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

The bible is true

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,330 times Debate No: 40497
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I belive in God. Please prove to me he is not real.
Also the Con must prove evolution correct. They must tell us why and how we evolved from monkeys.


I accept the challenge and thank Biblebible for starting this interesting debate.

I will argue that the Bible is partially false as it contains false prophecies, errors and contradictions. I take it that Pro considers the Bible to be completely true and the word of God.

I shall use this round as an acceptance round but also to raise some objections on Pro's opening statement which seems irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Pro demands, "I belive[sic] in God. Please prove to me he is not real."

Response: Pro is asking his opponent to prove a negative and that violates the principle of the burden of proof. If Pro believes that X is true, then it is Pro who should prove that X is true and not Con to prove that Not X is true. Otherwise, I would get away with asking people to disprove the existence of a multi-coloured jewel in the Earth's crust that would emit a beautiful melody if put it in your mouth, since that is impossible to disprove unless there is some technology which allows us to observe every rock in the Earth's crust.

Pro demands, "Also the Con must prove evolution correct. They must tell us why and how we evolved from monkeys."

Response: This is a side-discussion as many people accept evolution and yet believe in the Bible. But since Pro demanded it, I'm going to argue that we evolved from apes. By "monkeys", I take it that Pro means "apes" and not the modern-day monkeys which no evolutionist believes we evolved from.

In summary, this round was simply an acceptance round with a few objections on Pro's opening statement. I shall present my arguments and rebuttals in the next round.
Debate Round No. 1


No worries, post your argument :) I'll try to defend the bible. Remember, actual evidence is required. I'm not sure if you can actually prove evolution for example. Sorry for saying we evolved from monkeys, I was tired that night and didn't exactly think about what I was saying before I said it... lol, again sorry.

Go for it.



Pro says in his topic "The bible is true."

According to the Burden of Proof, the default position on the issue is "indecision about the Bible's truthfulness." Pro has to present evidence and arguments for his claim, otherwise he would lose the debate.

Pro says, "No worries, post your argument :) I'll try to defend the bible."

Rebuttal: Pro's role here is not just to defend the bible from any errors/contradictions. It is to establish with conclusive evidence that the Bible is completely true. Until Pro does that, the best he could achieve is to establish the default position which goes against his acclaimed position. In other words, he would establish "indecision about the Bible's truthfulness" instead of "the bible is true" if he only refuted the biblical errors I presented


Bible: New and Old Testament.

Bible is true: Bible is the word of God and inerrant.


E-1.1- Tyre will be destroyed and never rebuilt again

Ezekiel 26:7-14 (ESV): "For thus says the Lord God: Behold, I will bring against Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar[a] king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a host of many soldiers. 8 He will kill with the sword your daughters on the mainland. He will set up a siege wall against you and throw up a mound against you, and raise a roof of shields against you. 9 He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers. 10 His horses will be so many that their dust will cover you. Your walls will shake at the noise of the horsemen and wagons and chariots, when he enters your gates as men enter a city that has been breached. 11 With the hoofs of his horses he will trample all your streets. He will kill your people with the sword, and your mighty pillars will fall to the ground. 12 They will plunder your riches and loot your merchandise. They will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses. Your stones and timber and soil they will cast into the midst of the waters. 13 And I will stop the music of your songs, and the sound of your lyres shall be heard no more. 14 I will make you a bare rock.You shall be a place for the spreading of nets. You shall never be rebuilt, for I am the Lord; I have spoken, declares the Lord God."

1- Historically debunked. The Biblical God's prophecy is wrong as Tyre was not invaded or destroyed to become a bare rock by Nebuchadnezzar. The New Encyclopedia Britannica 1978 states: "In 585-573 (B.C.) [Tyre] successfully withstood a prolonged siege by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar II." If Tyre withstood the siege, then it is reasonable to assume that mighty pillars and towers were not all destroyed, that the streets of Tyre were never conquered and that its people were not massacred and looted under Nebuchadnezzar's attack as the biblical verse states.

2- Tyre will never be rebuilt again after Nebuchadnezzar's attack, really? As a Lebanese resident, I was walking yesterday in the location that biblical verse described permanently destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, observing the historic towers still standing and enjoying the vibrant, touristic island which is connected to the the whole town of Tyre thanks to Alexander the great[Diagram below from NAT GEO].

It's impossible for me to draw exactly the borders of the ancient Island of Tyre as the geography changed, so I'm going to display a red area that encompasses the modern-day region roughly.

As we can see clearly, most of the Island of Tyre has been rebuilt and now has modern houses, schools and universities.

Summary: The Bible committed an error in saying that the Lord God promises that the Nebuchadnezzar's attack would destroy Tyre permanently, as the attack was unsuccessful and nothing more than a temporary siege and because Tyre's Island stands today as a populated town.

E-1.2 God's name "Yahweh" was or wasn't known to Abraham

Exodus 6:3(ESV): "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them."

This verse clearly states that God appeared to Abraham and others but didn't make himself known to them by his name "Yahweh".

In contradiction with an earlier verse...

Genesis 15:7(ESV): 'And he said to him [Abraham], "I am Yahweh who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess."'

Summary: One verse says the Lord God saying that he didn't make himself known to Abraham using his name "Yahweh" while an earlier account in genesis proves otherwise.

E-1.3- Contradictory accounts on King Josiah's death

Kings 23:29-30(ESV): "In his days Pharaoh Neco king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him, and Pharaoh Neco killed him at Megiddo, as soon as he saw him. And his servants carried him dead in a chariot from Megiddo and brought him to Jerusalem and buried him in his own tomb. And the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and anointed him, and made him king in his father's place."

This verse clearly states that King Josiah was killed instantly and carried dead.

In contradiction with...

2 Chronicles 35:23-24(ESV): "And the archers shot King Josiah. And the king said to his servants, "Take me away, for I am badly wounded." So his servants took him out of the chariot and carried him in his second chariot and brought him to Jerusalem. And he died and was buried in the tombs of his fathers. All Judah and Jerusalem mourned for Josiah."

This suggests that he was carried to his chariot while wounded while the previous verse clearly says that he was carried to his chariot after being instantly killed. It can be also argued that the second verse says he died in Jerusalem as opposed to Megiddo, as can be deduced from a different translation of the verse.

2 Chronicles 35:24(NIV): "So they took him out of his chariot, put him in the other chariot he had and brought him to Jerusalem, where he died. He was buried in the tombs of his fathers, and all Judah and Jerusalem mourned for him."

Summary: There are at least two contradictory accounts of King's Josiah's death.

E-1.4 Plants created before the sun and the moon.

Genesis 1:11(ESV): 'And God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth." And it was so.'

We are told here that God created vegetation, plants yielding seeds and fruit trees that bear fruits. Then we are told that the sun was created later...

Genesis 1:14-16(ESV): 'And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night. And let them be for signs and for seasons, and for days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. And God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.'

The sun actually formed about 4.5 billion years ago, whereas "land plants" arose about 450 million years ago. One has to believe that land plants survived for almost 4 Billion years without light, even when their creation without light doesn't make any sense to begin with, not to mention that an omniscient God wouldn't have made such a silly mistake.

Summary: First it is historically erroneous as we know that the sun comes before the plants by billions of years, then it is logically erroneous as an omniscient God is supposed to create the sun before the plants and finally it is scientifically erroneous as land plants can't bear fruits and survive without light.



I'll offer my case for evolution (which is a side-discussion) in the next round as I'm quite short on character-limit to present my full case.

In this round, I have made it clear to Pro that according to the BoP, he should make a case and not just defend the Bible from errors/contradictions. Moreover, I have argued for my case that the Bible is partially false by showing false prophecies and major errors conveyed by the Biblical verses. I expect effective refutations of those to consider them settled as opposed to simply giving back-flipping apologetic with no evidence, provided that baseless apologetic is not suffice to disprove what the verses clearly say.

I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 2


Biblebible forfeited this round.


I was supposed to present my case for evolution, but it doesn't make sense to present it if Pro is not here, given that it is not related to the topic but a side-discussion.

I extend my points.
Debate Round No. 3


Biblebible forfeited this round.


I extend my points...
Debate Round No. 4


Biblebible forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by mwintellect 5 years ago
1. It's logically impossible to prove that God does not exist.
2. Even if evolution was true, it wouldn't rule out the possibility of God existing? Evolution is not an origin-of-the-universe theory, but a theory on how life originated. God can theoretically use evolution to bring about human life. They're not mutually exclusive concepts.
Posted by Jakeross6 5 years ago
I hope Pro Doesn't forfeit.
Posted by sadashivan 5 years ago
God is what we do not know yet with us. To me God is energy which reacts with our Mind. Or finally it is environment in negative or positive form that entices all living creatures to behave accordingly.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SimpleObserverofThings 5 years ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited his rounds so by default, and outstanding argument for the refutation of the bible, the debate in my opinion goes to NiqashMotawadi3.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 5 years ago
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.