The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
GodChoosesLife
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points

The bible is historically accurate and factual

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Mikal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,868 times Debate No: 46660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Con

This is a shared BOP

I will show that the bible is not historically accurate and factual, Pro will take the side that it is.
GodChoosesLife

Pro

I accept. State your case. :)
Best wishes!
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

Obviously to do this debate from a historical standpoint we have to be aware that most of the text is going to be taken literally but there are a few points I want to break down in depth

No secular sources to verify the work of Christ

I think this is one of the main fundamental issues with validating the bible. If the stories of Christ were true there would have been some secular source that recorded them. In this case the bible is its own source of history. How do we know something existed in the past? How do we know for example that Rome existed, or that JFK was actually a president. There are people who record this information. Not just one or two people but countless people. Even going a step back if we look back at Mesopotamia, even looking at Hammurabi who was the first king of the civilization there are an abundant amount of sources verifying that he actually existed.

The issue with the bible and the story of Jesus is that we never see this. If the bible were factual and accurate, and Jesus actually was walking around and raising people from the dead there would have been some secular source other than people in the bible whom actually recorded this. We never see this at all. The only possible secular source that can even used as an example is Josephus. Most historians discredit him though due to numerous errors and bias in his writings .

Take for example of his account of Masada

"According to Josephus the death of the 960 inhabitants of Masada and the destruction of the palace and the possessions were the premeditated acts of all the people acting in unison. But the archaeological remains cannot be reconciled with this view. Josephus says that all the possessions were gathered together in one large pile and set on fire but archaeology shows many piles and many fires (in various rooms of the casemate wall in some of the storerooms in the western palace etc.). Josephus says that Eleazar ordered his men to destroy everything except the foodstuffs but archaeology shows that many storerooms which contained provisions were burnt. (In addition Josephus reports that the Romans found arms sufficient for ten thousand men as well as iron brass and lead -- why weren't these valuable commodities destroyed?) Josephus says that the last surviving Jew set fire to the palace but archaeology shows that all the public buildings had been set ablaze. Josephus implies that all the murders took place in the palace (unless the women and children after being killed obliged their menfolk and the narrator by marching to the palace) but the northern palace is too small for an assembly of almost a thousand people." [1]

This was an inner struggle that according to Josephus that ended in a mass suicide, when in reality the people of Masada fought for nearly 3 days to stay alive[2]. Essentially because of his works being faulty he has been discredited as a valid source, and even in spite of this is the only source to ever support Christ that could even be considered secular.


Age of the Earth

When we look at timelines for the earth according to the bible it is roughly 6 thousand years old [3].






Now how do we know this is false. I could do an entire debate off of this but will keep it short

(a) carbon dating

Through dating and other forms of measurement we can see that some of the rocks on earth are shown to be nearly 3 billion years old [4]. In addition to this we can use half life and other various methods to tell the earth is more than 6 thousand years old. If the earth is older than 6,500 years the bible is false unless you are taking a epoc stance on the days in which God created the earth but when reading this literally and not subjectively it is 6,500 years old. Even in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the bible almost all text points to this being a literally seven days no matter how you play semantics with it.

(b) dendrochronology

This is

(dendron = tree, chronos = time, logos = word = the science of): The science that uses tree rings dated to their exact year of formation to analyze temporal and spatial patterns of processes in the physical and cultural sciences. [5]

Basically this is measuring a trees rings to see how the tree is. More in depth but that is the short version. Just some younger trees have been discovered to be 8,000 years old with others being 11,000 years. This is the younger ones and the dates of some trees go back even further than that. For the purpose of this debate 8,000 is sufficient though. [6]




The Flood

The story of the flood itself was recorded all throughout ancient cultures prior to the time the flood was actually suppose to happen according to the bible. The earliest known recording of the flood was in Mesopotamia and shows up in what is called the epic of Gilgamesh [7].

The epic was written somewhere around 2,000 BC [8]. The dates of the flood vary from around 700 BC to 2000 BC [9]. This does not add up at all. If a global flood were to have occurred it would have had to have happened way prior to 2,000 BC. In fact it would have had to been around 3,000 BC. The story of Gilgamesh is in reference to a king who ruled where modern Iran is at. This is an account of what was suppose to have happened in his life. This king ruled around 2,700 BC. We can say with certainty that the flood would have had to have happened prior to 2,000 BC but most sources have it anywhere from 700-1,900 BC. This does not add up historically.

(a) Fossils and the flood

The way the fossils are layed when they are dug indicate no sign of a global flood. Essentially if a global flood would have occurred there would have been an indication that animals would have tried to swim up to get away from it. Bill nye addresses this briefly in a debate with Ken Ham.

" You never, ever find a higher animal mixed in with a lower one. You never find a lower one trying to swim its way to the higher one…Anyone here, really, if you can find one example of that – one example of that anywhere in the world – the scientists of the world challenge you – they would embrace you. You would be a hero. You would change the world if you could find one example of that anywhere."[10]


Conclusion

There is a monumental amount of evidence to show that the bible does not add up historically. There are no sources to verify that it is actually valid , it does not much up with fossil records and there are countless way to show that the earth is more than 6k years old. There is no reason to believe the bible is in fact accurate or infallible



[1] http://www.pbs.org...
[2] http://asorblog.org...
[3] http://bridavis.chickenfactory.net...
[4] http://www.talkorigins.org...
[5] http://web.utk.edu...
[6] http://waynesword.palomar.edu...
[7] http://www.ancienttexts.org...
[8] http://www.ancienttexts.org...
[9] http://creation.com...
[10] Bill Nye vs Ken ham debate ; youtube
GodChoosesLife

Pro

Yes there IS secular sources to verify the work of Christ

"How do we know something existed in the past?"
If there was not any other historical evidence to prove of Jesus"s works to the world when He was here, then it would be possible to say that He did not. But since there are, in fact, sources that are reliable than it is proven from a secular stance that Jesus did perform many works as the Bible also records.

Here is an example:
Exhibit A: Cornelius Tacitus
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120) has been called the "greatest historian" of ancient Rome. Two of his most lauded works are The Annuals and The Histories. When he wrote of the reign of Nero he alludes to the death of Christ and to the existence of Christians in Rome, he said:
But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the boundaries that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, (Annals XV, 44).
This is evidential that a secular source was established to prove of Jesus"s works and not just the Biblical history as my opponent suggests.

Age of the Earth
Oddly enough, just because the world seems to be an amount of extended years or so does not indicate for certain that it justifies the evolutional eruption. Creationism is and can be a valid source in itself. Evolution had to have had a beginning too, right? So how can anyone resolve this issue, "IF" evolution is the accurate truth to rely on based of history.

carbon dating

Through dating and other forms of measurement we can see that some of the rocks on earth are shown to be nearly 3 billion years old [4]. In addition to this we can use half life and other various methods to tell the earth is more than 6 thousand years old. If the earth is older than 6,500 years the bible is false unless you are taking a epoc stance on the days in which God created the earth but when reading this literally and not subjectively it is 6,500 years old. Even in the Greek and Hebrew versions of the bible almost all text points to this being a literally seven days no matter how you play semantics with it.

dendrochronology
Tree"s rings are an interesting idea, but not reliable because who is to say that the calculations were not misprinted or misread or mismeasured?

The Flood

Pro, how can you say there is no evidence to Jesus being here on the earth as the Bible records, if you just used a source of Mesopotamia, but yet deny what was recorded because it does not add up to you? If it was recorded of the flood, than that should be enough to acknowledge that there must have been a global flood and must be proof of Jesus being on the earth, right?

Fossils and the flood

My opponent is going as far as using the "idea" of the fossils from the flood was not a global incident simply because it apparently did not reveal any signs of the animals swimming up? But could you explain to me, how exactly does this add up? If the animals did swim up, that does not mean that there was not a global flood.

Conclusion

Despite of my opponent"s ideas and suggestions, the Bible is very accurate and reliable to use because if it was not then why do we have it to begin with? It is obvious that the Bible has been around longer than any other source of information-- thus making it reliable.

http://caffeinatedthoughts.com...
http://www.thetrumpet.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

Fundamental difference in verifying the works of Christ and proving that Jesus existed

There is no argument that a man named Jesus existed, the issue is secular sources that can be compared and verify his works. The first thing to note in this rebuttal is that Tacticus only wrote one text about Jesus [1]. The one which my contender listed. This verifies nothing other than the fact that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified. That is not the point I was bringing up. It is almost irrefutable that Jesus existed, but the contention is his works. We can trace back and verify almost everything other than the miracles that are in the bible. When compared to secular sources there are no credible sources to show that Jesus did the works he claimed such as raising people from the dead, casting out demons, and healing the blind. Any of these would have been recorded by a numerous amount of secular sources. Yet the only thing that can be verified historically is that a man named Jesus existed, and was crucified.

Even If Jesus did exist, that does not verify the bible is accurate and factual as I have just explained. Therefore my end of the BOP is fulfilled in this regard.


Creationism and evolution

I think my adversary is proposing that evolution and creationism can co exist in this rebuttal. Which in some cases could be true, but no when we are showing that the bible is historically accurate. If this was a debate about God existing, it would go into what is the cause of the universe. The issue here is that creationism in the bible references Adam and eve as literal. Meaning that God created a man and a woman and through the process of inbreeding the modern world was formed.

this is not verified nor is there any way to show this is accurate. I would write an entire argument about the non need for a creator to cause the universe to exist but for this debate it is irrelevant. Even if a God were to cause the universe to exist, it does not prove the bible is accurate. It just shows that an external creator caused the big bang. It is on pro to show that the accounts of genesis are in fact historically accurate. When in comparison to evolution this is almost impossible to source and verify.

Tree dating and Carbon dating

Dropped

It is also on my adversary to show that the earth is younger than 6,000 years old. This was dropped entirely and even in the last round if she states that these methods are not accurate, that is not the case in itself. Anything can be wrong at some point, but when we look at the number of corrected datings , to the number of ones that come back with wrong results we can clearly see this process is accurate.

Basically if she says something like

This study showed this rock was (x) years old and that is impossible, when you compare that to the fact that all of these studies have shown with reliable accuracy results that we can actually be observed such as trees that are under 100 years old there is no comparison. We can use these methods to test rocks and tress, and actually see if the results are correct and almost all of the time they are incredibly precise and can pinpoint the exact year.

if you have something that is correct 90 percent of the time, it is safe to assume that the results you get from studying older rocks and trees will at least come out accurate 90 percent of the time. If it is accurate in most cases, chances are it will be accurate in most cases continuously

Flood

This was a hypothetical stance. I did say "if" there was a flood. The one thing most cultures this old share in common is a flood myth. The issue is that for the bible to be accurate the flood would have had to have happened around 1,900 BC. This is one hundred years after the earliest recording of it. Meaning even if there was a flood, the bible has it dated at the wrong time, thus rendering it not accurate

Fossils

There are inconsistencies in how the fossils should be laid out if there was a flood. Meaning if there was a flood they would have tried to swim upward and would have shown (x) pattern. When in reality they are showing (y) pattern and no signs of trying to escape a global food. That is the essential point

This was almost entirely dropped due to my adversary not understanding the contention.


Conclusion

I have shown multiple ways in which the bible is not accurate, nor can ever be accurate. Most of my contentions my adversary dropped or did not address. I addressed all of her rebuttals and showed how and why the bible is not accurate. The most logical conclusion is that it is not infallible





[1] http://www.tektonics.org...
GodChoosesLife

Pro

Thank you for an interesting debate. Learned from your view. But I fail to see how I dropped your cases when I simply asked questions regarding them. Not sure how that is a drop? But alright. Fair enough, I suppose.

Furthermore, I will keep this short, my opponent suggests that I have not proven that the Bible is accurate history and is factual. But my opponent also used things to tried to make points not realizing that some fell under contradiction. Anyways, I have made my points above in showing that Jesus existed and the Bible is accurately factual history.

Best wishes to my opponent! (sorry wasn't really prepared well for this round).
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Buggie111 2 years ago
Buggie111
GodChoosesLife, out of curiosity, how would you account for differences between the Young Earth date of 4000 BC and the Byzantine date of 5509 BC?
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
LOL, the Life I speak of is not a physical life.. Its the Spiritual Life that's why my username says, "GodChoosesLife" or we'd all be sent to hell without any hope at all..

But to answer your question, friend, I either am gonna guess you have experienced this in your life somewhere or you know someone else who has, and believe me you wouldn't be the only one.. My Mother had a miscarriage once with #16.. Yes it hurt and was saddening, but I understood as well as my family understood that God permits things to happen for a purpose.. He did not "abort" the child as you somewhat suggest or question. It usually comes with situated things that go on in a woman's life such as stress or something that isn't good. In my Mom's case, she was overly stressed and stress can cause that to happen. God does not cause a woman to stress, that is by her own choice. It is up to her to trust in Him or try to take things into her own hands. Hope this answers your question. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask :)
Posted by GenesisProject 2 years ago
GenesisProject
If god chooses life, then why does god do so may abortions? Every miscarriage is an abortion by god.
Posted by TheWoodOre 2 years ago
TheWoodOre
Obviously the Bible in not accurate. It's been through so many different scholars that knew nothing but were trying to add verses in, and burned pages being re-made ETC.
Posted by thesupporter 2 years ago
thesupporter
There is a historical record of these events the bible so con you just contradicted yourself
Posted by HostileBelief 2 years ago
HostileBelief
I've loving the graphic in your debate Mikal! :) Good Way to get visually learning voters!
Posted by birdlandmemories 2 years ago
birdlandmemories
Hey Dukej, why don't you stop the votebombing already? This is now the 11th time you've done this!
Posted by GodChoosesLife 2 years ago
GodChoosesLife
I think I'm confused?,,.. How exactly did I "drop" the cases mikal gave??
Posted by DudeStop 2 years ago
DudeStop
Lol
Posted by CrazyCowMan 3 years ago
CrazyCowMan
Damn, wish i was debating as con. I wonder what Pro will say for round 2?
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 2 years ago
BennyW
MikalGodChoosesLifeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented the case well even though he did sort of move the goal posts at one point but ultimately pro-didn't do the best job of refuting the points.
Vote Placed by Jonbonbon 2 years ago
Jonbonbon
MikalGodChoosesLifeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Cons arguments went almost completely un refuted in the final round and was better supported by evidence than pro.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
MikalGodChoosesLifeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted Con's contention about thee not being secular sources to confirm Jesus' works. It seemed Con wanted Pro to prove every single thing Jesus ever did, which even as a writer of the Bible pointed out, there's not enough room in all the books of the world for! Convincing arguments to Con because Pro dropped too many important points.
Vote Placed by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
MikalGodChoosesLifeTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't like this resolution to start with. To have documents that old that are written down from extremely old oral traditions ( especially the Old Testament), you should expect myth to be mixed in with fact and several inaccuracies to exist. It wasn't much of a debate Con had easy points to prove and successfully did so. Good luck to both of you in future debates.