The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
LostintheEcho1498
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

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 1 vote the winner is...
LostintheEcho1498
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 493 times Debate No: 58373
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the story of noah and the references from those in the NTestament add to discrediting the bible

here is the text,which argues the flood was world wide, and wiped out every creature alive that was not on the boat.

"The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org...

Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
see also Luke 17:26

clearly, the scientific evidence indicates the flood being global and killing all the animals, was false.

the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting.

------------

more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7)

""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you.

"because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

"5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

"7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

To start, I will simply assume the structure is go until one gives in or until the end. I hope for a healthy debate here:)

First off, I do not see how it discredits the bible. It is wholly possible that a flood of that magnitude is possible and that it happened. Personally, I find it helps us understand the separation of Pangaea. Back on topic, the versus you give us do little to no discredit the Bible. First example:
"The clearest verses that show the extent of the flood are Genesis 7:19-23. Regarding the waters, "They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than twenty feet. Every living thing that moved on the earth perished"birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; men and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds of the air were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."
This is just saying what it says in the OT.
"Matthew 24:37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."
Here it says that the days of man will be like unto Noah's. I certainly cannot disagree as this sounds eerily familiar to today.
"see also Luke 17:26"
Well, here it is:And as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man." Sounds like a repeat of Matthew.
"the best a person could argue, is that the story was a myth. and the people of hte new testament didn't necessarily say that it was true that it was a global flood, and that animals were all killed. but they did, however, give credence to the story of noah, a story that is basically a myth. even if the flood wasn't worldwide, it is still said to be in the OTestament. that alone is discrediting."
All I have to say here is challenge accepted. I will debate that Noah and the flood does not discredit the Bible and is not a myth.
"more reference to noah in the bible: (Isaiah 54:9; 1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5; Hebrews 11:7)

""This is like the days of Noah to me: as I swore that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth, so I have sworn that I will not be angry with you, and will not rebuke you.

"because they formerly did not obey, when God"s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.

"5 if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;"

"7 By faith Noah, being warned by God concerning events as yet unseen, in reverent fear constructed an ark for the saving of his household. By this he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith."
I will start with the first.
1.God is saying he will not be angry or rebuke like with the flood.
2.God waited for Noah to build the ark and only 8 were saved from Noah's day.
3.Again, God saved only Noah and his kin but destroyed the ungodly.
4.Noah was told to build an ark, and so he built it. He did this to save his household(family) and so the rest of the world was condemned and Noah was the symbol of righteousness.
So far, I have not seen any condemning evidence that says anything to degrade or discredit the Bible.
Over to you Pro!
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

" It is wholly possible that a flood of that magnitude is possible and that it happened. Personally, I find it helps us understand the separation of Pangaea"

first, con must be arguing that a truly literal world wide flood was possible and that it happened. this flies in the face of science, mentioned later.

next con argues about tying the flood to pangea. i have no idea why con makes this connection. pangaea was a continent billions of years ago, and has no bearing on the flood of noah. even if there was a tie to continental drift, this hasn't been shown, and it's improper to say it's tied to pangaea.

con seems to be content ignoring scientific evidence in his arguments. but here's some

"The key tenets of flood geology are refuted by scientific analysis and do not have any standing in the scientific community.[16][84][85][86][87]"

for more on the lack of evidence, see
http://en.wikipedia.org...

con simply tries to argue that it would be permissible for God to wipe out mankind, and that we shouldn't judge the situation by what we might perceive as overkill and genocide. i do take issue with this, but the main points given pro's assertions are that teh flood didn't happen like it looks to eb said to ahve occurred, and that alone is discrediting.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

To start, I am going to use the very source that you did. It says,
"Proponents of Flood Geology state that "native global flood stories are documented as history or legend in almost every region on earth". "These flood tales are frequently linked by common elements that parallel the biblical account including the warning of the coming flood, the construction of a boat in advance, the storage of animals, the inclusion of family, and the release of birds to determine if the water level had subsided." They suggest that "the overwhelming consistency among flood legends found in distant parts of the globe indicates they were derived from the same origin, but oral transcription has changed the details through time."
So, the very source you said was to prove me wrong is saying the opposite. Also, this is Wikipedia and so cannot be used as a reliable source. As for what I was saying about Pangaea was my personal opinion on one of the reasons why Pangaea was split apart and was simply a tangent.
So to conclude, the Pro has still not fulfilled the burden of proof and has used an unreliable source that is contradicting in itself. So far, nothing concrete.
Over to you Pro!
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the earliest known references to a flood event came from pagan religions. we have no reason to think it was noah. i'm sure there's tons of scienitific impossiblities that would have prevented a flood in that middle easetern region anyway. lack of geology evidence, water that would escape before bein built up like that, especially to the tops of moutains like the bible and folk lore say.

the wiki link has plenty of outside verifiable sources in it about the science. that is a cop out argument by con. wiki isn't always eligable, but it's always verifiable. and it actually is usually reliable.

con simply gives up on arguing his main point, that we should expect GOd to have wiped out mankind and animal kind like hte did. i do still contest that he would do that genocide, but it's above my pay grade to say.

con also simply gives up on the point that a world wide flood would have occurred. he actually has teh audacity to think that it really did happen that way. the least someone could do is try to rationlize it or limited the scope. the wiki link though, shows plenty of proof that a world wide flood did not occur. there would be geology evidence, etc. plus it would be next to impossibe to literalget two of every creature on the earth.

i might suspect that con is still developing into a realistic world view, as he needs to break off those shackles of mythology but doesn't seem ready to do it. at least the mythology of a truly literally world wide flood. maybe it's cognitive dissonance or something. i must suppoose he is still developing, because it wouldn't be realistic to give any serious conideration at all to the extent of the ideas he's suporting.
LostintheEcho1498

Con

I am going to begin this and end this succinctly and I hope to keep this to the point.
1. There is always a possibility for anything. A flood covering the world really is not that big of a leap to take considering that we can look out in the universe and see holes that literally suck in all light.
2. The topic here is debating whether or not Noah and the flood discredit the Bible. Quite plainly, I have seen nothing to the contrary here. If a flood is possible of that magnitude then how would it discredit the Bible?
3. This is the answer to your problem with the flood being how can God kill all those people is this. Noah went around and preached, asked people to repent, and nobody did. Then he said if you simply get in the boat you will live and nobody did. Then the flood came, and they were drowned because of there own stubbornness.
As for the debate, thanks for a good topic!
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 2 years ago
frozen_eclipse
I argree...the story of noah was symbolic. Did'nt really happen like most things
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
dairygirl4u2cLostintheEcho1498Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con