CreateDebate


Debate Info

55
204
Yes What are you smoking?!
Debate Score:259
Arguments:116
Total Votes:309
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (34)
 
 What are you smoking?! (82)

Debate Creator

Apollo(1608) pic



Is the bible factual evidence?

Many people, including and especiallySrom1.883 whatever that means  (1.883 presumably being his IQ), seem to believe that anything stated in the bible is fact:

"I do not state lies as evidence. I gave you evidence about the Bible and how Jesus existed. But you yourself are not getting the whole point. I said exactly the evidence and all you did was rejected it when it really was the truth. Sooner or later you will realize that what I said to you was truth but by then it would probably be too late for you." --srom

Now I am picking on srom, but this is a belief endemic to Christians. 

 

1) It contradicts itself.

2) Every bible story I can name of the top of my head is scientifically impossibe (Creationism, Noah's Ark, the birth of Jesus, Moses and the red sea, the plagues, adam and eve, etc.)

3) There is no evidence to back up most of th claims in the bible. 

4) The majority of its claims about Jesus are based on the interpreation of what may or may not have happended by five people who may or may not have existed that weren't even alive during Jesus's lifetime. How's that for evidence?

 

--Apollo

Yes

Side Score: 55
VS.

What are you smoking?!

Side Score: 204
5 points

I am going to prove that the Bible is factual evidence. I am using a book called The Complete Bible Answer Book by Hank Hanegraaff. I am using his book because he did his research and recorded it in this book. It will also help me and other Christians who have questions to look it up in the book and then see what the guy said. and they will look in that book. I am using his work because he explains it in detail. Please read all of what I said because this is evidence even tho it is long it is worth reading it because it shows proof that the Bible is factual evidence.

Does the gospel accounts contradict one another?

During a prime-time television special titled The Search for Jesus, Peter Jennings asserted that according to some scholars, "the New Testament has four different and sometimes contradictory versions of Jesus' life." The Jesus Seminar scholars Jennings referenced, however, are famous for an idiosyncratic brand of fundamentalism that supplants reason and evidential substance with rhetoric and emotional stereotypes. They have made a virtual art of form out of exploiting "discrepancies" in the secondary details of the Gospels.

One of the most frequently cited alleged contradictions involves the female discoverers of the empty tomb. According to Matthew, the discoverers were Mary Magdalene and another Mary(28:1); Mark says they were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome(16:1); Luke claims James, and others(24:10; and John focuses solely on Mary Magdalene (20:18)

In providing a defensible argument against such dogmatic assertions, it is first helpful to point out that the Gospels are complementary rather than contradictory. If John, in example cited above stipulated that Mary Magdalene was the only female to discover the empty tomb while the other gospels claimed that more than one women was involved, we wold be faced with an obvious contradiction. Instead, the complementary details provided by the four gospel writers simply serve to flesh out the rest of the story.

Furthermore, credible scholars look for a reliable core set of facts in order to validate historical accounts. In this case, liberal and conservative scholars alike agree that the body of Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. As a member of the Jewish court that convicted Jesus, Joseph is unlikely to be Christian fiction. Additionally, when we consider the role of women in first-century Jewish society, what is remarkable is that the empty tomb accounts would feature female as heroes of the story. This demonstrates that the gospel writers factually recorded what happened even if it was culturally embarrassing.

Finally, if each of the gospel writers presented secondary details in exactly the same manner, critics would dismiss their accounts on the basis of collusion. Instead, the gospels provide unique yet mutually consistent perspective on the events surrounding the empty tomb.

The principles above not only resolve the circumstances in the case at hand but all supposed contradictions highlighted by Peter Jennings in The Search for Jesus. We can safely conclude that far from being contradictory, the gospel accounts are clearly complementary; a consensus of credible scholarship considers the core set of facts presented by the gospel writers to be authentic and reliable; and unique perspective provided by Matthew,Mark,Luke and John preclude the possibility of collusion.

Is the New Testament canon Authoritative or Authoritarian?

Recently the Bible has come under attack by liberal scholars who claim that the New Testament canon was determined by the winners of a supposed struggle for dominance in the early centuries of Christianity. As the following evidence reveals however, the canon is not arbitrary or authoritarian, but divinely authoritative.

First, the entire New Testament was recorded early and thus was not subject to legendary contamination. Had any part of the canon been composed after AD 70 it would most certainly have mentioned the destruction of the very temple that had given the ancient Jews their theological and sociological identity. Additionally, because Matthew and Luke likely used Mark as a source and Luke composed his gospel prior to the writings of Acts, which was completed prior to Paul's martyrdom in the mid-60's, Mark may have been composed early as the AD 40s, just a few years after the events recorded. Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 15 Paul reiterates a Christian creed that can be traced to within three to eight years of Christ's crucifixion. By contrast, the Gnostic gospels, including the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas, are dated long after the close of the first century.

Furthermore, the authority of New Testament is confirmed through the eyewitness credentials of its authors. John writes, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched- this we proclaim concerning the Word of Life" (1 John 1:1). Likewise, Peter reminded his readers that the disciples "did not follow cleverly invented stories but were eyewitnesses of Jesus majesty(2 Peter 1 :16). Moreover, the New Testament contains embarrassing details that no authoritarian association bent on dogmatic dominance would have adopted.

For instance, the gospels present the founding members of the movement as dissident disciples who not only doubted but denied their Master.

Finally, extra-biblical evidence confirms the New Testament canon and knows nothing of early competing canons. Secular historians-including Josephus(before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus(around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius(AD 100), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger(AD 110)-confirms the many events, people, places and customs chronicled in the New Testament. Early church leader such as Irenaeus , Tertullian, Julius Africanus, and Clement of Rome- all writings before AD 250- also shed light on New Testaments historical accuracy. From such source, we can piece together the highlights of the life of Christ independent of the New Testament canon. Moreover, Eusebius of Caesarea acknowledged the centrality of canonical Gospels and recorded their widespread us in important Christian centers including Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. As such the canon was not determined by men but discovered by the community of early believers based on principles of canonicity.

Side: yes
iamdavidh(4856) Disputed
7 points

><

1. You need to listen to Apollo and stop plagiarizing. It's the exact same thing as stealing. If you absolutely must copy a large block of text, put it in quotes, preferably make it italic since that seems to be the norm on CD, and at the end say where the information came from.

Better yet just provide the link and a recap so people don't have to hunt down what you wrote and check your source.

2. So I looked up your source, and he seems to base the entire idea that Mark's portion was written around 60 AD on... er, that it doesn't mention a temple being destroyed.

Logic of it: They didn't mention this temple being destroyed, ergo the temple must not have been destroyed yet.

That is a very, very flimsy argument. It is just as likely the Mark source did come from around 250 AD like every scholar who is not a hard-core Christian believes, and that they either didn't write about the temple because after almost 200 years it seemed inconsequential, or through the various edits and translations it was just lost, or most likely it was purposefully omitted to give the appearance of a timely source--which of course it was not.

Josephus(before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus(around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius(AD 100), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger(AD 110)-confirms the many events, people, places and customs chronicled in the New Testament.

This is the only possibly telling portion of your entire debate. The rest is based on one-sided assumptions and extraordinary amounts of rationalization that would never pass muster on an actual academic paper,

This at least though attempts to bring in non-Christian biased outside sources.

Here's the problem, when they mention confirming "many events, people, places and customs chronicled in the New Testament" the author conveniently doesn't mention who these people are, what these events are or the customs. He does this on purpose to lend himself vague authority, knowing his readers, you and the like, want to believe this is a legitimate argument and won't question it.

Unfortunately Josephus(before AD 100), the Roman Tacitus(around AD 120), the Roman Suetonius(AD 100), and the Roman governor Pliny the Younger(AD 110)- Never mention a word about Jesus, or a word about the disciples, or even any religious leader of import who was crucified at the time. They do talk about stuff from the period, and of Christians in general, even the execution of Christians. Tacitus though for instance only makes mention of the actual "Christ" Christianity is based on to mention that is the namesake of the religion, not implying this person's actual existence or even execution.

It is actually a better argument against these events happening, presumably since these events were thought to be important, why would they not mention them?

The most that can be assumed rationally from these sources is that by 60 AD or so Christianity began taking hold in Rome. That a religion began to take hold however does not in any way verify a god-man walked the earth performing miracles and died for our sins. It just means yet another of the thousands of religions invented by man had been invented.

I think you might want to read some of the actual mentions of Christianity this author eludes to by these earlier scholars. It does not draw your religion in a flattering light, interestingly foreshadowing Christianity's nefarious reputation over the next 1000 years plus.

Side: What are you smoking?!
Apollo(1608) Disputed
4 points

Can you address my argument instead of copying and pasting something I doubt even YOU have read.

For your sake.

Dude, you are making yourself look bad. I know you're smarter than this.

Side: What are you smoking?!
Srom(12206) Disputed
3 points

I wasn't copying and pasting. If you read in the beginning of what I posted I said I will be using a book that I have The Complete Bible Answer Book by Hank Hanegraaff. I got it all down from that book. It wasn't from the internet so I was not copying and pasting.

Side: yes

Erm, no. I don't think srom is smarter than he seems to us. Just saying ;)

Side: What are you smoking?!

Dude, most of his arguments consist of this, you just have to learn to live with it ;)

Side: What are you smoking?!
ectf(3) Disputed
2 points

It does not matter. We're discussing if the bible is factual, not if his argument is his. Can you address his argument instead of attacking him?

Supporting Evidence: Argumentum ad hominem (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: yes
1 point

I'm so sorry...I think you might have something very sad...please, read this to help you understand yourself a bit better:

http://kidshealth.org/kid/health_problems/birth_defect/mental_retardation.html

Side: What are you smoking?!
2 points

There have been hundreds of books written on the subject of the evidences of the divine inspiration of the Bible, and these evidences are many and varied. Most people today, unfortunately, have not read any of these books. In fact, few have even read the Bible itself! Thus, many people tend to go along with the popular delusion that the Bible is full of mistakes and is no longer relevant to our modern world.

Nevertheless the Bible writers claimed repeatedly that they were transmitting the very Word of God, infallible and authoritative in the highest degree. This is an amazing thing for any writer to say, and if the forty or so men who wrote the Scriptures were wrong in these claims, then they must have been lying, or insane, or both.

But, on the other hand, if the greatest and most influential book of the ages, containing the most beautiful literature and the most perfect moral code ever devised, was written by deceiving fanatics, then what hope is there for ever finding meaning and purpose in this world?

If one will seriously investigate these Biblical evidences, he will find that their claims of divine inspiration (stated over 3,000 times, in various ways) were amply justified.

Fulfilled Prophecies

The remarkable evidence of fulfilled prophecy is just one case in point. Hundreds of Bible prophecies have been fulfilled, specifically and meticulously, often long after the prophetic writer had passed away.

For example, Daniel the prophet predicted in about 538 BC (Daniel 9:24-27) that Christ would come as Israel's promised Savior and Prince 483 years after the Persian emperor would give the Jews authority to rebuild Jerusalem, which was then in ruins. This was clearly and definitely fulfilled, hundreds of years later.

There are extensive prophecies dealing with individual nations and cities and with the course of history in general, all of which have been literally fulfilled. More than 300 prophecies were fulfilled by Christ Himself at His first coming. Other prophecies deal with the spread of Christianity, as well as various false religions, and many other subjects.

There is no other book, ancient or modern, like this. The vague, and usually erroneous, prophecies of people like Jeanne Dixon, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and others like them are not in the same category at all, and neither are other religious books such as the Koran, the Confucian Analects, and similar religious writings. Only the Bible manifests this remarkable prophetic evidence, and it does so on such a tremendous scale as to render completely absurd any explanation other than divine revelation.

Unique Historical Accuracy

Ebla Tablet. Courtesy of Associates for Biblical Research.

Learn more about Archaeology and the Bible

The historical accuracy of the Scriptures is likewise in a class by itself, far superior to the written records of Egypt, Assyria, and other early nations. Archeological confirmations of the Biblical record have been almost innumerable in the last century. Dr. Nelson Glueck, probably the greatest modern authority on Israeli archeology, has said:

"No archeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries."

Scientific Accuracy

Another striking evidence of divine inspiration is found in the fact that many of the principles of modern science were recorded as facts of nature in the Bible long before scientist confirmed them experimentally. A sampling of these would include:

Roundness of the earth (Isaiah 40:22)

Almost infinite extent of the sidereal universe (Isaiah 55:9)

Law of conservation of mass and energy (II Peter 3:7)

Hydrologic cycle (Ecclesiastes 1:7)

Vast number of stars (Jeremiah 33:22)

Law of increasing entropy (Psalm 102:25-27)

Paramount importance of blood in life processes (Leviticus 17:11)

Atmospheric circulation (Ecclesiastes 1:6)

Gravitational field (Job 26:7)

and many others.

These are not stated in the technical jargon of modern science, of course, but in terms of the basic world of man's everyday experience; nevertheless, they are completely in accord with the most modern scientific facts.

It is significant also that no real mistake has ever been demonstrated in the Bible—in science, in history, or in any other subject. Many have been claimed, of course, but conservative Bible scholars have always been able to work out reasonable solutions to all such problems.

Unique Structure

The remarkable structure of the Bible should also be stressed. Although it is a collection of 66 books, written by 40 or more different men over a period of 2,000 years, it is clearly one Book, with perfect unity and consistency throughout.

The individual writers, at the time of writing, had no idea that their message was eventually to be incorporated into such a Book, but each nevertheless fits perfectly into place and serves its own unique purpose as a component of the whole. Anyone who diligently studies the Bible will continually find remarkable structural and mathematical patterns woven throughout its fabric, with an intricacy and symmetry incapable of explanation by chance or collusion.

The one consistent theme of the Bible, developing in grandeur from Genesis to Revelation, is God's great work in the creation and redemption of all things, through His only Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Supporting Evidence: How do we know the Bible is true? (christiananswers.net)
Side: yes
Apollo(1608) Disputed
9 points

Facts CANNOT contradict each other. Forget the bible contradicting itself, the bible contradicts 2 thousand years of scientific discovery. Creationism va Evolution. Noah's ark vs sane humans and science. Moses and the red sea vs sane humans and science. Moses existence. Birth of Jesus. The plagues. How could any of these have occured when facts and science make their occurrence impossible.

The earth cannot be both 6,000 and 4.54 billion years old? How can humans have both evolved over millions of years from apes and have also been spontaneously created out of thin air? Etc.

Side: What are you smoking?!
3 points

I totally agree, the amount of contradicting in the bible just writes it off as factual evidence all together! Science has evidence backing it up, the bible has nothing! Until the bible is proven and science is disproven, the bible is not possible to take as factual evidence.

Side: What are you smoking?!
TheThinker(1697) Disputed
1 point

Scientifical Facts cannot be contradicted. Biological facts can. Babies can either born through the vaginal canal, OR the baby can be surgically born through a process called a C-Section. The baby can be born through incisions in the abdominal area and the uterus area. (source: wikipedia).

But im not going to downvote you unless your entire arguement fails in which it doesn't.

Side: yes
Srom(12206) Disputed
-1 points

First of all apes are still here. Shouldn't there be none at all, according to survival of the fittest the weak die and the strong survive and evolve? Why have sex? When you can adopt an ape and it will become a man. But the apes can't change into a man. Just because an ape has similar features of a man doesn't mean that they have come from us.

Side: yes
popcorn00(18) Disputed
-4 points
4 points

Quoting Christian websites to argue that the Bible is factual is just begging the question. It's the exact same reason why the Bible can't be used as evidence for the existence of God. It's basically a circular argument.

Side: What are you smoking?!
2 points

For the sake of argument, let's look at what is considered "factual evidence".

If the religious community claims for the bible to be fact and not opinion, it is fact. It doesn't have to be accurate (hell, look at the lipid hypothesis and vegan/organic food propaganda), it merely has to be a statement about something in reality.

As for evidence; evidence doesn't constitute proof. proof is ABSOLUTE evidence that seals the deal on a claim. Evidence is merely a tool used in trying to prove something, but you can evidence without proof, and even be completely wrong (look at the lipid hypothesis and vegan/organic food propaganda).

So, the bible is as much factual evidence as, let's say, the lipid hypothesis and vegan/organic food propaganda.

Side: yes

The Bible is as factual as everything else perceived by mankind. The Bible has many authors and the big picture is consistent. Just the details vary as with every thing mankind does.

Let's take accounts of eye-witnesses of a car accident for example. One may get as many different stories as witnesses. The end result of their stories will be the same, that two cars collided. Bible is as factual as it gets.

Side: yes
zombee(1026) Disputed
4 points

Would you believe four people who all said they saw a car accident, then both the cars sprouted wings like a bird and flew away?

Has anyone ever told you there is an an eternity of torture waiting for you if you don't believe cars can grow bird wings and fly away?

Side: What are you smoking?!
Thewayitis(4071) Disputed
1 point

What I would believe is that they believe these events took place. Beyond this, takes faith.

Side: yes
1 point

It's funny cause just about 100% of the people saying yes, have more evidence, and explanations then the ones for "What are you smoking?" Even though there are more that choose that, that just proves our point that most people are not going to heaven.

Side: yes
Apollo(1608) Disputed
3 points

No. They just copy and paste more:

Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation.  It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar.  Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals.  Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself.  For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."  However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."  Both statements cannot be true.  Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation.  In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified.  A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction.  For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second.  The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures.  Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors.  Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous.  Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1

Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."

2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"

2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."

1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."

2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"

1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."

Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."

Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"

James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."

Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30  "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."

Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."

Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.

Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.

Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."

Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related

Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.

Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.

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

1 See C. Dennis McKinsey, The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1995), which is an extensive compilation of scripture problems.

-

-

-

-

-

NOW DISPROVE ALL OF THAT!!!

It's quite easy really. I haven't even read it. For all I know, this could be an argument FOR the factual accuracy of the bible.

From now on, any dispute I will simply redirect to this comment.

Side: What are you smoking?!
-3 points
zombee(1026) Disputed
9 points

I started writing a response then I realized you copied this entire thing from your source. If you can't put this information into your own words, how can you hope to defend it? Any response would not be to you but to the person who actually wrote it, and they are not here to speak for themselves.

Side: What are you smoking?!

Any response would not be to you but to the person who actually wrote it, and they are not here to speak for themselves.

Agreed. And it would be an insult to our intelligence if we were to write a proper critique of the actual written work itself.

Side: What are you smoking?!
Saurbaby(5581) Disputed
3 points

How do you do in school? Is it okay for you to copy someone else's work and use it? Then why do it here?

I didn't even bother reading it. You're supposed to paraphrase information from the source and then let us choose to read someone else's babble. Really? You're in high school aren't you? Learn to give evidence properly. It's needed.

Side: What are you smoking?!

With such blatant plagiarism, I'd be surprised if srom ever pases his first class in college...

Side: What are you smoking?!
cwongie(60) Disputed
3 points

See, yoi should know how to talk or argue better. If this was a proper live debate, people would actually be falling asleep. Get to the point and instead of copy and pasting, sum it up here and give us a link sl we can read it if we want to.

I read your first two arguments and i just can't be assed to read this one. The website even hid your last post!

Side: What are you smoking?!
12 points

Factual evidence of what?

Biblical scholars have identified over 400,000 iterations of different parts of the thousands of manuscripts of the bible so calling the bible factual is not possible. The definition of factual is "real and unquestionably provable". Trying to decipher the truth in the bible is also like chasing your tail because there are thousands of clearly identified contradictions. There is nothing else to debate - case closed.

What the bible means to people or how it gets interpreted is a different topic. It gets interpreted for good and for bad depending on who you are, or what side of a war or genocide you are on. Hitler justified his extermination of the Jews from his interpretation of the bible, for example. I've read about and watched many live debates on this topic and it's obvious that modern church's need to upgrade their message to be more relevant to what humans do in our modern culture. It is waaaay behind the times. While the bible has been a source of many great things in human history, it has also been the source of great suffering. That's factual.

Side: What are you smoking?!
7 points

No, the Bible is ancient, comes from unverifiable authors and contradicts itself too many times. I don't consider the Bible being "the word of God" or "true" an argument for Christianity.

Side: What are you smoking?!
popcorn00(18) Disputed
0 points

The pyramids are ancient yet that doesnt make it false. Idiot comment. You cant verify who built them or exactly why but its still stands. The Bible is written to be THE moral compass. Legendary scientists such as Newton and Einstein used it as a resource. You dont have to read the Bible or believe but dont shove it off as false because you arent able to prove it right. Spiritual things cant be explained scientifically.

Side: yes
2 points

The pyramids are ancient yet that doesnt make it false.

You haven't done a particularly good job of proving that it is true either.

The Bible is written to be THE moral compass

Oh, and you can't point out verses of the Bible that promote immorality?

Legendary scientists such as Newton and Einstein used it as a resource.

This is a false appeal to authority. So what if Newton and Einstein used it as a resource? It does not make it true or false! Moreover, Einstein was never a theist in any way. He was at most a deist. And most scholars who studied Einstein's works would back that.

Spiritual things cant be explained scientifically.

They don't necessarily have to be proved scientifically to be true or false.

Side: What are you smoking?!
SomeOddworld(10) Disputed
2 points

I would've considered your comment seriously if it hadn't have been for the personal comment. "dont shove it off as false because you arent able to prove it right" Why not? If anything I should have the right to shove it off if very little of it can be proven as fact.

And what spiritual things can be explained scientifically? I've never seen an example of it.

Side: What are you smoking?!
DeaconFred(11) Disputed
1 point

Okay cowboy, here’s a few facts for you: Daniel did not write the book of Daniel; King Solomon did not write the book of Ecclesiastes; Peter did not write 1 and 2 Peter, Paul did not write Ephesians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Thessalonians, and Colossians.

Each of these books is classified a forgery by most textual critics because they claim to be written by a famous, well-known, or authoritative person who did not in fact write them. The technical term for this type of writing is called pseudepigraphy (literally, “written under a false name”).

There is a mountain of evidence supporting this claim. If you are interested, you should consider reading Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.

Moreover, the Gospels have been heavily edited by scribes over the years. For example, the last 12 verses of Mark Chapter 16 do not appear in the earliest manuscripts that are on record. The last 12 verses were added by a scribe perhaps to clarify the abrupt ending of the original version of Mark.

Is the bible factual evidence? Perhaps it contains some facts, but it is highly suspect.

Side: What are you smoking?!
5 points

It's old, has been translated, and has been through so many hands that it could have been altered easily. Not to mention that you don't know much about the "authors". If I'm going to take a book as evidence I want to be able to see how the author got to the point and about their background that makes what they say worthy.

And Srom fails at debating anyways.

Side: What are you smoking?!
3 points

Yes in a moral story way, no in a scientific fact way. A lot of the moral tales in the bible are cleary applicable in real life, but cleary the world was not created 6000 years ago.

So definitley not! Science disproves the bible many a time. Also the bible is teemin with inconsistency e.g. Moses was told never to fight, however he fought someone who attacked a fellow jew. One of the commandments is not to commit adultery, however it is featured to have many wives!

To take the bible as factual evidence clearly is ignorant and disregarding fact.

Side: What are you smoking?!

Yes. I agree. And just to add on, I don't see how the first commandment, which goes something like "you shall not have other Gods before me", is even a moral law. I mean, I get that the imaginary space daddy is jealous, but I don't think anyone can kid themselves by saying that the first commandment teaches us any morals. Furthermore, there could've been other things I would think that are more important that placating a jealous, vitriolic, strident and bitchy invisible space daddy. Like say the prohibition of slavery perhaps? Or forbidding torture? Or what about the equality of both men and women?

Side: What are you smoking?!

Specifically, when the debate in question is on whether or not God exists, the Bible is not evidence in any way. This is because quoting the Bible would be begging the question since the Bible is supposed to be written by God through the hand of man.

srom is an unsophisticated debater. Have you invited him to this debate?

Side: What are you smoking?!
4 points

I agree with you. Bible cannot possibly testify to the existence of God since it claims to be God's word. So if God exists, Bible is true. If he doesn't its not. The question really does translate to whether or not God exists

Side: What are you smoking?!
3 points

Specifically, when the debate in question is on whether or not God exists, the Bible is not evidence in any way.

It's not evidence under any circumstance.

srom is an unsophisticated debater. Have you invited him to this debate?

I have indeed. I don't expect a logical response, though.

Side: What are you smoking?!

I agree whole heartedly, and I'm a religious. What's the excuse of those that are atheist that quote the Bible?

Side: What are you smoking?!
2 points

I agree with you. Bible cannot possibly testify to the existence of God since it claims to be God's word. So if God exists, Bible is true. If he doesn't its not. The question really does translate to whether or not God exists

Side: What are you smoking?!
2 points

The Bible cannot be considered evidence for the creation of man. First, am I supposed to believe that Adam and Eve populated the world? Science proves that if brother and sister produced a baby that their would most likely be birth defects. And why were they kicked out of Eden for disobedience when that is what results from free will.

Side: What are you smoking?!
1 point

One part of the bible even says that pi = 3 ! Impossible!

Side: What are you smoking?!
1 point

The bible is evidence that the myth writers thousands of years ago could not even fabricate a believable set of scriptures. After all, God was supposed to be fairly smart. He made Adam and Eve but could not foresee that they would disobey him. His invention of man and all the animals of the earth turned out to be a mistake, so had to be destroyed by a flood (except for the fish, because the fish were good). God said "thou shalt not kill" but numerous times ordered the genocide of entire groups of people, including women, children and babies. He did allow his murderous warriors to take sex slaves if they were virgins though. Many things quoted as fact in the bible, such as the death of the first born in all of Egypt, didn't happen, as not one historian of the time wrote of any such thing. The bible IS evidence that the idiots who wrote it could not put together a believable book.

Side: What are you smoking?!
1 point

A book alone can't be factual evidence for god. If, and only if, the bible contained descriptions of facts and repeatable tests and came with physical evidence or at least an instrument to detect god or the effects of him then it would be evidence.

And don't get me started on the historical errors and events which we know didn't occur!

Side: What are you smoking?!
1 point

Although I'm not religious, I don't think you should comment on peoples beliefs. We have to get along as a society and that means accepting peoples ways of life.

Side: What are you smoking?!
0 points

I don't think that is a position that you can maintain. Belief and knowledge are two very different concepts. If we are not allowed to comment on the beliefs of others, science wouldn't have progressed because scientific advancements are made by peer review and constant scepticism of hypotheses put forth by others. Constructive criticism aids progress in societies. Unless you show that criticism of theism is not constructive to society, your view is as illogical as religious belief.

Side: yes
nursie1(25) Disputed
1 point

I agree with you, belief and knowledge are very different, but you can't say you know the bible isn't factual. To prove it is true or false you need a primary source, which you or I do not have. Just because science says it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't. Back when I was born science swore man would never walk on the moon. Science isn't always right, and neither is the bible. People have to realize everyone is different, and everyone has different opinions. Telling a certain society that something they base their whole life on, is false is hurtful. That's not constructive criticism, that's a complete insult whether it's true or not true. People shouldn't judge others. If you feel as if religion is ignorance, keep it to your self. You can be "smart" on your own.

Side: What are you smoking?!
1 point

ask a priest hell say most of it is just stories made to teach us lessons or hold a secret meaning. You can't possibly say its fact especially with the amount of times it contradicts itself.

Side: What are you smoking?!

The Bible was written by man, hence, it is prone to human error.

Side: What are you smoking?!