The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points
The Contender
Miserlou
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

the bible does not contridict its self

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,021 times Debate No: 1817
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (22)

 

firemonkey6775

Pro

The bible is 100% straight forward. there is no way to dissprove any part of it ever in any way and that is why it should be accepted
Miserlou

Con

A lot of the Bible does contradict itself, to claim that it is "100% Straight Forward" is absurd.

First off, to begin generally, there is the contradiction between the Old and New Testaments. Someone following the Old Testament will follow a much stricter set of laws then someone following the New Testament; for example Jews do not eat pork because the Old Testament forbids it, but the New Testament says that that's okay, so Christians do. Also God in the Old tends to stress the "eye for an eye" philosophy, delivering plagues on Egypt, prompting the Israelites to wipe out everyone in the promised land who wasn't a Jew and so on. Jesus on the other hand says "turn the other cheek" and stressed the opposite; while many of the Israelites wanted him to topple Rome he didn't and never intended to.

Also, most of the Bible isn't straight forward at all. A lot of the stories, especially Jesus's teachings are parables and open to interpretation. Take a story like Daniel in the lion's den. Some people will say that all of that God literally controlled the lions and saved him. Others will say that the story is metaphorical and that it teaches the same message but the events didn't really happen.

Many books of the Bible that set down laws, especially ones like Leviticus, are the most controversial. Some of these laws are outdated and unnecessary in our time (like passages that tell you how to treat your slaves). Are these meant to be taken literally or not?

Finally, a common argument regards translations. The Bible has been translated and transferred so many times that it's highly likely that portions of it's original form have been lost.

The Bible isn't necessarily wrong, but it is far from rock solid.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Pro

ok you are trying to debate two things at once here you are sayint that the church is wrong well yes its flawed its run by man everything man does is flawed on some level. next it is not the churches fault that its people did not learn to read and write we still had the same genes and were basically the same ok now we have had another couple hundred years to find things out yes we consider ourselves smarter yet we still deal with the same issues. Next we you say relgion is flawed are you saying relgions or christianity.
Miserlou

Con

"major oops on my part i posted the wrong argument that was for another one of my depates hope you arnt angry"

That's fine... I was pretty confused when I read it though. Let's just skip to the next round then?
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Pro

as said in one of the comments your pork argument is null and also i your argument about the old and new testement being diffrent is very true because jesus died there wich payed for sins and changed a lot of things because of the significants so your arguments are null
Miserlou

Con

"your pork argument is null"

How so? Anyone can say "no" to something, but you've got to explain. I was showing an example of two different sets of rules in the Bible.

"your argument about the old and new testement being diffrent is very true because jesus died there wich payed for sins and changed a lot of things because of the significants so your arguments are null"

You agree with me on a point and then just say that my arguments are wrong without any explanation as to why.

You had two points in your opening argument: one that the Bible doesn't contradict itself and another that it is "100% straight forward". The Bible contradicts itself in many ways, the Old and New Testaments being the most general example of this. The Old Testament contradicts itself, the most blatant examples are when God deems it okay or even tells the Israelites to kill people (for example, wiping the promised land clean of its inhabitants) but the Ten Commandments still say "Thou shalt not murder". And it isn't straight forward, actually most of it is pretty vague and open to so much interpretation, it's anything but straightforward. This is how my points earlier about translations come in; there is too much speculation about the Bible for it to be taken at face value.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
At first glance I thought I would be voting Con, but there was a lot of text with very little argument. I take offense to your argument that military action is murder. I am not certain where you are from, but wherever it is, any quality of life you enjoy is due to brave men dying, and yes killing on your behalf.
Posted by Soup 9 years ago
Soup
Well said mmadderom. The Old Testement and the New Testement work together. The Old Testement testifies of the happenings in the New Testement.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
mmadderom:

"You have to understand that the Bible isn't one book by one author. It is a compilation of 66 books written by 40 different authors."

Surely the point is that, even though the Bible has many fallible human authors, it is still guided by God, and so all of the Bible should be seen as God's word and, therefore, incorruptible.

"What was applicable in 8 A.D. isn't necessarily applicable in the year 2008, for example."

If by this you mean the laws in the Old Testament, I.E Leviticus and Exodus, Jesus stated in the New Testament several times that these laws still applied, for instance:

Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Jesus also follows through with this view, defending the practice of killing disobedient children, in Matthew 15:4-7 "He that curseth father or mother, let him be put to death."
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Let me go a little further with Derrida's question as I believe it's important.

You further have to recognize that the writers of the gospels almost certainly weren't eyewitnesses, but were writing down a story passed on to them by others.

The two women you reference are, to my knowledge, the only actual eyewitnesses to the occasion. Assume that they each told two people who told two people who told two people and so on, for two authors writing at completely different times, in completely different places, and under completely different circumstances to describe the same event in remarkably similar fashion with the only real differences being inconsequential details is incredible and SUPPORTS the main story rather than detract from it.

It's not like the author of Luke could google the writings of the author of Mark then make a few changes and submit it as his own. They almost certainly didn't know each other nor would they likely have been familiar with the others writings.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"http://www.infidels.org......

Enjoy..."

Worthless. Since it's compilation people have been finding seeming "contradictions" in the Bible. In order to contradict itself, the entire thing would have to be written by one person. It wasn't.

While this method works for the Quran because it's sole author was Mohammed and was comprised within a decade or so, it doesn't work for the Bible which has 40 authors and comprises 66 different books written over a couple of thousand years time frame. What was applicable in 8 A.D. isn't necessarily applicable in the year 2008, for example.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"I'd just like to give an example of what I think to be a Bible contradiction, and ask how you would go about answering it:"

Those are different tellings of a story. They aren't contradictions, they are different rememberances.

If you and I both view a crime from different angles and our subsequent recollections while giving police statements differ in detail but agree on the main premise are our statements contradictory?

To further expand, suppose there were two bandits robbing a store (the crime we both witnessed) but from your vantage point you only saw one of them while from mine I saw both. Does me claiming two invalidate your recollection, or vice versa? Of course not.

The entire reason for including all of the gospels in the Bible was to get ALL perspectives, not to try and validate one witnesses recollection.

You have to understand that the Bible isn't one book by one author. It is a compilation of 66 books written by 40 different authors.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
Sorry, the second verse is Mark 28:2-5.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
I'd just like to give an example of what I think to be a Bible contradiction, and ask how you would go about answering it:

Luke 24:4 "... suddenly two men with clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them."
When the women went to Jesus' tomb, they saw two angels standing.

"... for an angel of the Lord came down from Heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it."
When the women went to Jesus' tomb, they saw one angel sitting.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
The Bible does not contradict itself. Much of the Old Testament is a telling of history, not a guideline on how to live for all time. Jesus was a Jewish rabbi, he most certainly didn't preach ANYTHING in contradiction to Gods commandments from the Old Testament, instead he simplified them for greater understanding as time wore on.

Your pork eating example, for example. Pork was forbidden at the time as "unclean" because, well, it was. At the time there was no known way to ensure safely cooking pork for human consumption, hence people were warned away from it in the form of law. As time wore on, cooking methods improved, and a safe way to cook pork was found. This isn't a contradiction, it is simply evolution, and a telling of history. Many of the "laws" of the Old Testament were intended solely for that period of time, not for all time. "God" is credited with such "laws" simply because that was the authority of the time. I assure you God didn't personally command that nobody eat pork. Eating pork was found to be a risky proposition, hence it was assumed God didn't approve of it as those who did often got violently ill. When one considers the time frame, it's not at all unusual that this would be interpreted as a sign from God that pork is bad.

The Bible, unlike the Quran, wasn't intended to be a strict law book on how to live for all times. That would simply be impossible. That is what confuses people who like to take single passages from the Bible and claim they are contradictory of each other.
22 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by matthewleebrown14 8 years ago
matthewleebrown14
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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 
Vote Placed by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Lenfent 9 years ago
Lenfent
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by hark 9 years ago
hark
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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 
Vote Placed by kvaughan 9 years ago
kvaughan
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by jwebb893 9 years ago
jwebb893
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03 
Vote Placed by Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
firemonkey6775MiserlouTied
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:03