The Instigator
Projectid
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Anti-atheist
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The Holy Bible is Perfect and Proves that Christianity is True (Take 3)

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...
Projectid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,696 times Debate No: 38517
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (34)
Votes (2)

 

Projectid

Con

This will be my third attempt to find a worthy opponent for this debate.

PLEASE READ CAREFULLY SO THERE IS NO CONFUSION:

1. My opponent MUST be a Christian.
2. My opponent MUST believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God.
3. My opponent must understand that they will be arguing from the PRO side.

I will define perfect so there is no confusion: "Perfect would entail without error. Error would include contradictions, historical mishaps and other things like author verification, dating and such."

This definition is what we would expect from a perfect God.

FIRST ROUND IS FOR YOUR ARGUMENTS.
Anti-atheist

Pro

Ill go about provign christianity. In order to prove the bible is perfect i have to go though every line. thatd take more than 10K, you dig? Con have to give stuff wrong with the bible and ill defend it. But heres good reasons to believe in christ.

Jesus fulfilled prophecy

Matthew 24:34

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Jesus was predicting the destruction of jeruslama in 70AD. This event is highly recorded. to

http://www.bible.ca...

The bible gives an explanation of atoms modern science cant

What is the binding force of the atom? You would probably Gluons. Gluons are a made-up dream. No one has ever seen or measured them... they don't exist! It's a desperate theory to explain away truth! We know that the electrons of the atom whirl around the nucleus billions of times every millionth of a second... and that the nucleus of the atom consists of particles called neutrons and protons. Neutrons have no electrical charge and are therefore neutral --BUT-- Protons have positive charges. One law of electricity is: LIKE CHARGES REPEL EACH OTHER! Since all the protons in the nucleus are positively charged, they should repel each other and scatter into space. If gluons aren't the answer... what is?

The answer is Jesus.



The Christological argument
From carm.org/easter-story-true


3. Jesus' Tomb was Empty (JET)

In additon to the crucifixion, there are numerous reasons to believe that the tomb was indeed empty on that Easter morning. This evidence can be summarized by the acronym JET: J - Jerusalem Factor, E - Enemy Testimony, and T - Testimony of Women. First, the disciples preached the gospel in Jerusalem in the midst of opposition. It would have been virtually impossible for Christianity to survive and expand in Jerusalem if the body of Jesus was still in the tomb. All the opponents of Jesus would have had to do was produce the body of Jesus and squelch this Christian movement.

Second, early enemies of Christianity never disputed that the tomb was empty. Instead, they argued that the disciples stole the body (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).

Third, and perhaps the strongest evidence, the first witnesses to the empty tomb were women. Sadly, the testimony of women was not regarded highly in antiquity. The Jewish Talmud states, ""Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman" (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)." Furthermore, "Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women" (Talmud, Sotah 19a). However, in the Gospels, the apostles are the ones who are cowardly hiding from the Jews and the women bring them news of the empty tomb! If Christians were going to invent the empty tomb story, they most certainly would not have used women as the primary witnesses.

3b. The Transformation of the Disciples and the Emergence of the Christian Faith

The early disciples of Jesus did not expect their great Messiah named Jesus to ever face crucifixion and rise from the dead. In line with the current Jewish thoughts of the day, the disciples's Messiah was to triumphantly defeat the Romans and deliver the kingdom of God to the nation of Israel (cf. Acts 1:6). It is clear that the disciples did not expect the crucifixion. It was indeed an embarrassment to their faith. Their chief leaders had abandoned the faith and become skeptics and doubters. Of all people, women were the first to bring them news of the resurrection!

But, something happened to radically change these pitiful cowardly disciples from trembling doubters to bold proclaimers of this radical notion of a dying and rising Jewish Messiah in the midst of a hostile culture. These disciples were willing to die for their faith, and many of them would actually face death (all of the twelve apostles died by martyrdom except John). Radically, they changed their primary day of worship from Saturday to Sunday, they began to worship this man named Jesus while still claiming to be faithful Monotheistic Jews, something that was extremely radical and was blasphemous to the Judaism of the day. They did this all because something happened on that first Easter morning.

Due to all of these factors, it is certainly reasonable to conclude with the former church persecutor, then turned Christian, the apostle Paul,

"Death is swallowed up in victory. 55'O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?' 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law; 57but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ," (1 Cor. 15:54-57).
Debate Round No. 1
Projectid

Con

My rebuttal to Pros arguments:

1. Jesus fulfilled prophecy (Matthew 24:34)
There is insufficient evidence in determining if the book of Matthew was written before or after 70 A.D. There is no way to prove that it was written prior, therefore proclaiming it as a prophecy would only be valid if you could prove that it was written before 70 A.D., and you cannot. So it is a moot point of argument.
Conservative believers maintain the early dates and assert that the destruction of the temple and Judea mentioned in the gospels constitutes "prophecy," demonstrating Jesus's divine powers. The substantiation for this early, first-century range of dates, both conservative and liberal, is internal only, as there is no external evidence, whether historical or archaeological, for the existence of any gospels at that time......Scrutinizing the evidence forensically, however, it is impossible honestly to make such a conclusion. [1}

2. The bible gives an explanation of atoms modern science
Quantum chromodynamics, the theory of the strong interaction, is a field theory of quarks and gluons. When it was formulated, the existence of its basic ingredients was still unproven and controversial. While for the quarks the case had been settled by 1975, it remained open for the gluons until in 1979 experiments at the electron-positron collider PETRA at DESY in Hamburg led to a breakthrough. Peculiar final configurations of hadrons produced in the electron-positron annihilation process at high energies, so-called planar events and three-jet events, were discovered. In a close cooperation between experiment and theory they were unambiguously identified as signatures of the radiation of hard gluons by quarks ("hard gluon bremsstrahlung"), providing the first clear and direct observational evidence for the existence of the gluon and confirming crucial predictions of quantum chromodynamics. [2] In 1965, physicists suggested that quarks (the parts that made up hadrons) could interact through gauge bosons, called gluons. However, there was no direct experimental evidence of this until a 1979 result at the Positron-Electron Tandem Ring Accelerator (PETRA) particle accelerator in Hamburg, Germany. Further evidence over the years since has supported this interpretation of quantum chromodynamics. [3] Even if science did not have an explanation or had not found one yet, this doesn't by default become a gap that can be filled with a God or Jesus.

3. The Christological argument
A. Empty Tomb
There are more reasonable possibilities for an empty tomb than a resurrection. "From a purely historical point of view, a highly unlikely event is far more probable than a virtually impossible one..." [4] Besides Romans typically denied burial to victims of crucifixion.[5] A punishment normally reserved for "slaves or those who threatened the existing social order."[6] It was actually non burial that made being crucified alive one of the three supreme penalties of Roman punishment.[7] Rabbinic law specifies that criminals may not be buried in tombs; rather, it instructs Jews to bury criminals in a common grave (Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:8; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5-7). However, this is all moot given that the Sanhedrin found Jesus guilty of blasphemy. Under Jewish law, such a crime was punishable by death by stoning (Num. 24:16) The crucial question is whether the specific evidence for Jesus' burial is sufficient to overcome its initial improbability, it is not.

B. Women as witnesses
Having women discover the empty tomb may have been somewhat embarrassing to the church, but, if so, that would have been for reasons that had nothing to do with their qualification to serve as legal witnesses, since the women are not portrayed as legal witnesses in the story. Besides, women were qualified to serve as legal witnesses if no male witnesses were available. Siphre Deuteronomy 190 is the oldest work which disqualifies women from acting as witnesses, and it does so on the rather curious grounds that witnesses are referred to in the Old Testament in the masculine. However, the rabbinical lists of persons disqualified to give testimony do not normally include women, and it is clear from three passages in the Mishnah (Yebamoth 16:7; Ketuboth 2:5; Eduyoth 3:6) that women were allowed to give evidence on matters within their knowledge if there was no male witness available. Applying this to the resurrection appearances, it would mean that Mary Magdalene was on rabbinical principles entitled to give witness to an appearance of Christ which was made only to her or to her and other women.[8] Nevertheless, for all we know, the church may have already been in an embarrassing situation: namely, why there was no detailed story to the empty tomb prior to Mark. Mark contains the earliest known story of the empty tomb. Since Mark ended his gospel at verse 8 with the women running away and telling "no one" what they had seen--in direct contrast to Matthew and Luke who allege that the women told others--this could easily be interpreted as an attempt on Mark's part to present a plausible reason why "no one" had heard his tale of the empty tomb until some time had passed. The women were so afraid that they didn't tell anyone what they had seen; hence, that would be why the early tradition didn't develop. Note that there is no mention of the women in our earliest source concerning the resurrection, 1 Corinthians.

C. The Pro stated: " These disciples were willing to die for their faith, and many of them would actually face death (all of the twelve apostles died by martyrdom except John)."

The question is, how did the other apostles die? More importantly, how does anyone know? Where textual evidence is lacking, tradition has obliged, and a wide variety of local legends sprang up in medieval times about the apostles" journeys and eventual deaths. But most of these traditions are late, invented hundreds of years after the fact, and lack any basis in earlier evidence. They are simply stories, tall tales. Such popular myths provide no support whatsoever for modern Christian claims that the apostles were willingly martyred. Legend and tradition alone, dreamed up by the early churches in their bid for legitimacy and authority, provided the uplifting fables of heroics and martyrdom. The plethora of conflicting claims and alternative deaths stand eloquent testimony to wholesale fabrication of the non-existent god man's non-existent companions.[9]

My arguments against the Bible

1. Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus" Tomb?
Source: Matthew 28:1
Answer: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Source: Mark 16:1
Answer: The two Marys, plus a third person, Salome
Source: Luke 24:10
Answer: The two Marys, Joanna, and "the others."
Source: John 20:1 Answer: Only Mary Magdalene

2. Was the Stone Rolled Away?
Source: Matthew 28:1-2
Answer: The stone was in place when they arrived, and the angel rolled it back.
Source: Mark 16:4
Answer: The stone had already been rolled away upon their arrival, noted also in Luke 24:2 and John 20:1.

3. Who Did the Visitors Tell of Jesus" Empty Tomb?
Source: Matthew 28:8
Answer: The visitors were overjoyed, and they ran to tell the disciples
Source: Mark 16:8
Answer: They were afraid, and told no one.

4. Where Was Jesus on the Sixth Hour of the Crucifixion?
Source: Mark 15:32-33
Answer: Christ was already on the cross at 9 am.
Source: John 19:14-15
Answer: It was 9 am as Jesus was being judged at Pilate"s palace.

5. When Was Jesus Crucified?
Source: Mark 15:25
Answer: The third hour, as noted in the Amplified Bible, is 9 am
Source: John 19:14-16
Answer: The sixth hour is Noon.

These five questions are examples of biblical error and inconsistency. They prove that the gospels are contradictory and cannot be reliable as a source for the last hours of the life of Jesus. If the Bible cannot be consistent in a few points, then how can we trust it on any point. In my next round I will continue to build the evidence against the Bible, breaking down the only source in which the Christian has for their faith. Without the Bible Christians would have nothing to believe in concerning Jesus.

To sum up the rebuttals for Pros arguments:
1. There is no way to prove that the book of Matthew was written before or after 70 A.D.
2. Modern science has shown how Atoms stay together vs. the Pros assumption that Jesus does it because the Bible says so.
3. It is more probable to believe that the tomb was empty for other reasons instead of a resurrection, which is highly improbable.
4. Women as witnesses proves nothing, also considering the inconsistency in the gospels about what they actual reported. 5. The martyrdom of apostles and believers is without evidence, at least the Pro gave none.

[1] http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com...
[2] The European Physical Journal H, Volume 35, Issue 1, 2010, pp.3-28 http://adsabs.harvard.edu...
[3] http://physics.about.com...
[4] Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted pp.171-179
[5] Martin Hengel, Crucifixion in the Ancient World and the Folly of the Message of the Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977
[6] Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995), p. 18.
[7] John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity: Discovering What Happened in the Years Immediately After the Execution of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1998), p. 542
[8] John Wenham, Easter Enigma: Are the Resurrection Accounts in Conflict? (Second ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), pp. 150-51, n. 26
[9] http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Projectid

Con

All my arguments against the Bible are continued since the Pro forfeited the last round.

1. Who Were the First Visitors to Jesus" Tomb?
Source: Matthew 28:1
Answer: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary
Source: Mark 16:1
Answer: The two Marys, plus a third person, Salome
Source: Luke 24:10
Answer: The two Marys, Joanna, and "the others."
Source: John 20:1 Answer: Only Mary Magdalene

2. Was the Stone Rolled Away?
Source: Matthew 28:1-2
Answer: The stone was in place when they arrived, and the angel rolled it back.
Source: Mark 16:4
Answer: The stone had already been rolled away upon their arrival, noted also in Luke 24:2 and John 20:1.

3. Who Did the Visitors Tell of Jesus" Empty Tomb?
Source: Matthew 28:8
Answer: The visitors were overjoyed, and they ran to tell the disciples
Source: Mark 16:8
Answer: They were afraid, and told no one.

4. Where Was Jesus on the Sixth Hour of the Crucifixion?
Source: Mark 15:32-33
Answer: Christ was already on the cross at 9 am.
Source: John 19:14-15
Answer: It was 9 am as Jesus was being judged at Pilate"s palace.

5. When Was Jesus Crucified?
Source: Mark 15:25
Answer: The third hour, as noted in the Amplified Bible, is 9 am
Source: John 19:14-16
Answer: The sixth hour is Noon.

These five questions are examples of biblical error and inconsistency. They prove that the gospels are contradictory and cannot be reliable as a source for the last hours of the life of Jesus. If the Bible cannot be consistent in a few points, then how can we trust it on any point?

If the Pro returns to the debate in the next round, he still has to deal with my rebuttal to his arguments as well.

Rebuttals for Pros arguments, which are explained in more detail in round 2:
1. There is no way to prove that the book of Matthew was written before or after 70 A.D.
2. Modern science has shown how Atoms stay together vs. the Pros assumption that Jesus does it because the Bible says so.
3. It is more probable to believe that the tomb was empty for other reasons instead of a resurrection, which is highly improbable.
4. Women as witnesses proves nothing, also considering the inconsistency in the gospels about what they actual reported. 5. The martyrdom of apostles and believers is without evidence, at least the Pro gave none.
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Projectid

Con

I have no expectation of my opponent returning to this debate, It seems that my opponent has a habit of taking on debates and then abandoning them. However, I will take this opportunity to continue with some points of interest that have in the past moved me to believe that the New Testament is an unreliable source for any Christian beliefs. I have previously posted five questions that show discrepancies/ contradictions in regards to the last few hours of Jesus. I will post four more points at this time and continue to the end of the debate that I am not having with my opponent. If you take the time to read through all this, or at least up to this point, I ask that you vote CON for the simple reason that my opponent forfeited this debate and secondly because he made a poor attempt to bring evidence that was easily refuted.

6. The Gospels are not Historically Reliable:

We need not demonstrate Biblical errors solely through appeals to internal consistency. Doing so only tells us that something in the "word of God" is awry--but not necessarily which word is wrong. In order to perform Biblical analysis that actually broadens our view of what is true and false in the "good" book we need to bring in external sources. From these external sources we learn that the Bible makes claims that cannot stand up to even the most cursory historical examination.

A. In the Gospel of Luke the story is told of a census enacted by the governor Quirinius (Luke 2:1-7). The census, according to Luke, required everyone to return to their ancestral homes to be counted. Thus Joseph, being in the line of David, travels from Nazareth to Bethlehem where--after unadvisedly traveling ninety miles with a woman in the final days of pregnancy--Mary gives birth. The Romans, being meticulous record keepers, did take censuses. However, because of this meticulous record keeping, we know that the only census conducted during Quirinius' governorship took place in A.D. 6-7--a time over ten years after Herod was king of Judea (Luke claims they are contemporaries). However, aside from this fact we can use common sense to realize that the story is totally unbelievable. Luke invents an empire-wide migration for a simple tax registration: millions of people traveling hundreds or thousands of miles to go to their ancestral home of a millennium past (David predates Joseph by approx. 1000 years) in order to sign a simple form. Imagine this happening today. Imagine the cataclysmic disruption of societies resulting from the masses of people crossing boarders and oceans in order to sign a form. This, of course, supposes you could even find your ancestral home of a millennium past. No, something is wrong here and it isn't that the Romans liked to periodically enact sadistically cumbersome legislation. [a]

7. Did Herod slaughter the innocents?

A prophecy related to the birth of Jesus is the claim that the Messiah would be born at a time when King Herod was killing children. Only the gospel of Matthew (2:16-18) makes this claim, quoting a prophecy of Jeremiah (31:15) which states that "A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more." There are two problems with this alleged messianic prophecy: it is not a prophecy about children being killed and it is quite doubtful that there ever was such a slaughter of innocents by Herod. "Rachel weeping for her children" refers to the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (and wife of Jacob) weeping about her children taken captive to Egypt. In context, the verse is about the Babylonian captivity, which its author witnessed. Subsequent verses speak of the children being returned, and thus it refers to captivity rather than murder. The slaughter by Herod is also in doubt because the writer of Matthew is the only person who has noted such an event. Flavius Josephus, who carefully chronicled Herod's abuses, makes no mention of it. [b]

8. The Lost City of Nazareth

The Gospels tell us that Jesus's home town was the city of Nazareth:
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
(Luke1.26,27) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; because he was of the house and lineage of David:
(Luke 2.3,4) But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
(Matthew 2.22,23) And when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. (Luke 2.39,40)

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' " it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice " but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible. However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god " surprise, surprise! " no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.
Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) " in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area " records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list. The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature. St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all. No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century. [c]

9. Retroactively Fulfill Prophecy

The evangelists poured through the Old Testament and found "prophecies" that predicted Jesus' life. After all, there had to be grander reasons why their great teacher had been executed like a common criminal. In the pages of Jewish scripture they found those reasons. They then consciously wrote their gospels in order to retroactively fulfill prophecy. That this happens at all is beyond dispute. Sometimes, while stumbling over themselves to "fulfill" prophecy, they get it horribly wrong: Mark (1:1-3), using shoddy sources, begins his gospel with "prophecy" that mistakenly conflates two Old Testament versus; Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. Matthew (1:20-23) uses a mistranslated Old Testament, in which the Hebrew almah, (meaning "young woman") was changed to the Greek parthenos (meaning a physical virgin), as a justification for the immaculate conception. Matthew (21:1-7) so wants to fulfill a "prophecy" from another shoddy source that has combined Isaiah 62:11 and Zachariah 9:9, that he misinterprets the passage--which only speaks of one animal (with subsequent qualifiers)--and has Jesus ride into Jerusalem, in some bizarre act of balance, on two animals. (The other gospel writers are quick to correct this grievous error.) Thus, we begin to see that not only is it a manifest absurdity to believe the Gospels are history, it becomes tenuous to believe they are even accurate.

[a] http://trevorburrus.newsvine.com...
[b] (www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html)
[c] http://www.jesusneverexisted.com...
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
Projectid

Con

For this post I would like to rant a little about Christianity. One of the most compelling things that motivated me to reject Christianity was denominational-ism. I have had this debate with people while I was still a Christian and of course as an atheist. Yet the answers are always the same, there is always some way for Christians to wiggle out of committing to the truth of chaos within the domain of their religion and their beliefs. I have used this argument at times, only to be faces with the response that it means nothing and does not prove Christianity false. However, if someone came to a belief in Christ through the Bible, through the means of a particular sect, why would they not seek to understand if they are indeed doing things according to God and the Bible, instead of whatever the sect has come to believe is the truth?

The last time I checked there were at least 41,000 denominations within the Christian realm. That means that there are 41,000 different ways to believe in one man named Jesus and his father and the spirit. So who is right? Can they all be correct? In the past 14 years I have investigated hundreds of these denominations and have come to the conclusion that if you threw them all into a room and made them hash out their differences there would probably be blood shed! They would not agree, and they would not claim that others were correct when they contradict each other about hundreds of differences on dogma and doctrine. So what does this prove? It proves that the God of Christianity is the author of chaos, that he could not deliver a message to mankind that they could all follow in harmony.This stands true unless your are of course standing in your dogmatic corner claiming divine truth apart from all other sects and denominations.

The Bible does not prove that Christianity is true, it proves that God did not author it. The Bible does not prove the divinity of Jesus, because it is the only source of this persons divinity, it makes the authenticity of this man's supposed greatness meager. There is no external resources to prove that Jesus is God and that he deserves our worship. If anything, the chaos that has become of Christianity only proves it to be exactly that....chaos, from this book that people worship, because it is claimed to be the divine words of God. If the Christian God did exist wouldn't you think he would have had a better book without so many error and contradictions, without borrowed tales from other societies that pre-existed before the Bible was ever even written? That the excuse that man has tarnished God's word through time would not need to be said if this perfect, all powerful, all knowing God existed.
If God wanted people to be Christians, then he could have done a better job of making the requirements clear. The Bible is not clear, if it was, then I would not be posting this rant, I would be worshiping God. Apparently God is not worried about all non-believers, because if he was then he would have done a better job of revealing himself to the world other than a book that hardly reflects the intelligence of an educated man let alone a supreme being.

Before you do away with my statements, please think rationally about this book called the Bible and ask yourself does it really bare the mark of a being interested in people following him? Does it clearly mark the way to salvation beyond this life? Even if it did how do you know that is what will happen? No one knows what is behind the curtain of death, but we can be reasonable about what we do know about this life, we know that the Bible is not what Christians claim it to be....God's word for this life and beyond!

I set out with this debate to bring to the attention to Christians that they can not prove that the bible is perfect, that is, without error. Yet they claim that it is the perfect word of God without knowing how they can prove it. At least they should admit that they cannot, however with little ease, one can show that this book is full of error. If there was no problems with this book then there wouldn't be any debate over it. If God truly inspired this book there would not be one single error evident, but since one only has to show a single error, which is easy even for a Christian to see, if they would only be honest with the evidence, then we can conclude that it is not God's word and that is does not contain the words for life now and beyond, that the man Jesus depicted in the book cannot be trusted to be true based on the fact the Bible is not God inspired. Christianity is based on a book that is not true, therefore Christianity is not truly a religion worth living or dyeing for.

I am still looking for a worthy opponent to debate this topic, if you are interested then post it in the comments and I will set up the fourth debate on the same subject.

As for this particular debate, please vote CON.
Anti-atheist

Pro

Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
If your looking at this debate please vote!
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
"what a debate? debate of the century! :D the one who believes the bible is perfect word of god wants to debate with the one who believes that the bible is the perfect of god."

I think your confused.
Posted by Artur 3 years ago
Artur
what a debate? debate of the century! :D the one who believes the bible is perfect word of god wants to debate with the one who believes that the bible is the perfect of god.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
Yes, well this looks like it will be another waste of my time to find a worthy opponent.
Posted by Jakeross6 3 years ago
Jakeross6
Glad you got someone to respond finally. I've been waiting to laugh.
Posted by Projectid 3 years ago
Projectid
KeytarHero: Based on your definition: "Perfect would entail without error. Error would include contradictions, historical mishaps and other things like author verification, dating and such."
I have decided to accept the debate.

What happened I thought we were going to debate this?
Posted by KeytarHero 3 years ago
KeytarHero
Based on your definition: "Perfect would entail without error. Error would include contradictions, historical mishaps and other things like author verification, dating and such."

I have decided to accept the debate.
Posted by hanson.aaron 3 years ago
hanson.aaron
Most Christians, I included, don't see the Bible as a perfect document, like Muslims view the Qua'ran or the Mormons view the Book of Mormon. Inerrant, yes, but perfect no. If the title was "The Holy Bible is Inerrant and Proves that Christianity is true" then this would make for an interesting debate. However, using the Bible to prove Christianity just seems a bit silly. If you're a Christian, you believe the Bible, if you believe the Bible you're a Christian (In most cases).
Posted by WheezySquash8 3 years ago
WheezySquash8
I will not accept this challenge because I do not want to support the virus known as religious debates on Debate.org. There are already way too many religious debates on whether a creator exists, or if the Bible is true. I am honestly sick of things like this. Nobody needs to prove anything. I am a Catholic who has a strong belief in God, but I leave my views to myself, and people who go to my church. I do not go up to Atheists, Jews, etc saying things such as, "Jesus is real", or "You don't have proof in your religion." YOUR religion should be your concern, not other people's religions. I have numerous friends of other religions, but I do not question what they believe in! I understand that science is starting to get more, and more people to question creationism, and that you want to prove something, but you do not need to it like this. People will convert if they wish on their own. Nowadays it just seems like too many people are trying to prove something. Fellow Christians of mine try to prove them selves correct, and I just laugh. What's the point? Just let people believe in what they want to believe in, and do not decide to try to prove somebody's belief wrong, or try to start debates. I know a lot on other people's beliefs in the universe's origin, and I have been told numerous times that my religion is incorrect. I am just sick of it. It really makes me sad that people won't let me believe in what I want to believe in. I live in one of the least religious states in America according to statistics, but my views still haven't changed. No matter what I am not changing my opinion. By doing debates, you cannot everybody to change their views. For many, it will take more than that. I am sorry if I have offended anybody. I am just one of those people who's gotten sick of debates over religion. I find them to be the most useless things on this Earth. You may continue debating, but I am just expressing my opinion on this matter.
Posted by johnnyis 3 years ago
johnnyis
Very few Christians are going to consider this challenge because very few Christians hold this view of scripture. I hold to inerrancy, but "perfect" is a straw man position of what inerrancy means. I'm not going to defend a view I don't hold.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SimpleObserverofThings 3 years ago
SimpleObserverofThings
ProjectidAnti-atheistTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provided key arguments to which needed to be addressed by Pro where he simply ignored and forfeited the debate. This is not an unusual tactic for apologists when unable to address the issue. This topic is debated and usually always makes the apologist scrambling for evidence to prove the bible is not faulty but ultimately fails miserably. I was interested in seeing his rebuttals but guess someone else will have to do so another time. Hopefully soon.
Vote Placed by Debaterpillar 3 years ago
Debaterpillar
ProjectidAnti-atheistTied
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: Conduct: As Pro forfeited, this point clearly goes to Con. Con's last round was a rant about Christianity, so Pro might have been able to get the conduct point, hadn't he forfeited. Spelling and grammar: I give this a tie, as both debaters were eloquent without significant spelling or grammar mistakes. Arguments: While Pro did provide a good third argument in his only round (the 'gluon argument' was just odd), all of his arguments were thoroughly refuted by Con. Upon Con presenting his arguments, Pro forfeited without returning, so all of Con's arguments remained untouched. Con's arguments were compelling and quite convincing in negating the resolution and it was for them I had to read the entire debate even despite the early forfeit. Sources: Not only does Pro just use one source compared to the twelve sources of Con, the relevance of his source is also questioned by Con. The variety of sources used by Con were successful in supporting his position.