Hippocrates suggested the four fluids of life at the soonest 460 B.C. Nearly 1000 years after this verse was written!
Considering that for the bible, the stories were passed down for hundreds of years before being written down, it makes far more sense to assume the story was indeed changed, unless evidence is provided otherwise. I will get into this in the next round.
I ask Pro to cite his source. This is simply untrue, Neither I, (nor any historical sources, to my knowledge), have suggested that the church was concerned about the public reading the bible https://www.cedarville.edu...
I found these sources after only a few minutes of research. Maybe you should do your research before you argue a point.
Deut. 4 and Lev. 11 give lists of things the Israelites were allowed and were not allowed to eat. At first this doesn't seem like much, after all the Muslims aren't allowed to eat certain things too. But the things that the Israelites aren't allowed to eat are what can easily cause diseases, not just for religious reasons like Muslims Once again they had absolutely no way of knowing this. An example is the pig. If you don't cook pork right, then you have a high chance of getting very sick, which the Israelites were not able to properly cook pork. They didn't know that uncooked pork could make you sick. Another example is they weren't allowed to eat birds of prey. Things that eat carrion are bound to pick up diseases, and even if they don't get sick, there is still the chance that we will get it if we eat them. Still another is that they are only allowed to eat sea creatures that have fins and tails. Bottom feeders (who don't have fins or scales) would make you sick by eating them, because like the birds, they can transfer diseases. The Israelites couldn't possibly have known that these animals caused diseases and sickness.
Eccl. 1:7, Isa. 55:10, Job 36:27-28 all mention the water cycle. This wasn't truly discovered until around 1580. This is once again way ahead of it's time.
2Samuel 22:16 mentions valleys are in the ocean.
Job 28:25 says that air has weight.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear Hebrews11:3. A more simple version of this verse is the things that we see today are made of things that we are not able to see or detect. This verse is referring to atoms, something that wasn't going to be discovered for hundreds of years later.
I could give many more examples of scientific facts in the Bible, but due to the amount of characters and the time I have to cut it short. Many examples are given on this page http://www.eternal-productions.org...
In conclusion the Bible is filled with scientific facts that nobody knew for centuries. As I close I ask again, have you ever read the Bible. Have you ever read for yourself this book that you are trying to disprove.
Trarc forfeited this round.
I ask Pro: if I didn't read the bible, would that make your arguments more true or false? Of course not. Actually it makes quite the difference. If you have never read the Bible for yourself, then how can you debate that it is false and was written by man. Think of it like, I am trying to argue that Darwin's book Immutability of Species is completely false, but I never read it for myself. I take other peoples word for it that it is false and try to argue off that. When I do this, I am not thinking for myself. I am not studying are my arguments true or false. You have to make sure that the arguments you find are true. This is why it makes a difference.
Given the number of errors Pro has already made. So far I haven't made any factual errors. The "errors" con is referring to are that I said people thought the earth was flat, that people thought blood wasn't worth much, and that the earth is held up by a man named Atlas. The first two aren't errors because those passages in the Bible were written before it was even suggested that the earth was round or that blood is useful. The third also isn't an error. Atlas was believed to hold up the world as well as the sky. If you don't believe me you can check out con's source http://www.theoi.com....
The Bible contains more scientific facts than any other religious book combined. I could easily give 50 or more facts that the Bible contains (and it being impossible for it to be common knowledge at that time). The other scientific facts that I have mentioned still stand until you are able to prove them false.
To prove the Bible in this round, I will be using the three tests needed to prove an ancient document is true. These tests are the internal test, the external test, and the bibliographic test.
The internal test involves searching if there is any contradictions inside the document. But when applying this test, historical scientists use Aristotles dictum(The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document in itself, not assigned by the critic to himself). Basically, the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document if a legitimate explanation is given for a said contradiction. I advise con to do their research before they post a contradiction of the Bible. Because if I am able to give a legitimate explanation for it, it isn't considered a contradiction.
The external test involves matching up the historical facts in the document with other known historical and archaeological facts. Let's see if the Bible matches up to that. Iraneous writes "So firm is the ground upon which these Gospels rest, that the very heretics themselves bear witness to them, and, starting from these [documents], each one of them endeavors to establish his own peculiar doctrine" Since, then, our opponents do bear testimony to us, and make use of these [documents], our proof derived from them is firm and true." Due to lack of time I have to cut this short.
The third test is the bibliographical test. This test involves testing whether the copies we have today are true to the original. This has been what con has been trying to emphasize during most of the debate. Con says that it is probable that the Bible has been edited or changed over time. They claim that the memories of people are faulty and that they might have changed the Bible. But if they did accidentally change things while copying, like in the game of telephone, then we should be certain to find some contradictions in the Bible. But since we don't find that, it was either edited on purpose, or it was divinely inspired.
Now to discuss the theory that thy edited it. There would have been no trouble for the Old Testament to be copied down exactly. It was considered sacred to the Jews and while copying them they took more care to be precise than has been made for any other book. " A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals,  prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew.  These must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals.  Every skin must contain a certain number of columns, equal throughout the entire codex.  The length of each column must not extend over less than 48 nor more than 60 lines; and the breadth must consist of thirty letters.  The whole copy must be first-lined; and if three words should be written without a line, it is worthless.  The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other color, and be prepared according to a definite recipe.  An authentic copy must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the least deviate.  No word or letter, not even a, yod, must be written from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him. . . .  Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must intervene;  between every new parashah, or section, the breadth of nine consonants;  between every book, three lines.  The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line; but the rest need not do so.  Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish dress,  wash his whole body,  not begin to write the name of God with a pen newly dipped in ink,  and should a king address him while writing that name he must take no notice of him." ( from A General Introduction to the Bible, Revised and Expanded). But right now you may be thinking "If they took so much care then why don't we find numerous copies today?) and the answer would be again that they thought it was holy. The Old Testament was mostly written on papyrus and animal hides which will wear out easily. Those that did wear out were given a ritual burial ceremony. This explains why we can't find very many copies, and still the Old Testament is reliable.
First century historian Josephous writes "For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another [as the Greeks have] but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind until his death"but as to the time from the death of Moses until the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life." The old testament passes the bibliographic test.
For lack of characters and time these sites will explain how the new testament is reliable.
In concluding my final round for the debate, I would like to thank con. Their arguments have made me do my research to try to prove the Bible. My faith in the Bible has been greatly strengthened through this research. I thank you for this debate may the best debater win.
Trarc forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 9 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times, so conduct to Pro.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.