The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
The Contender
Nicholaspanda
Con (against)

The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
backwardseden has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/11/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 665 times Debate No: 107868
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

I have to say, the Bible is a poorly compiled piece of work. If you're religious, then I'm sure I have your attention from that alone.

A lot of people claim the Bible is perfect and without error. Most of these people have never actually read the Bible, other than cherry picking the few verses they think are nice.

The following has been extracted from a document called The Dossier of Reason, created by a former pastor. The link to his article can be found here: https://docs.google.com... - Dossier of Reason

If you find the following offensive, then good. It's time people actually knew what their bible contained.

The Problem of the Bible (How the bible is literally full of errors in nearly every way possible.)

I.Which Bible?
A. Over 450 English versions of the bible
B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read.
D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.

II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation

III.Historical and Geographical errors in the Bible
A. River Gihon could not possibly flow from Mesopotamia and encompass Ethiopia (Gen 2:13)
B. The name Babel does not come from the Hebrew word 'balbal' or 'confuse' but from the babylonian 'babili' or 'gate of God' which is a translation of the original Sumerian name Ka-dimirra. (Gen 11:9)
C. Ur was not a Chaldean city until 1000 years after Abraham (Gen 11:28, 15:7)
D. Abraham pursued enemies to 'Dan' (Gen 14:14). That name was not used geographically until after the conquest (Judge 18:29)
E. Gen 36:31, telling of Jacob and Esau, lists kings of Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." This must have been written hundreds of years later, after Israel had kings.
F. Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15). There was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.
G. The Egyptian princess names the baby she finds "Moses" because she "drew him out" of the water (Heb meshethi). Why would she make a pun in Hebrew (Ex 2:10)?
H. No Egyptian record exists mentioning Moses or his devastation of Egypt.
I. Moses refers to "Palestine" (Ex 15:14). No such name was in use then.
J. Law of Moses is the "statutes of God and his laws" (Ex 18:26), but it closely mirrors the Code of Hammurabi, which was penned 1800 BC, hundreds of years before Moses.
K. Priests are mentioned at Ex 19:22-24, but they are not provided for until Ex 28:1.
L. Moses mentions Rabbath, where Og's bedstead is located (Deut3:11). Moses could not have any knowledge of Rabbath,which was not captured by the Hebrews until David's time,500 years later (2 Sam 12:26).
M. Jericho and Ai (Josh 8) were both ancient ruins at the time of the conquest of Canaan, according to archaeologists. Jericho's walls were destroyed centuries before Joshua.
N. Kings are referred to at Deut 17:17-19, before Israel had kings.
O. The Wilderness is viewed as history at Num 15:32, showing that Numbers was written later.
P. The Sabbath law was unknown when the man gathered sticks at Num 15:32-34.
Q. Book of Joshua refers to Book of Jasher in the past, mentioned at 2 Sam 1:18, therefore Joshua must be post-David.
R. Captivity is mentioned at Judg 18:30, making it post-Exile.
S. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54). But Jerusalem was not captured until 7 years after David became king (2 Sam 5).
T. David paid 600 shekels of gold for the threshing floor (1 Chron21:22-25). But shekels of gold were not yet used in business transactions (this is the only use of the term in the OT).
U. Psalm 18:6 mentions the temple, thus cannot be by David.
V. Defeat of Sennacherib did not happen at Jerusalem, but at Pelusium, near Egypt, and Jews were not involved, contrary to 2 Kings 19.
W. Ninevah was so large it took three days to cross, i.e. about 60 miles (Jonah 3:3-4). Yet it had only 120,000 inhabitants, making a population density of of about 42 people per square mile for a city.
X. Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is historically inaccurate; Nebuchadnezzar was never mad. Belshazzar, whom he says was king, was never king, but only regent. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabo-nidus. Babylon was not conquered by Darius the Mede, but by Cyrus the Great, in 539 BC (Dan 5:31). Darius the Mede is unknown to history.
Y. Chronology of the empires of the Medes and Persians is historically incorrect in Isa 13:17, 21:2, Jer 51:11, 28
Z. Esther (and all the characters in the Book of Esther except Ahasuerus [= Xerxes]) is unknown to history, even though itclaims that its events are "written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (Est 10:2). The Book of Esther is not quoted by any pre-Christian writer, nor mentioned in

NT, nor quoted by early Christian fathers.
A1. Mordecai became prime minister to Xerxes (Ahasuerus), who reigned 485-465 BC. But Mordecai had come to Babylon in 596 BC with Jehoiachin (Esther 2:5-6).
B1. The office of "High priest" of Mark 2:26 did not exist in David's day.
C1. None of the Gospels are mentioned by early Christians, e.g. Paul, Pope Clement I (97 AD), Justin Martyr (140 AD). The first mention of any Gospel is by Irenaeus (185 AD).
D1. There is no mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the world (Matt 4:8, Luke 4:5).
E1. Jesus as a historical figure is not mentioned by any contemporary non-Christian writers.
F1. Matt 2:1 says Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, who died 4 BC. Luke 2:2 says he was born during Quirinus' governorship of Syria, which began 6 AD.
G1. Thieves were never punished by crucifixion (Matt 27:38, 44).
H1. No crucifixion would have been performed on the eve of Passover.
I1. There is no contemporary historical confirmation of darkness covering the earth at the crucifixion (Matt 27:35, Luke 23:44).
J1. There is no contemporary historical confirmation of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod (Matt 2:16-18). Josephus, whose history contains much criticism of Herod, does not mention it.
K1.There is no contemporary historical confirmation of the graves opening and the dead appearing to many at the crucifixion (Matt 27:52-53).
L1. in Mark 7, Jesus quotes the septuigant while arguing with the pharisees, in a portion of the old testament (Isaiah 29:13) that reads drastically differently from the Hebrew text. A Palestinian reading from a Greek text that contradicts the Hebrew to orthodox Jews is unusual to say the least.
M1. In Mark 10:12 Jesus tells Palestinian listeners that a wife who puts away her husband commits adultery, this would have been meaningless to Palestinian listeners where only men could divorce.
N1. In Mark 5:13 Jesus casts out devils and forces them into 2,000 swine who then run down into the sea and are drowned, this is said to have occured in Garasenes - 31 miles from the sea. In Matthew, which was written later, this is changed to Gadara which is much more feasible.
O1. The Tigris and Euphrates are reported in Genesis before and after the flood, apparently unaffected by the massive destruction.
P1. The use of the Tigris and Euphrates by Egyptian civilization pre and post-flood.

IV.Scientific Inaccuracy of the Bible
A. Earth is about 6000 years old, as calculated from the genealogies in Gen and Luke 3. (see the problem of a young earth later in the outline)
B. Birds were created before land animals (Gen 1:20, 24). - Fossil record shows exact opposite
C. Earth has four corners, and floats on water (Isa 11:12, Ps 24:2, 136:6, Rev 7:1).
D. Earth is a circular disk (Isa 40:22).
E. Earth is flat (these verses were used for centuries by the church to prove this: Ps 93:1, Jer 10:13, Dan 4:10-11, Zech 9:10, Matt 4:8, Rev 1:7)
F. Earth does not move (Ps 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 1 Chr 16:30).
G. Death or illness is caused by sin (Gen 2:17, Lev 26:16, 21, 25, Deut 7:15, 28:21, 27, James 1:15).
H. God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy. Lev 13, 14.
I. Seed must "die" before it grows (John 12:24, 1 Cor 15:36).
J. Snakes eat dust (Gen 3:14, Isa 65:25).
K. Every beast shall fear man (Gen 9:2).
L. The ostrich abandons her eggs (Job 39:13-16).
M. A river divides into four rivers and they flow in different directions (Gen 2:10).
N. There was no rainbow before Noah's time (Gen 9:11-17).
P. Earthquakes are caused by God's anger (Job 9:5, Ps 18:7, 77:18, 97:4, Isa 2:19, 24:20, 29:6, Jer 10:10, Ezek 38:20, Nah 1:5). Or by his voice (Heb 12:26). Or by Lucifer (Isa 14:16).
Q. Earthquakes can occur in heaven (Heb 12:26).
R. Rainwater does not return to the sky (Isa 55:10).
S. Blood is "life" (Deut 12:23). Breath is "life" (Gen 2:7).
U. The moon has a light of its own (Isa 13:10, Matt 24:29).
W. The bat is a bird (Lev 11:13,19, Deut 14:11, 18).
X. The whale is a fish (Jonah 1:17, Matt 12:40).
Z. Jonah is able to survive three days and nights in the belly of the fish without oxygen and without being digested (Jonah1:17, 2:10).

This was all taken from except for the video:
https://www.news24.com... - The Problem of the Bible: Inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific issues and more.

- Bible contradictions

RULES:
Prove that the bible is not a book of inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific blunderings, is readable and is easily understood to get a general consensus.

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
Nicholaspanda

Con

I'm happy to be participating in such an interesting debate, hopefully, we can reach a valid conclusion at the end. Note, this is my first debate - and I'm only doing this debate because I'm studying systematic theology at the University of Austin Presbyterian Theology Seminary. So, personally, I believe, that I have a fair bit of knowledge on the topic addressed.

"A lot of people claim the Bible is perfect and without error. Most of these people have never actually read the Bible, other than cherry-picking the few verses they think are nice."

Moving forward, I have read the entire Bible; twice. Once religiously, once scientifically. So this doesn't apply to me, I believe.

"I.Which Bible?...numerous manuscripts."

While some manuscripts might not agree with the terms of "language", mostly all manuscripts tend to correlate with each other. As a noted philosopher, James R. White, writes, "The largest portion of textual variants in the NT comes from simple scribal errors, not from purposeful "corruption" of the text for theological reasons." [1]

"II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation"

The Bible is the most translated book in the world, so I don't understand if this is supposed to be backlashing Christianity or if it's supposed to be factual - because if they're trying to imply either, they're both wrong.

I'd recommend looking at this link, providing better factual information about Bible translation numbers, growth, etc...

1. http://resources.wycliffe.net...

"Prove that the bible is not a book of inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, scientific blunderings, is readable and is easily understood to get a general consensus."

If this is all I have to prove, then I'll be ignoring the rest of your argument. Although I will be addressing a few things mentioned in the doc, you provided, that need some explanation - this will be at the end of my argument; note, the explanations from the doc are about other subjects of theology, and, hence, should not be included in the vote.

To begin, posing the question, "Does the Bible have inaccuracies, contradictions, fallacies, and scientific issues?" is posing a false question based on "bad theology". John Piper, an American Reformed Baptist continuationist pastor, described bad theology as:

"Bad theology will eventually hurt people and dishonor God in proportion to its badness."

In case of my personal bias, David Madison, an atheist, rightfully pointed out, "Bad theology assumes the validity of personal opinions and feelings about God(s). But personal opinions and feelings count for nothing when we're trying to figure out how the Cosmos functions. Individual believers and worshippers are even more prone to bias, emotion, and guesswork than the theologians." [2]

This is valid. So, with this in mind, you can't say "God is stupid" or "God is evil" because it's a personal bias - which is a logical fallacy, and I'll be ignoring it if you mention it in the debate.

I'll be basing my argument on the commodity of a grapefruit. Surely that seems absurd, but this is how my teacher described it to us:

1. If I say, "I hate grapefruit" and then turn to someone else and say "I love grapefruit," I am contradicting myself.

2. If I said 20 years ago "I hate grapefruit" and now say "I love grapefruit," I am not contradicting myself. Rather my view of grapefruit changed over time.

3. If I say "I hate grapefruit" but my son says "I love grapefruit," that would not be a contradiction. We are two different people voicing our opinions.

The word contradiction, as described by Merriam-Webster, states:

"a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something." [3]

The Bible works well with the second and third examples, not at all like the third. We create problems for ourselves when we assume the first example is relevant - it isn't.

However inspiration works (and I defy anyone who thinks they have a handle on it), the following is demonstrably true:

1. The Bible is written by real live people over a long period of time (2nd grapefruit example). In some cases, the effect of time and circumstance can be seen in one person (more closely in keeping with the 2nd grapefruit example), namely Paul, whose letters show differing tones, emphases, and even shifts in thinking. [4]
2. The Bible records the voices of different people who have different points of view on the same topic (3rd grapefruit example), including what the Law of Moses says, how God acts toward outsiders, how many gods exist, whether the reign of Manasseh was positive or negative, when Jesus cleansed the Temple, what Paul thinks of the Law, and on and on. [5]

Peter Enns, a noted biblical scholar, states that the writers of the Bible spanned centuries, writing in different time periods, facing political and religious problems - where each responded to those circumstances from their point of view during their settings in life. [6] If you have anything you want me to respond to specifically, I'd be happy to oblige - but I'll not be critiquing all their interpretations. You can point a few that you have questions about, but not all; unless you privately email me. Also, to make it very clear, the rules never deemed me to go over all their interpretations, and I plan not to.

I'll now be addressing a few issues about "Dossier of Reason". Daniel Henson, the writer of "Dossier of Reason" was an ex-youth pastor. To me, his logic is fallacious on the Cosmological argument and the Teleological argument. The problem, as I see it, is that he provides no backup, sources, or evidence to support his claims on Cosmology or Teleology. I also just don't agree with him in general. His language seems attacking more than informative - another thing I've noticed when talking to Atheists.

Sources:

1. http://www.equip.org... ---> Modern Bible translation's corruption explanation
2. http://www.debunking-christianity.com... ---> Provides examples of what "Bad theology" is
3. https://www.merriam-webster.com... ---> Definition of "corruption"
4. https://peteenns.com... ---> Provides an explanation that there are no Bible contradictions
5. ibid
6. https://books.google.com... - The Bible and the Believer: How to Read the Bible Critically and Religiously (p. 29)

I'll be intrigued by your next argument.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by LeeJohnson 5 months ago
LeeJohnson
@backwardseden, don't be silly. I can understand how some people might agree with you - but not your irrationality; it's fallacious.
Posted by backwardseden 5 months ago
backwardseden
If you were to actually impose that crap you admitted to as a witness on any stand to any jury of thinking, reasoning, rationalizing, common sense and logic, they'd laugh you out of that courtroom every---single---time. No exceptions. None. Especially when you cannot test nor demonstrate your ideals on what you mentioned as 2. Popper"s Demarcation addresses science can't answer "non-physical" questions. So I get it... you automatically believe that the non physical is true without ANY SUBSTANCE OF TRUTH. AND YOU ARE A LAUGHABLE ADMITTED CHRISTIAN TO BOOT WHICH ONLY RELIES ON FAITH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU CANNOT EVEN PROVE YOUR GOD EXISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So you can scratch your ideals on what you thought for bringing in #1 which only makes sense to you. And Henson's (AND YOU CANNOT EVEN SPELL HIS NAME RIGHT YOU IGNORANT SACK OF PUS) absolutely DOES PROVIDE 100% backup. But it is so crystal clear that you have not even read the Dossier of Reason now have you? So say "duh" for the camera. Nice bluff and flatly lie to someone else. I truly hate flat---out---liars.
Posted by backwardseden 5 months ago
backwardseden
@LeeJohnson - See that's the reason why I hate people like you is because you absolutely completely abandon reason, thinking, rationalizing, common sense, and logic and replace it with faith. Science ALWAYS wins over faith which is something that, well bless your heart, is something that you as a christian MUST believe in to show your utter stupidity in its utter failings. "Faith is the reason people give when they don't have evidence." Matt Dillahunty And you don't have any evidence. So to prove you completely wrong EVEN BY DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS ALONE... Faith: 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.:
He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. --- Science 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
Posted by backwardseden 5 months ago
backwardseden
@LeeJohnson - Yeah I blocked a teeny bopper like you from debating me. Especially when you being the typical christian that you are does not take valid evidence that absolutely crushes you and you have 0% outs, so you naturally avoid it. So I avoid you.
Posted by backwardseden 5 months ago
backwardseden
@WOLF.J - Ehhhhtttt bzzzttttt See? That's why you are in the utmost depressive state that you are in, is your utter lack of ability to read people. If this was a game of poker, I'd take all of your $$$$ before you were even to have sat down to the game. Um no dildo desire followerofhandgrenadeweightlossprogramchrist and I are not in any way associated. He is a pathetic lowlife with 0 genuine friends or loved ones, severely depressed just like you, who cares nothing for anybody or anything except for himself, is a perfect diseased lungrot that gets off on trying to prove himself correct by posting mondo slade trash in which nobody ever reads except for beginners who don't know any better, he MUST be right at every single instance and everybody else is wrong no matter what - even if someone were to agree with everything he were to say he would still manage to find fault with that person etc etc etc. So don't even make bad jokes about me and that tumbleweed turnip stew when I never read what that thing has to say.
Posted by LeeJohnson 5 months ago
LeeJohnson
@backwardseden, Daniel Hesson basis his whole claim that knowledge comes from science, therefore, God can't exist and the Bible is "false". Henson believes knowledge comes from religion or science (Henson takes the side of science, I might add).

I've narrowed down two possible problems with his beliefs:

1. According to Godel's theorems (I and II), science can't validate itself
2. Popper"s Demarcation addresses science can't answer "non-physical" questions

Therefore, science is not the only source of "knowledge". And religion (specifically referring to Christianity) address its knowledge about God only. There are two possible sources of knowledge about God, that I know of:

1. Dogmatic Theology
2. Historical Theology
(Optional) 3. Ascetical Theology

Therefore, Hesson's whole argument fails. His whole argument is subject to his own knowledge, he doesn't provide backup with any of his claims (which are mostly wrong (I can list examples if needed)), and he avoids the analysis of Atheism (typical).

If someone sees a problem with my contentions, please let me know; I'd love to address them or add some clarification.
Posted by LeeJohnson 5 months ago
LeeJohnson
@Amphia, it actually delights me every morning to see what new trash he's produced.
Posted by Amphia 5 months ago
Amphia
Shaking my head. I need to stop reading your debates...
Posted by LeeJohnson 5 months ago
LeeJohnson
He blocked me from debating him.
Posted by FollowerofChrist1955 5 months ago
FollowerofChrist1955
Matthew13
11 He replied, "Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

"Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

""You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
15 For this people"s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them."

Let him rave on that men may know him lost. His body given over to Satan.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.