The Instigator
Mikal
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
marathonmalachi
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points

The bible is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 7/16/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 839 times Debate No: 35653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (4)

 

Mikal

Con

The first thing that the person taking the pro argument must acknowledge, is that if he admits the bible is true it is infallible. At that point he must be aware he can not pick and choose points within the bible, but that the bible is true as a whole. He will then provide evidence as to how history supports the bible and the stories within it. I in turn will offer rebuttals and provide my own points as to how history does not support the bible and how historical evidence does not support it.

1. The first Round is accepting the debate and acknowledging the aforementioned terms.

2. The second round I will start by establishing why i believe history does not support the bible. I will provide points as to why i believe this, and provide evidence and invoke stories within he bible to support my point of view.

for the pro, he may offer rebuttals to my point, and in turn establish his own points as to why history does support the bible.

3. The third round i will offer rebuttals in response to my opponents answers and also further revise and solidify my points. I then will offer a conclusion

the same will go for my opponent he will then offer more rebuttals and solidify his points. Then he will state a conclusion.

Voters will the vote based off of who has made the better argument, and whether history supports the bible or does not. They will determine from our arguments whether or not they believe the bible and the stories within it are in deed true
marathonmalachi

Pro

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Mikal

Con

Actually my opening response will be very short and simple and i will offer a rebuttal in my closing statement to any argument my opponent offers in his next turn.

The first and centralized point in which I will use is there is no evidence to support the claims within the bible. I will primarily focus on miracles. How do we know about the past? We know about the past because people wrote about it. We know the Romans existed, the Mayans were a culture, and that the Napoleon was a master tactician because people would write about it. Also I may add it was not just one person writing about all of these things, it was in fact multiple sources and many authors. So logically we can conclude that they are historically accurate. So let us take the miracles of Christ. If in fact the bible is true and is historically accurate do you not think someone would have recorded the miracles of Christ? I mean this in regards to an outside source, not the sources within the bible because then we are operating under the assumption that the bible in the bible were real. I will ask my opponent to prove me wrong and provide sources or some evidence that the Miracles that Christ claimed to do is true. If you can provide at least 3 outside philosophers or historians in that time period who wrote about the miracles he claimed to do, you will surely press me into a corner and make this debate immensely hard. Because surely if historians in that time period took the time to write about wars, if someone were raising the dead and healing the blind there would be multiple sources to confirm it.

I now hand the floor back to my opponent and eagerly await his response.
marathonmalachi

Pro

"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

These are the words of Flavius Josephus. It should be pointed out that when he wrote this, he was writing for the Romans. Unless he was absolutely sure of the fact that this had happened he would not have recorded it. We can therefore assume that he whole-heatedly believed what he said.

"Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . . Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome."

This was written by Tacitus. Now, even though this does not refer to his miracles. We know that these stories were widespread by what he said about the superstition spreading to Rome.

I do not believe a third reference would be helpful because I am afraid that it is a little too obscure. The way these historian write about Jesus we can assume that the stories of his miracles and resurrection were widespread at the time as they do not feel the need to go into any details about the superstitions according to Tacitus.
Debate Round No. 2
Mikal

Con

My opponent accepted the challenge and took the move that I expected him to take. He has claimed that Josephus is a credible source to support the bible. Let us take a look at this claim. Josephus has been ruled as a non acceptable source by a vast majority of historians.

I will go into one incident that he wrote about to give credibility to this statement. Josephus wrote of the tragedy of Masada. Masada is best known as the place where 960 Jewish fighters took refuge after the fall of Jerusalem, only to commit mass suicide in A.D. 74. When they realized the Roman Tenth Legion would finally break through their defenses, they chose to die by their own hands as “free people” rather than be enslaved. However archaeological evidence shows us the different. It showed us vast evidence that the people within those fought to stay alive, ruling Josephus as a non credible source.


If the bible is true also it would have to hold up to the claims of Christ, miracles, and genocides. None of which have been recorded except by people within the bible itself. It also contradicts science. It states that humans were made as is, and not from evolution. Through vast studies and experiments, evolution has been accepted as the leading theory as to how we came to be , even the catholic church accepts this. The most solid argument you could present for this is admitting that the stories within it are false and should be construed as metaphors. The bible itself is at odds with history and is backed my minimal to no archaeological or historical evidence

Even the story of the flood does not make sense. The flood almost word for word was portrayed in the epic of Gilgamesh. This novel was written in Mesopotamia, which predated the Hebrews. How ironic is it that a story that predates the bible shows up within the bible with new elements added to it. It is a far more viable assumption to believe that some of the people who wrote the bible, attained that story from the ancient novel. Include that fact that the story of osiris shares so many similarities with the story of Christ that it is mind blowing I think we can see a trend. The story of Osiris again predates the bible and had the chance to influence it.

I urge anyone who is reading this to assume the most rational conclusion. Acknowledge that the bible does not line up with history, is not supported by any evidence, and claims miracles that were never recorded. We can assume the most logical explanation, and that is the Bible is false






http://www.pbs.org...

http://www.pbs.org...;

http://www.egyptartsite.com...

http://www.icr.org...; ------ Anyone reading this argument look at the comparsion to the bible it will shock you.
marathonmalachi

Pro

The account of Masada was one that Josephus could not have witnessed, for obvious reasons. This means that he relied on the word of those who had been there or heard from the survivors. The survivors of this could easily have created the story to make their people look brave. The miracles of Christ though, including the resurrection, he could have witnessed first hand in Jeruselam.

Evolution cannot be trusted because it is not even a scientific law. It is a hypothesis that rests at the bottom I'm the entire scientific method. To become a scientific law it should be tested and proven through years of experiments that prove it. Sadly, there are few experiments for things that happened thousands of years ago, much less the millions that evolution claims. Evolution is a larger idea of natural selection, though the two are not the same. In natural selection, a certain trait is picked from a set of genes that are already within the creature. Evolution calls for the creation of new genes.

As far as experiments on evolution, such as Miller's experiment, they could never have worked outside of a laboratory. Miller had to keep oxygen away from the amino acids or it would kill them instantly. Yet without oxygen the sun's harsh rays would destroy them.

The idea of something from nothing is a contradiction. There is no naturally occurring evolution happening now. If the theory of evolution were true we could expect chemicals in nature to form organic life. Evolution is a hypothesis that is based as much on faith as facts. I cannot find the book, but I have a book in which an evolutionist that is well respected says that the chances of true evolution being true are 1 in 10 to the sixty-fifth power.

I have read the Epic of Gilgamesh three times before. I don't know much about the dating, but I do no that there are few similarities between it and the Bible. In it there are more than one God. These gods send a flood because the clamor of mankind is loud. Basically they are annoyed with the noise. Utnaptishm builds a square boat that would be much less likely to float. In the Epic Utnaptishm was allowed to escape with more than his family. He had a few friends with him. He was allowed to survive because he had been good, though he did not have a personal relationship with the gods as Noah did with God.

That is the key difference between the Bile and pagan stories. In these stories the men that do these things and serve the gods do not have a personal relationship with these gods. They are simply slaves to satisfy the gods until they decide they don't want them anymore. The Bible stands out from these in that, God wants a personal relationship with all mankind. He promises those who will have that relationship eternal bliss. All the ancient myths avoid going anywhere near this. Out of all these pagan stories, the Bible alone has a ring of truth to it. Jesus said in John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free."
Thanks for a great first debate.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by marathonmalachi 3 years ago
marathonmalachi
Thanks... You definitely deserve a much more advanced opponent.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
You did great lol. I think these topics can be bias though. The david guy deducted points because I did not have sources and you did, where as I had 4. Its common but that is the only downfall of this site. As far as content you did good. I wish you would have tackled the issue with the dating of the flood, as the other person pointed out as well.

all in all good debate
Posted by marathonmalachi 3 years ago
marathonmalachi
Was it okay for my first debate?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
That is true, but I was posting this assuming that they would by default have to take that stand. Other wise it would be quirky
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
That is true, but I was posting this assuming that they would by default have to take that stand. Other wise it would be quirky
Posted by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
It seems interesting that you are wanting to tell PRO (who ends up with the BOP) what kind of position they should take.

The debate would be more balanced if you were to reword the debate so you could be PRO. Trying to find someone to debate your narrow definition might be difficult.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 3 years ago
Inductivelogic
MikalmarathonmalachiTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems as if some christians are bias lol. One previous voter stated that con had not sources when in he fact he was the only one with them. I believe this debate goes to Con. Pro offered to resolution to the questions Con raised in the last round. This was an advantage that pro had and should have taken advantage of. He never even addresses the dating of the epic con referred to or how it would or could have influenced the bible. Con wins due to pro not offering up any rebuttals to some points.
Vote Placed by davidtaylorjr 3 years ago
davidtaylorjr
MikalmarathonmalachiTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better arguments and sources. I don't recall sources from Con.
Vote Placed by ModusTollens 3 years ago
ModusTollens
MikalmarathonmalachiTied
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: Pro does not understand evolution on even a rudimentary level. S/he also rested their argument on the word of Josephus, who is a shaky resource at the very best. And Pro is very right to concede that Tacitus only claims that Christ was a historical figure, which Con can grant without conceding that what the Bible says about him is true.
Vote Placed by gordonjames 3 years ago
gordonjames
MikalmarathonmalachiTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate was set up awkwardly. PRO should have presented his position first if CON was going to refute it. CON presented first changing the debate to "there is no evidence to support the claims within the bible." from the opening of round 2. Since this was clearly stated there are no conduct points deducted. CON's main points seemed to be "similar stories from other cultures make the Bible less true" and "some doubt the accuracy of the Roman historian Josephus". Pro made the mistake of letting CON drive the debate (as in round 1 rules) and does not get points for argument(which would have been easy).