The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

The texts of the bible are historically unreliable

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/2/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 64365
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)




The texts of the bible have NOT been preserved in their original form. Such a currupted book cannot provide us with any reliable information on the historicity of Jesus, leave alone spiritual guidance.

For my argument I will be using examples from the available manuscript traditions of the bible, highlighting the irreconcilable variations between them, and examples of additions and deletions to suit different christologies at different times.


At least bring out your evidence first and get ready for showdown1.
Debate Round No. 1


One can believe whatever one wants. However, when we are in an academic discussion, beliefs don’t count. Only hard evidence counts.

When we consider the new testament, we have scores of manuscripts. However, no two manuscripts are identical. There are variations. Scholars like Bart Ehrman say there are more variations in the manuscripts than there are words in the new testament.

A majority of these variations don’t really affect the overall message of the bible. However, there are many variations that are quite serious.

Let me present three such cases.

Case no.1: This is famously called the Johannine Comma by the textual critics. The reference is 1 John 5: 7-8. The verse reads: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This verse is still extant in many of the modern bibles. But scholars agree that this verse is an interpolation that entered the Greek bible as late as 1522. When you go back to the most ancient manuscripts available, this verse is not to be found there.

Why was this verse inserted? Because the proof for trinity in the bible is weak without it. This is the clearest verse explaining the concept of trinity.

Case no. 2: Gospel of John, 7:53 – 8:11. This is the famous story of Jesus saving the adulteress. Here Jesus saves an adulteress from being stoned in contradiction to the Mosaic Law which he was following. This parable is not found in any of the 3rd or 4th century manuscripts. Leading bible authorities like Bruce Metzger have strongly argued that it was a later addition.

Case no. 3: The strange ending of Mark. Mark 16:9-19. This is a long passage that talks about Jesus’ resurrection. Without these verses Mark would end very abruptly , without Jesus appearing to Mary Magdalene and later to his disciples etc. These is a very crucial event for Christianity, but none of the oldest manuscripts available today relate them.

In conclusion, I would like to say that there is indisputable proof (many more than just these three cases) to show that the original books of the new testament have undergone massive editions in later periods, and with no two manuscripts agreeing with each other, sifting out the corruptions is impossible.

One might ask then, how were the corruptions cited above found out? Well these have been identified as corruption only in relation to manuscripts dating from the 3rd and 4th centuries. As we don’t have any manuscript of significant size dating farther back, it’s impossible to say how different these so called most ancient manuscripts differ from the original text.

One more peculiarity between the manuscripts is that the older the manuscripts, the more chaotic the variations. This shows that the ancient scribes were less professional than later ones. However, the ancient manuscripts are more crucial to us in identifying authentic texts than later ones.

Secondly, even between the most ancient manuscripts there are serious variations. Between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, there are huge differences, which are hard to reconcile. At best, bible scholars can only speculate as to which of the verses in these and other manuscripts are more loyal to the original… but to get certainty is impossible.

One more point to note is that here we are not dealing with differences in translations between different bibles that are current today. Among the different bible translations, there are many bibles that still contain these corruptions stated in the three cases above. Some bibles have removed some of them and retained some of them.

Therefore, the translations are never an accurate depiction of the original manuscripts (SORRY, not original, because the originals are lost, we only have copies - several generations later - of the originals).

Let me sum up my case to help Con:

If we don’t have the original manuscripts of the biblical texts, and all we have are copies from centuries later, with massive variations between them, how are we to know which of those variants are at least close, if not exact, to the original?



First! l want to congratulate Pro for been a very wise man for unlocking the secrets hidden from us since history, and secondly for bringing up a topic here on debate org, that most people tend to shy away from or be very timid about it especially the white race!

l have reason to believe and agree with pro to some point in the possibility some irregularities might or might not exist in the bible! Why l say this is because,god is greater than humans,people might make up what god said!@But at the end of the day he exactly knows what's taking place,its not like his blind to it.No matter how much distortions in the bible they might be.He himself has warned us about the deceiver of human kind! People remember this the foolishness of god is wiser than human wisdom.

Now back to the Debate.Pro states that we don't have the original manuscripts but what we have now is copies from modern history. l hate to beat about the bush and will get straight to my point.

l'm not enemies of the white people nor do l hate them. l'm just their worst nightmare! lf you go through my previous debates l lost ten nil because l tell of the truth. lt seems the more they vote against me,the more they realize damning truth about their history which hurts them so much! l pity those who receive the truth and still live in illusions.!

l chose to debate Pro,because l have debated hot related topics in connection with the bible! ln one of my debates l talked about how the white people changed the characters of most religious figures like Jesus Abraham and the prophets on pure greed, for the purpose of whitification of all good things to make white man superior to all races,and this is what has led to the present day where the whites are the most powerful and dominating race!!! is not the bible only that has been modernised from the old manuscripts to recent manufactured century old manuscript!
The image of Jesus of a white man is indeed a fake painted in the 1400's by Micheal Angelo's.The ancient pictures of Jesus which date back 2000 years ago shows Jesus as a black man,and a black virgin Mary!

2...The Israelites and Jews of today are not the biblical Israelites! The real Jews and Israelites are of African origin!

3... God commanded us to keep the Sabbath day holy !We all know the Sabbath day is Saturday,but the biggest church in the world The Roman Catholic changed it to Sunday(spooky) .

4...Now Pro claims the bible is not in its original manuscripts.

All the points l pointed out above were done for one simple reason! Which is to promote white race superiority on the earth!
Whites have successfully deceived the world.Changed Jesus From black to white!lf you go to egypt for example, most of the ancient artifacts there have their noses removed if you notice, to hide the black man! The Sphinx for example,shows the body of a lion and a head of a black man,but with its nose removed by the white man in order to make the white man great!

Did you know that black man once ruled the world! Did you know the black man built the pyramids of Giza.And did you know that Jesus himself was black! l guess you didn't know this shocking truth,and probably think l'm lying or l am crazy! But the fact is the devil has successfully deceived you! He has successfully deceived you into his trap!

For white man to successfully conquer the world.He had to do one thing for sure!' Change everything to white! Jesus to white !The bible to white>the Jews to white! Everything invented,everything good to white and to make Africans as if they have been forever dumb, uncivilised monkeys,a bunch of dumb sacks '!

This is what the white man did! Which leaves us with many questions unanswered today about the reliability of the bible and about our history in particular! The real history has been distorted at the expense of other races! To prove what l'm saying true,,,Most of you white peeps are wealthy. Less than a percent of your white race is poor! Because old manuscripts was changed by the whiteman for the good the white race and their generations of children to come!Which is good for the white people now! But God promises a day will come when the deceiver of the human race will be cast out forever!

That's is why l always want to warn white people about the events coming! The bible clearly is talking to white people to repent...Whites are the biblical lost sheep ,and so are the negros the biblical Israelites! Read about America in revelations! Like in the days of Noah so shall be the last days!
Debate Round No. 2


I am hugely disappointed by whitesworstnightmare's response. It does not even attempt superfically to address any of my points. I was looking for a serious debate where we would be quoting textual critics and old manuscripts. Instead what i find is an outpouring of racial hatred. If somebody were to read whitesworstnightmare's post separately, it would sound like the debate topic is something like "Whites or Blacks, who is superior?"

If this is the standard or argumentation, then I don't wish to waste my time any more on this debate. Let's discuss manuscript evidence, let's discuss views of textual critics. In fact the theories put forth in the argument such as Jesus is a black is only laughable. (I AM NOT A WHITE MAN BY THE WAY). I don't agree with the theoy because it's so unsubstantiated historically.

So, if whitesworstnightmare wishes to continue this debate, let him/her stay relevant to the topic. Otherwise, I would like to thank the person for accepting the debate and end it right here.


lf you unable to continue because l speak of the truth its fine by me...lf the truth is whites tempered with manuscripts does it make me a racist or showing hatred! NO! My opponent is a coward l'm not afraid to point out evil committed by any race.
Debate Round No. 3


Valiya forfeited this round.


My opponent doesn't have balls!
Debate Round No. 4


Valiya forfeited this round.


whitesworstnightmare forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Rwicks 1 year ago
The problem is you are saying that the Bible is one text, when it is not. It's a collection of more than 50 different texts. When asking if a text is reliable or not, historians ask how far apart in time it was written from the events it describes. The Torah was written thousands of years later. The Gospels 40-120 years after Jesus (Ask your grandparents about the lives of their grand parents. Chances are they'll get some stuff right and some stuff wrong.) The writings of Paul are considered very reliable in historical research (once you account for bias) and are primary sources. Genesis? Not so much.
Posted by LubricantSanta 1 year ago
Valiya, it really doesn't. Translations differ a bit, but that doesn't change the historical value of the original text. Also, I hope the con brings up how many outside sources throughout history support biblical events. :D
Posted by Valiya 1 year ago
In fact the very idea of different versions of the bible is a good enough reason to start this debate. To put Notyourbusiness' concerns to rest, Con may use any version of the bible he/she is comfortable with. When we get into the debate you will understand that the version of the bible really is not a big deal.
Posted by notyourbusiness 1 year ago
Firstly, it has not been stated which version of the Bible you are using. This alone will be giving Con a serious disadvantage. Secondly, while the Bible does record historic events, it is not meant to be used as a history book...
Posted by cheyennebodie 1 year ago
Then you have a mission. Put together a reliable manuscript that we can rely on. Don't just condemn others for trying.
No votes have been placed for this debate.