The Instigator
Jellon
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Sagey
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Hebrew Scriptures are scientifically inaccurate

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...
Jellon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/31/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,052 times Debate No: 61104
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (34)
Votes (3)

 

Jellon

Con

In another debate, Sagey ranted about the Bible being scientifically inaccurate, and offered to defend his claims in debate. I claim that there is no contradiction Showing a lack of contradiction requires an exhaustive study and cannot be done within the limits of DDO. So for purposes of this debate, it should be assumed that there is no contradiction unless pro can produce one. Because pro will be second to go in each round, I will give no argument in round 1. I will give rebuttal to pro's round 1 in round 2 and so forth. Pro will not give any additional arguments in the last round, because I will not have the opportunity to give a rebuttal.
Sagey

Pro

Thanks Con for this Debate!

I will start my argument in this round so you can have a better chance of rebuttal.

Firstly the main contentions are concerning the Pentateuch.
I knew as a teenager studying Theology that Moses in no way wrote the Pentateuch.

Why?
Because all of the books concerning Moses were written in the perspective of a slightly disinterested third person.
Such as "One day when Moses had grown up... " Exodus 2:11, "When Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets..."
Exodus 34:29.


This is evidence from the scripture itself that Moses had not written these accounts.

Civilisations in the Exodus account did not exist at the time of Moses, major sites mentioned in the Exodus account did not exist in the time of Moses.
http://www.lutherwasnotbornagain.com...



King Zerah, mentioned in Exodus did not rule the Edomite kingdom until the 8th Century BCE.

There is no way Moses could write about centers and kings that never existed in his day, let alone wander through their territory.
Many of these places and rulers mentioned did not arrive on this planet until many centuries after the supposed existence of Moses.
Thus these books were written many centuries after Moses was supposed to have lived.



Many liberal scholars conclude that Moses is a Euhemerized character, invented by the likes of Josiah or Ezra.

They took myths from the time of Moses and constructed Moses from these.

They used the Baby in the Reeds legend of King Sargon the great and attributed the story falsely to Moses.
They also took the legend of the "Epic Of Gilgamesh" or the flood of the Tigris and Euphrates to construct the mythical Global Flood.
As both of these legends arrived from the same Sumerian tradition of which Josiah and Ezra would know.

Archaeologists and Historians now consider that Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy were written by an unknown Jew, possibly Ezra or one of his fellow scribes during the captivity by Babylonians.

Many credit Ezra (the scribe) with resurrecting the Pentateuch and the Torah, so it is highly probable that Ezra had a hand in Inventing the legend of Moses, Abraham and Joshua. As chronology deems the tales of these characters as False.

"Not since ancient times has the world of the Bible been so accessible and so thoroughly explored. Through archaeological excavations we now know what crops the Israelites and their neighbors grew, what they ate, how they built their cities, and with whom they traded. Dozens of cities and towns mentioned in the Bible have been identified and uncovered. Modern excavation methods and a wide range of laboratory tests have been used to date and analyze the civilizations of the ancient Israelites and their neighbors the Philistines, Phoenicians, Arameans, Ammonites, Moabites, and Edomites. In a few cases, inscriptions and signet seals have been discovered that can be directly connected with individuals mentioned in the biblical text. But that is not to say that archaeology has proved the biblical narrative to be true in all of its details. Far from it: it is now evident that many events of biblical history did not take place in either the particular era or the manner described. Some of the most famous events in the Bible clearly never happened at all."

Source: https://www.nytimes.com...


If these are false and Islam and Christianity are based on such tales, then they too are based on a False Foundation.
Jesus Christ died for a set of False Legends and a Mythical God.

These are only a few of the many contentions with Bible and Archaeology.

I will cover the others in my next argument.

So Thanks Con,


I hope I've given you something worthy of Rebutting!




Debate Round No. 1
Jellon

Con

Thank you for accepting this debate. I hope it is interesting.
I have identified a few contentions you presented in your opening arguments:
1) Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (Torah)
2) It seems that Moses did not exist
3) Noah's flood did not occur and was probably taken from earlier traditions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh

I will address these three in that order.

1) Moses could not have written the Pentateuch (Torah).
This comes from Jewish (mostly Orthodox) tradition. It is not a scientific fact of the Hebrew scriptures, and thus has no place in this debate. Even as one who practices Judaism, I recognize that Moses could not have been the author of the Pentateuch. After all, it records his death in the past tense. Not only do I hold that Moses is not the author of the Torah, but I hold that multiple authors wrote the Torah.
http://www.haaretz.com...
It is likely that the Torah was added to over time. The scientific accuracy of the Torah is not dependent on who wrote it, and to some extent, when it was written. I find it interesting that the majority of your argument focused on a point that we completely agree on.

2) It seems that Moses did not exist
It is true that there is little archaeological evidence for the historical figure of Moses. The fact that no direct evidence exists is circumstantial evidence. The French Expert on Egypt, Nicolas Grimal, provides circumstantial evidence from Egyptian recorded history.
http://www.biblicalchronologist.org...
The professor emeritus of Anthropology at the University of California, Brian Fagan, wrote about the existence of Moses controversy in his book The Seventy Great Mysteries of the Ancient World

http://www.barnesandnoble.com...
"There is little evidence for the conquest of the promised and as related int he books of Joshua and Judges, but there is evidence for the establishment of small farming villages in those hills for the first time. They date to between the 13th and 11th centuries BC, at the same time as the lands bordering the east Mediterranean were under attack by migrants from the Aegean world. Refugees from the disruption on the coastal plain made new lives for themselves in the villages in the hill country inland, where they met up with Israelites coming from the east. There are many signs of technological innovations in the agricultural communities that they established together. One interesting fact is that, in contrast to the conteporaneous coastal settlements, there is no evidence of pig bones among the animal remains from the majority of these villages. This may well indicate not on the presence of Israelites in the hill villages, but also the fact that it was their religious beliefs that governed these communities.
There is one other piece of evidence that constitutes conclusive proof for the presence of Israel in Canaan by the late 12th and 11th centuries BC. In 1219 the pharaoh Merneptah campaigned through the area in the hope of re-establishing Egyptian control. In the commemorative monument he later setup at Karank listing his conquests, he noted that among others in Canaan he had utterly destroyed the people of Israel. It is ironic that the first extra-biblical note of the existence of Israel also lays claim to its total destruction.
So although direct proof for Moses and the Exodus is lacking, there is a considerable body of circumstantial evidence that is hard to ignore."

3) Noah's flood did not occur and was probably taken from earlier traditions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh
It is interesting you bring this up. I am currently winning an open debate on whether or not Noah's flood was local or global by presenting the scientific evidence for the flood.
http://www.debate.org...
I do not have the space to go into full detail as I did in the listed debate, but I will summarize my arguments. First, I establish that the interpretation of the Hebrew as being a local flood is logically consistent. The Hebrew word translated "earth" is transliterated eretz. Of the 2504 times it is used in the Tanahk (Old Testament), it is translated as "earth" or "world" only 28% of the time in KJV. It is translated as "land" or "ground" 65% of the time in KJV.
https://www.blueletterbible.org...
Not only is that the normal, but there are plenty of reasons to argue that it should have been translated as land or ground instead of earth or world in the account of Noah's flood.
http://www.godandscience.org...
http://spectrummagazine.org...
Not only is it likely that the Hebrew text indicates a local flood, but a local flood is consistent with modern geology. The National Center for Science Education (Defending the teaching of evolution and climate science) is an anti-Christian source which admits the strong evidence for Noah's flood. The evidence they review includes the geological evidence for a large scale flood. Carbon 14 dating dates Noah's flood at about the same time as Christian scholars do using Biblical sources. It is shown that floods were uncommon in that time in that area. And it explains a cause that could very likely generate such a large scale flood.
http://ncse.com...

So in summary. We agree Moses didn't write the Torah, but that isn't a scientific claim of the Tanahk. Although the existence of Moses cannot be proven by archaeology, there is a large degree of circumstantial evidence that he could have. Given that you cannot prove that he did not, and experts which I cited can show that it is well within the scope of possibility, you have not proven it more likely than not that the Hebrew scriptures are inaccurate on this account. I was able to show that scientific evidence agrees with the Genesis account of Noah's flood.
You focused most your arguments on the Hebrew scriptures being historically inaccurate. History is hard to prove, and it gets harder the further back you go. Although you alleged several things, you stated no positive evidence that any of those things were true. That makes for a very weak argument.
I will re-iterate here that I cannot prove the Hebrew scriptures to be accurate in any amount of space. The BoP rests on you to show concrete evidence that they make a scientifically inaccurate claim. For example, "If the Bible Creation Story was Truth, we would burn up trying to land on the moon as according to Genesis 1, the Moon is a light source like the Sun."
That was one of your comments on the following debate:
http://www.debate.org...
You also said, "Again, anybody can challenge moi on any points they dislike in my comments!" which is why I challenged you to this debate. :)
Looking forward to your next round.
Sagey

Pro

Thanks Con for clearing up a couple of non-contentions.

Though Con and his sources did not explain how rulers and settlements mentioned in Genesis and Exodus did not exist until centuries after the events were supposed to have occurred.

Modern Archaeology and Anthropology has the following more likely scenario for the origins of Judaism and thus the Bible.

Monotheism appears to be the product of warrior class civilizations, both archaeologically and anthropologically.
These warrior class civilizations were mostly nomadic pastoralist groups similar to the Bedouins.

VIDEO: Neurology, Robert Sapolsky explains how culture affects religion, in particular how Nomadic Pastoralist cultures produce warrior class Gods with fear and war based world views such as warriors are heralded for killing or massacres against the enemy (Joshua). Note, this section starts 24 minutes into the video, so skip up until then if you are not interested in viewing the entire video.




The Bedouin type nomadic goat and sheep herders date back to the time of Moses's existence in the Canaan and Judea lowlands.
These did not settle but would rely on grain from settlements for sustenance so they could live their nomadic lives.
These groups had numerous Gods, and their main God was a warrior God who condones killing and conquering their enemies.
Nomadic pastoral groups had a tough living, they had to protect their flocks from wild animals and other groups stealing their animals, so they would often have a us and them attitude to the surrounding civilizations.

So this Us/Them attitude developed a life of fear of others to which they would train their young men to be warriors to protect their livestock and they developed Gods to protect their warriors and applaud them for their victories, thus their Gods were often war mongers. Similar to the Old Testament God Yahweh.

During the period from 1150 to 900 BCE Philistines attacked the lowland settlements and established their own settlements in Judea and other regions, making some inroads into Egypt (written evidence in Egyptian texts), this caused a massive disruption and crisis these Bedouin nomad pastoralists as the settlements they relied on for grain were burnt and ransacked by the Philistines so they went to higher ground and since they needed to now produce their own grain, they were forced to settle.

These settlements of pastoralists in the highlands along the Jordan River growing their own grain, but still maintaining the same design as their Bedouin camps prospered and grew in number.
By the end of the 8th Century they had grown in such numbers that they produced a City (Jerusalem) which became a hub for their culture and the ruler of this city (Josiah) decided to gather all of these pastoral settlements into forming a single nation.
He obviously appealed to religion as his means of uniting all the pastoral settlements as a nation so settled on a common God of the many Gods worshiped in the region.

Josiah chose Yahweh to be the God that he would use to unite the region.
Josiah banned the worship of all other religions and thus banned the worship of the popular Calf God that many groups worshiped at the time.
In order to make his banning of the other Gods appear a divine order, he went to the public and held up a manuscript that archaeologists believe Josiah had created for him, declaring that the had found the manuscript issuing orders that Yahweh was to be the only God.

The oldest documents discovered of such religious writings are dated 8th century BCE, so it is likely Josiah had the manuscript fabricated as a falsified document for the purpose of convincing his subjects that his commands were divine.
Thus the story of Moses coming back to find them making an idol of a calf was really from Josiah.

The most probable scenario, considering the Archaeological and Anthropological evidence is that the Narcissistic and Megalomania character of the Old Testament God was established by Josiah as he used the threat of punishment and even death to those who did not adopt his national God, so he could unite the people of the region.

Yes, there were no pig bones found in the highland regions, but there were in the surrounding lowland settlements, so this is also a unifying trait that Josiah implemented to draw the highland pastoralists together, as they don't eat pork and the surrounding settlements Moabites and Philistines did eat pork.
So this also deepened the Us (goat/sheep eaters) and them (pork eaters) and thus the hatred of Pork in the Koran.

Though due to dates of settlements and names of rulers and events in Genesis and Exodus, it does appear that these works did not reach their final draft until their exile in Babylonia.

Most likely Ezra and his fellow scribes following him put the final touches onto the Pentateuch as it appears that these works did not fully evolve until the 6th Century BCE.

Here is a fairly long Video that covers everything I have stated above and poses that the scenario I developed is the most probable history of the Old Testament.

Video: The Bible Unearthed 4 of 4. The Book. I've already indicated text from the book in my first argument, but here is the actual documentary on the Archaeological and Anthropological discoveries that led to the scenario I have devised.



I would advise voters to look at the entire series to gain a better appreciation of this scenario, but that is very time consuming, but if you are a history buff like myself, you would find them extremely interesting.

On Noah's Flood, yes it was the "Epic of Gilgamesh" or the combined flood of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers as did occur and there is much evidence in Ur for it's occurrence, including a tablet found stating that the entire world was in flood.
Well it was flooding as far as the witness could see (natural horizon) from the top of the temple where the witness most likely survived the ordeal.

This is all I have time to produce at the moment.
So Enjoy the videos!

Thanks Con!

Back to you!
Debate Round No. 2
Jellon

Con

I'm disappointed that you continue to try to debate history instead of science. In college, my history professor told me that there are three kinds of lies, "Lies, damned lies, and history." Obviously, he was trying to make a serious point in a humorous way. But the serious point to make is that knowing objective history is challenging at best.

http://plato.stanford.edu...
"This topic divides into several different problems, as noted by John Passmore (1966: 76). The most studied of these within the analytic tradition is that of the value-ladenness of social action. Second is the possibility that the historian's interpretations are themselves value-laden"raising the question of the capacity for objectivity or neutrality of the historian herself. Does the intellectual have the ability to investigate the world without regard to the biases that are built into her political or ethical beliefs, her ideology, or her commitments to a class or a social group? And third is the question of the objectivity of the historical circumstances themselves. Is there a fixed historical reality, independent from later representations of the facts? Or is history intrinsically "constructed," with no objective reality independent from the ways in which it is constructed? Is there a reality corresponding to the phrase, "the French Revolution," or is there simply an accumulation of written versions of the French Revolution?"

However much of Israel's history is corroborated by archaeology according to writer Peter Enns.
http://www.patheos.com...
"3. Biblical archaeology basically supports the historical veracity of the Bible. Biblical archaeology has helped us understand a lot about the world of the Bible and clarified a considerable amount of what we find in the Bible. But the archaeological record has not been friendly for one vital issue, Israel"s origins: the period of slavery in Egypt, the mass departure of Israelite slaves from Egypt, and the violent conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites."

Much of what we know about history is inferred from what we observe. Two historians can disagree on what took place when presented with the same evidence. I cannot be bothered to watch almost 3 hours of documentaries on why some people believe the origins of Israel are historically inaccurate.

Even if they are historically inaccurate, that wouldn't at all matter. This debate is not over whether or not the Hebrew scriptures are perfectly accurate in every detail. It is a debate on whether or not they are scientifically accurate. To argue that something did not take place because we do not find archaeological evidence for it is absurd. We cannot use archaeology to prove that Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not mythological characters, yet it is an accepted fact that they existed and wrote what we believe they did. In fact, if you use modern historical criteria for evaluating the texts written about Yeshua (Jesus), treating them as any other ancient manuscript, you will come to the conclusion that Yeshua rose from the dead.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://www.youtube.com...

I have no trouble with the Bible not being 100% historically accurate. But this debate is over whether or not it is scientifically accurate.

So I will quote your statements from comments you left on:
http://www.debate.org...

1) "Genesis doesn't tell us that snakes were originally lizards."
The Bible doesn't tell us that our atmosphere is composed of several different gases. In fact, there's a lot of things the Bible doesn't tell us. You probably meant to say that Genesis *does* tell us that snakes were originally lizards. It seems to me that this passage does not refer to evolution whatsoever. The passage in Genesis 3:14 doesn't even say that ALL serpents are cursed. It could have been just that one serpent in all of history.

2) "Could go on for months with the stupidity of the Bible, when it comes to misconceptions of reality, such as 4 legged insects in Leviticus."
There are several answers to that. It is rare that I would quote from the Institute for Creation Research, but they do have a valid point. But I will add another link to support it.
http://www.icr.org...
http://www.tektonics.org...

3) If the Bible Creation Story was Truth, we would burn up trying to land on the moon as according to Genesis 1, the Moon is a light source like the Sun.
You are reading into the passage things that aren't there.
"Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."
The passage does not say that the moon produces the light it gives off. If we observe the monthly lunar cycle, we notice that the moon waxes and wains. It would be strange to think that of all the lights in the sky, the moon would be the only one to stop giving off light from part of its body. The Sun doesn't do that. The Jewish people based their calendar on lunar cycles, and were very familiar with them.

4) "If the Bible Creation story was true, ships would fall off the Edge Of The Earth"
I didn't know what you were talking about. I had to look it up.
http://www.trueorigin.org...
"The programmatic text for this section is Genesis 1:10:
"And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called the Seas: and God saw that it was good."
By itself this verse tells us virtually nothing about the nature of the earth and seas. It is so equivocal that one may read into the text either a flat earth or a round one."

Another answer to that problem is here:
http://www.christiananswers.net...

5) "If the Bible Creation Story was Truth, Rockets Would Smash Into Heaven and Fall Back To Earth, like the stars in the Bible if they are shaken free."
You might have gotten this idea from P.H. Seely, The firmament and the water above. Part I: The meaning of raqiya" in Gen. 1:6"8, Westminster Theological Journal 53:227"240, 1991.
Seely writes:
"The basic historical fact that defines the meaning of raqiya""the Hebrew word in Genesis 1 which the King James Bible reads as "firmament," but many modern translations render "expanse"""is simply this: all peoples in the ancient world thought of the sky as solid."
There are several answers listed here:
https://answersingenesis.org...
One point made here is that the author was writing in Hebrew, and there wasn't a better word to use that would not imply a solid sky. Of course, it could pre-date the origin of the belief in a solid sky too... In any case, a solid sky is not the only valid interpretation of the verse.
Sagey

Pro

Con considers History as not Science:

Archaeology, Anthropology and Neurology are Sciences and since the Bible was created by the descendants of Nomadic Pastoralists, then the Genesis story is Falsified.

Con forgets that The Bible is not a Scientific Text:
It is about the relationship between the Israelite people and their Josiah imposed Yahweh.
So to demonstrate this as I have, destroys the concept of Genesis being a valid document concerning the origins of anything, especially the Earth, as Yahweh is the product of Pastoralists who did not exist prior to Domestication of goats and sheep.
So Yahweh appeared very late in human evolution terms.


Thus without bothering to attack the Rampant idiocy in the Scientific view of Genesis, I have demonstrated that Genesis and Exodus are both invalid and produced as a means to convince naive citizens that the writings were truthful. So Genesis had no science involved, it is purely a Theological text falsified by Archaeology as contrived by 6th Century BCE authors.

The Scientific notions of Genesis are not even worthy of debating, as we do not live on a Flat, Circular Earth Covered by a Dome filled with Water and stars attached underneath, as depicted in the Old Testament and even up to Revelations.


Yes, this is the picture of the Earth given by the Biblical scripture.

The earth and the dome which separates Earth's atmosphere from Heaven (filled with water), where the stars are attached to the underside of the dome (possibly with silly putty) and supported by pillars, that if shaken, will send the stars falling to Earth.

Revelations 6:13 "and the stars in the sky fell to earth, as figs drop from a fig tree when shaken by a strong wind."

Such a false view of cosmology does not stand the Bible in good stead scientifically.

If The Bible Were Scientific Truth:
1: The Earth would be as that depicted in the picture, Earth would be covered by a Dome (firmament) which hold Heaven above it.

2: The moon would be another Sun, as Genesis stated that the moon is a source of light: Genesis 1:16
Thus humans would not be able to land on the moon and we would burn up trying to do so.

3: There was Light and Darkness, Day and Night, before the Sun or the sister sun, the moon were created.
Genesis 1: 3-5.

4: Stars glued to the bottom of the Dome that holds Gods Throne above it: Genesis 1 -17 "AAnd God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,"
God must have used silly putty for this job.
This reminds me of the movie "The Truman Show".


5: There would be four legged Insects (Leviticus 11:20)

6: There would be no waters in Genesis 1:2 for the spirit to hover over, the water would be Ice, as no sun = no heat.

7: There were no waters teaming with life originally: Genesis 1:21 as for the first 2 billion years of Earth's existence the only living things were cyanobacteria and it's derivatives, the Earth's atmosphere was toxic to life and it took around 2 billion years for the cyanobacteria to oxygenate the earth's atmosphere and iron, so life could exist on the surface.

These are just a few of the hundreds of contentions between the Biblical unscientific view of reality which came from Goat Herders making stuff up to suit their perceptions of reality.

The Bible is purely a contrived Theological text.
That is all there is to say on the subject of science and the Bible.

There is no valid Scientific information between the covers of the Bible.
All is lost to those who try and assert that any of the writers of the Bible knew anything about the natural world or Science.

So essentially to consider the Hebrew Scriptures as scientifically accurate is a non argument as they never made any Scientific statements in the scriptures, what there is in the way of information about the natural world is sometimes valid, as these are from their observations, and what the writers observed is no less valid than what the average person observes today.

Only, such observations are not Scientific as nobody in the Biblical era performed any science nor followed the scientific methodology, so essentially nothing in the Bible resembles science.

So I only argue that the Bible is not Scientific against those Creationists who assert that it is.
If Con accepts that the Bible has nothing to do with Science then we are in agreement.
So Con is basing his understanding of my previous arguments on the wrong premise.

My opponents in those other debates were arguing that the Bible is a Scientific Text as Young Earth Creationists wrongly believe that the Bible can answer all questions in Science.
So the debate has started on the wrong concept of my other arguments.

BTW Peter Enns is a Theologian and knows absolutely nothing about Archaeology, History nor Anthropology, thus for Con to cite statements from Peter Enns on Archaeological evidence I have presented is an Argument from False Authority Fallacy.
Those I cited in my previous arguments trump Peter Enns in any such knowledge.
He is insignificant.

As all Theologians are in reality are people who think delusional thinking is rational.
They believe the fallacious Cosmological Argument is Valid, when it cannot ever be so.


There is absolutely no Truth in Theology, that is one thing I learned while studying Theology as a teen.

So Con, yes, The Bible is purely a Theological Text, albeit it based on a fallacious premise and a God chosen from many Gods by Josiah. Had he chosen a more humanistic God to join his people with, maybe Islam and Christianity would never have evolved from it.
As the humanistic approach of Jesus would already exist, so he would not be regarded as special in any way.

Only the ridiculously naive Creationists such as Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and many on DdO cite the Bible as Scientific.
Most Christians do not.
The Historical validity of the Bible only begins after the Exile of Ezra and his people in Babylon.
It is there that reality actually started being recorded.
Prior to this, it was all fabricated by himself and his scribes.

Yet, there are still a host of Chronological Errors and no real Evidence that Jesus Christ actually lived, nor performed miracles. So the Bible Historically is full of massive gapes and inconsistencies. Bart Ehrman confirms this in his studies and books on the subject.

No Con, the Bible never stated Snakes came from lizards, scientific evidence concerns this with the Vestigial Legs found within snakes, that have disappeared from lack of use.







Back To You Con:

Debate Round No. 3
Jellon

Con

I do agree that the Bible is not a scientific book. I do not agree that it does not contain scientific elements. You believe it contains scientific elements, else you wouldn't be arguing the things you are about the nature of earth. Oh, and I'm not a Young Earth Creationist as you seem to think.

That aside, you have claimed that because you believe Genesis and Exodus were invented by Josiah. That is only one possible origin to the written scriptures. You have not proven it is the correct or even the most logical one. You have just shown that there are experts who believe it. Your experts seem to believe that we have a very good idea of what the world was like 3000 years ago. They seem to leave out the Samaritans. The Samaritans had a different version of the Torah than the Jews did, but they were never under the authority of King Josiah. The Samaritans had their own temple by the 5th century BCE.
http://genealogyreligion.net...
http://www.spiegel.de...
Of course, there are many other reasons not to believe that Josiah fabricated the scriptures.
http://www.torahphilosophy.com...
Peter Enns isn't looking so bad after all. ;)

You allege that the Jewish people had the same view of cosmology as the rest of the world, but you did not show that they in fact did. There is evidence from the Talmud (rabbinic commentary on scripture) that the earth was spherical.
"Jews had long learned from the Talmud that the world was a globe. In the fourth century, the Jerusalem Talmud (Aboda Zara, 42c) unequivocally asserted that the world was globular in form. The Zohar (Leviticus 1.3) was even more specific, declaring that the earth rotates on its axis like a ball. The great Maimonides and other medieval Judaic scientists subscribed to that concept."
http://www.hebrewhistory.org...

The Zohar on Vayikra p. 10a says something relevant. While one can never be sure whether the Zohar is speaking of the physical world or the spiritual world, we will quote it anyway with the reader forewarned. The Zohar says, "In the book of Rav Hamnuna Sava it is explained that all the world rolls in a circle like a ball... There are places in the world that when it is light for those on one side of the sphere it is dark for those on the other."
http://www.aishdas.org...

As previously pointed out, the writers used the language of the time. In English, we still say the sun rises in the morning and goes down at night. Are we all confused as to the Earth's rotation on its axis and orbit around the sun, or are we just using the language of our day? Oh, and the Hebrew word for circle may also be interpreted as sphere.
http://www.blueletterbible.org...
That, and more rebuttals may be found here:
http://www.christiananswers.net...

Your evidence that the Bible says the earth is flat is based on common cosmological beliefs of the non-Jewish people. However, if it is possible for the rabbis who were contemporaries of the Torah's writing to conclude that the scriptures indicated a spherical earth, then obviously the Torah does not assert these scientific falsies which you claim. Even if the common Hebrew people did believe in the picture which you describe, that would not mean that the Bible stated them. There are people who want to believe the Bible is flawed, and thus they will go looking for verses that confirm their bias. It isn't hard to do if you assert that a particular verse must be interpreted in a specific way, even when a scientifically correct interpretation is viable. The Tanahk actually speaks of the heavens being stretched out many times. With the discovery of the "Big Bang" we can begin to conceptualize just how stretched out the heavens really are.
http://godandscience.org...

1: The Earth would be as that depicted in the picture, Earth would be covered by a Dome (firmament) which hold Heaven above it.
I addressed this in my previous round. The word used indicates the sky. It need not be a solid. Is there a better Hebrew word which could have been used?

2) The moon would be another Sun, as Genesis stated that the moon is a source of light: Genesis 1:16
Thus humans would not be able to land on the moon and we would burn up trying to do so.
I addressed this in my previous round. The fact that the two lights were created does not imply that they were both sources of light in the same way. It is obvious that the moon waxes and wains, but the sun does not. Genesis 1:16 simply states that there were now lights. What is interesting to me about Genesis 1:16 is that the word translated "make" is `asah
http://www.blueletterbible.org...
`asah almost always indicates an action. It rarely indicates creating a new object. This may indicate that the Sun and moon existed before this day in the creation story, which would be consistent with the Big Bang Theory.
http://www.blueletterbible.org...

3: "There was Light and Darkness, Day and Night, before the Sun or the sister sun, the moon were created.
Genesis 1: 3-5."
Light is believed to have been present in the universe even before the creation of stars. It wasn't the same kind of light as stars emit, but it is believed to be present in the form of free photons.
http://jwst.nasa.gov...
or if you want lay-man's terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

4) Stars glued to the bottom of the Dome that holds Gods Throne above it: Genesis 1 -17 "AAnd God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth," God must have used silly putty for this job. This reminds me of the movie "The Truman Show".
-Again, you have not proven that your interpretation is how it was intended to be taken. I have provided evidence from Ancient Jewish texts that it is not.

5) There would be four legged Insects (Leviticus 11:20)
I addressed this in my previous round. Do you really think that the people who wrote the text couldn't pick up an insect and count its legs? They would practically have to be Neanderthals. There are several rational explanations which I already gave and provided a link to with more detail.

6) There would be no waters in Genesis 1:2 for the spirit to hover over, the water would be Ice, as no sun = no heat.
Cosmology tells us that the early universe was very hot. It had to cool off before bodies could be created. There was no need for a sun for the first sources of heat. There is an in-depth work cited review of the entire Genesis chronology as it relates to science.
http://www.godandscience.org...

7: There were no waters teaming with life originally...
The creation story doesn't mention the creation of single celled organisms (or angels). There explicit exclusion means nothing. The creation story does line up with the geologic column. See my previous link.

Bar Ehrman is in the vast minority of historians who make the claim that Yeshua (Jesus) never existed.
Eddy, Paul R. and Boyd, Gregory A. The Jesus Legend Baker Academic, 2007. pg 24-25
http://rationalwiki.org...
http://www.godandscience.org...
But you are free to believe what you want.

You claim, "So the Bible Historically is full of massive gapes and inconsistencies." But you failed to point to even one.
See my links in my previous round about the resurrection being historical fact. History does not show people who die for a lie they invented, but the apostles died in the name of Yeshua. That is one of many evidences. The fact that the women found the empty tomb, not men. The contract with the legendary accounts written 2nd century and beyond. I'm out of space to go on.
Sagey

Pro

Thanks Con:

I believe Con has misread my previous debates:

Con states: "I do agree that the Bible is not a scientific book. I do not agree that it does not contain scientific elements. You believe it contains scientific elements, else you wouldn't be arguing the things you are about the nature of earth. Oh, and I'm not a Young Earth Creationist as you seem to think."

I have only pointed out in the past to Young Earth Creationists, that their claims of Bible being scientific are Nonsensical. That is the reason for my attacks on the Bible as making scientific claims. Not because it really is making Scientific Claims, but because my opponent in those debates are making such claims of the Bible.


My other debates have been against YECs.
Thus my attacks on the unscientific rot that the Bible that they point to as inerrant.

Also the Leviticus passage that states flying creeping things have four feet, is not that which the ICR reference cited, it was a couple of lines later: Leviticus 11:23

"But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you. "

Not the grasshopper line, so ICR was wrong in it's contention, as the Bible really does say flying creepy things (insects) have four feet. Because they were referring to all other insects, not grasshoppers.

Con also states: "Bar Ehrman is in the vast minority of historians who make the claim that Yeshua (Jesus) never existed."
Correction Con: Bart Ehrman never stated that Jesus Christ never existed, Ehrman states that he believes Jesus lived, but his legend in the Gospels is entirely mythical, so Bart is in the Majority of Biblical Scholars there.

The likes of Richard Carrier are the ones stating Jesus never existed, and there is truly not enough evidence to prove Richard Carrier wrong in a court of law, nor via Scientific Enquiry.
So it is possible that Richard Carrier is right also.

Con states: "The Samaritans had a different version of the Torah than the Jews did,"
No they did not: The Sumerian texts were the Anunnaki not a Torah, which it is believed possible that the Torah scribes borrowed from the Anunnaki stories, in formulating the book of Genesis, but they are not exactly the same, just similar in plot.
But then again, humans have similar traits and activities all over the world, so the likeness may be simply coincidental.


Humans fight about similar things and gain pleasure from similar things also, so many human tales have similarities. As to many God tales have similarities, so Yahweh's character may be a composition of other Gods, such as Amun Ra and Zeus.

Con States: "See my links in my previous round about the resurrection being historical fact. History does not show people who die for a lie they invented, but the apostles died in the name of Yeshua."

That is entirely subjective and not a point of Historical Fact at all.
To make people believe in a savior, the may have attributed the deaths of the Apostles (if they existed also) to Yeshua.
Truthfully, nobody knows how much contrived information exists in the Bible and to make a hero seem more realistic, of course they will have people die for the cause. It makes a story appear more convincing, but it truly may simply be a ruse!

Saying that the Resurrection is true because it is unlikely that people will die for a Lie they created, is Fallacious.
It's an Argumentum ad martyrdom fallacy
Source: http://rationalwiki.org...

,It is also An appeal to Emotion Fallacy & Begging The Question Fallacy.
The question remains whether the people who died created the Lie they died for and you don't know if those people even existed.
Many people in History died for lies they fabricated, because the lie becomes bigger than themselves.
Such lies become delusions and those who are victims of the lie (martyrs) do not see that it is a Lie, even though it really is.

David Koresh and his followers all died for the lies of Koresh, including himself, though he may have started off knowing he was lying, but, tell a lie enough times and eventually the lie teller will believe in his own lies.

"Martyrdom has always been a proof of the intensity,
never of the correctness, of a belief."
— Arthur Schnitzler (1862–1931)

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com.au...

Con Stated: "Your evidence that the Bible says the earth is flat is based on common cosmological beliefs of the non-Jewish people. However, if it is possible for the rabbis who were contemporaries of the Torah's writing to conclude that the scriptures indicated a spherical earth, then obviously the Torah does not assert these scientific falsies which you claim. Even if the common Hebrew people did believe in the picture which you describe, that would not mean that the Bible stated them."

Historical Evidence proves that the Jewish people and The Christians all had the Flat Earth view of the Cosmos. It was such that people were executed for challenging this view, such as Bruno and the case against Galileo.

Had the Bible been accurate Cosmologically, Galileo would have been redundant, as such knowledge would already exist via the Bible.
So History destroys your case there entirely.

The Flat Earth Society is still trying to make a comeback, what was their source for their worldview, The Bible of Course! That is the basis for the Flat Earth Belief.

Nowhere in the Bible does it describe the Earth as a sphere, their description is Round, like a Coin. Not like a Ball. There is no word for ball describing the Earth, only the word for Disc.

"The universe of the ancient Israelites was made up of a flat disc-shaped earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below.["

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Many of Con's sources are extremely biased, as the Biblical Chronology site is an Apologetics site, not one of genuine Historical Scholarship, thus the statements it uses to assert the existence of Moses are destroyed by those Archaeological sources I cited.

Such as many of the places and events mentioned in the Genesis and Exodus, didn't exist nor occur for centuries, some not until the 6th Century BCE, so Moses could not write about something occurring in 600 years time as if he witnessed it during his life time.
That makes his story too twisted to be true.
Besides, they borrowed King Sargon's baby in the reeds story and attributed it to Moses, also making him appear quite Fake! Moses is a Euhemerized hero, a composition of many heroes from other cultures. Just as Richard Carrier considers Jesus Christ as being, and there is not enough evidence to prove him wrong.

Citing the Martyrdom Fallacy, never proves anything, except some may have been unaware that they were lied to, or so delusional that they eventually believed their own lies that strongly.
As the character Jesus Christ appears to have done, if he did exist, that is?

Con Stated:
< You are reading into the passage things that aren't there.
"Genesis 1:16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.">

Yes, the passages are there, I just highlighted them from your own argument.
Two Great Lights. The moon is not a Great Light, it is just a body that emits no light.
You and Bible wrong! Me Right!

http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com.au...

"Bill Nye Booed In Texas For Saying The Moon Reflects The Sun"
Yes, such is the blatantly naive stupidity of Creationists in Texas.
No hope for Texas education while they hold positions in school boards.

Source: http://www.thinkatheist.com...

Thanks Con for a strange, but interesting Debate!



Debate Round No. 4
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Thanks Jellon, Same Here!

Enjoy!
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
I hate winning a debate where only one person votes in favor of someone.
Well, thanks for the debate Sagey. Feel free to challenge me to debates in the future. I enjoyed the challenge and your candor.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
My favorite subject to debate is evolution. For a naturalist, evolution is almost the only game in town, but as a theist, my options are wide open. I'm a skeptic. Though I grew up in Christianity, it was during high school I began to rebel against it. It literally took a miracle to bring me back to faith. No amount of debate with Christians brought me closer to faith. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on this site.
If you are a pure agnostic, unbias on the existence of a deity, my first rebuttal here is probably one of the best rebuttals I've ever given on DDO. It's one of the rare times I can say I'm proud of the job I did.
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
However it goes.
Thanks for the debate M8!
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I never feel like I have done my best.
I learned as much from you as you would likely have learned from me.
I agree, that it is a good way of learning, better than just diving into a subject from textbooks.
Arguments give your research direction.
This is how I taught my children.
I would tell them something and say, I may not be right, so look in that encyclopedia to see if I what I told you is true.
Quite often they would tell me I'm wrong and tell me where I went wrong.
My eldest daughter was excellent at picking holes in my knowledge,
I suppose that is why she found studying and science so easy, she made dux of her university in the Health Sciences.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Debating is challenging. That's why I enjoy it so much. It forces me to learn new and interesting things. So thank you for teaching me new things. I've been researching a lot, and now I see how I could have done better. Even as well as you did, perhaps you feel like me. I rarely feel like I did my best.
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
I sent 9spaceking a reminder to recast his vote
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
Yep, that's because the others considered us too close.
Nothing like a good even debate.
Though I was thinking it may have ended as a tie.
So thankfully to TS it won't.

:-D~
Posted by Jellon 2 years ago
Jellon
Only one person awarded points so far.
Posted by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
I can tell by Jellon's brain scan that his Temporal, Parietal, Cerebellum and Occitipal Lobes are on fire.
But his frontal cortex is too cool.
:-D~
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Truth_seeker 2 years ago
Truth_seeker
JellonSageyTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented better and more sources. Con made plausible reasoning, but many of his claims were not cited such as the correlation between Nomadic pastors and the Hebrew Scriptures. Con defended the Bible well in saying that just because the Hebrews had a specific cosmology, doesn't imply the Scriptures state that. Pro also speaks of God being a murder which is irrelevant to the topic. Pro presents "the Bible unearthed" which i don't consider a reliable source as it's misinformed and biased. If Pro could directly attack the Bible rather than make generalizations (ex. implying Christians are creationists) than he could've won.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
JellonSageyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll vote this later. remind me if I do not.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 2 years ago
bladerunner060
JellonSageyTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I'll be frank--I couldn't judge a clear winner. On the point regarding lights and the shape of the earth and the stars falling like figs, I think there was enough that Con had to actually respond, but much of Con's response was to argue that it was metaphorical language. A LOT of what Pro put forth was to find fault with biblical chornology and events, particularly in his first round. That's not really "science", certainly not in the spirit this motion was, to me, clearly intended. It wasn't until R3 that Pro started really trying to bring out scientific inaccuracies. Some of this, I think, was more Pro outlining his actual position as opposed to the impression Con had of his position--but that's not the motion under consideration.