CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Copying and pasting isn't only exclusive to the internet. If you copy and regurgitate entire parts of your book without any thought, that is copying and pasting. In school, such an act is called plagiarism. If you do this in university, you will be expelled immediately. Take note.
No. I don't care what's up there. Address my arguments. If it is fact, you will have no problem explaining how a 900 year old man but a 200 foot boat that could house 12-24 million organisms and foo to feed them without a single death, injury, or conflict between them. And explain to me how parasites that can only survive on dead organisms can live in the absence of dead organisms.
Like Apollo said, I refuse to engage with arguments that aren't your own. If you can't even be bothered to use your brains, if you have any at all, to generate proper arguments, I don't need to do you the honour of writing a decent rebuttal. Moreover, your flimsy reply to our criticisms make me wonder if you have even understood what you've plagiarised. So, no I will not engage in a debate wit you until you give us arguments of your own.
Irrelevant. I and many others have posted several arguments. Even in the description I posted 4. I posted another one about fact contradicting each other. why don't you address them instead of regurgitating unoriginal, irrelevant information.
From someone who really doesn't want to see you continue to debate like this, here is something I don't do: google a question (as you clearly have). That's not your belief. You came in with an unfounded notion of what you wanted the right answer to be and then googled evidence to back up that answer. That is, in my opinion (others may back me up), the entirely wrong approach.
But fine, i'll amend my statement: I BELIEVE you're smarter than this..
Seriously, you should meet my generation--srom is awesome compared to some people (see a recent debate about presents for Christmas--I thought I posted a funny comment ;) ).
Haha. I'd be surprised to find anyone better than srom. But then again, the probability of him being smart is exactly the same as the probability of his beloved Bible being a source of valid factual evidence.
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.
Sorry. Apollo hasn't committed the ad hominem fallacy. He is simply telling srom to address his own arguments. On the other hand, if you have anything else constructive to add, feel free to do so! :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
What is the distinction you are making between 'scientifical' facts and biological facts? Biology is a type of science. What fact do you think is being contradicted when a baby is delivered via C-section?
I understand what you are saying and you are fight. Biology is a science. It just happens that i learn my mistake after i post. I don't think i understand what "contradiction" even means.
I thought that because there are more than one way for a baby to come out of the mother, each way was a contradiction to one another. Im wrong...right? It is embarassing that im 20 years old and i don't understand what it means.
You're not wasting my time, I didn't have to reply to you.
In your example, think of the options are alternatives rather than contradictions. You can have juice or milk with breakfast but they don't contradict each other because they can both be real at the same time. However, creationism and evolution are contradictory because if one is true, the other has to be false.
I can fly to my house, walk to my house, an drive to my house. Those are all facts. They don't contradict each other, they are merely different ways of doing the same thing. Now of I BOTH drove and walked to my house, that would make no sense.
Maybe im wrong and there isn't a contradiction. Last night i was thinking on my response in bed, and i was like..."Biology is science." So saying that scientifical facts cannot be contradictied but biology facts can be contradicted is a contradiction myself.
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.
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?
Apes are our cousin species, not our grandparent species. We evolved from the same ancestors but we are not descended from apes.
Also, imagine a population of one species splitting in to two populations. The new population, in a new area, is subject to different conditions and may very well adapt until they become a new species. Meanwhile, the original population stays put and changes a relatively small amount. With this scenario, people could still exist simultaneously with their ancestors. But we don't; they're dead and we have fossils.
When you can adopt an ape and it will become a man.
This can't seriously be how you think evolution works. Please at least skim the Wikipedia page on evolution. There's no way you can properly discredit something until you have the most basic understanding of it.
Edit: On second thought, if that's your handle on evolution then this is probably a better place to start.
As Richard Dawkins said "Asking why apes are still here is like asking why there are still British people after they colonized America", they branched off, simple.
Sex is for the continuation of the species.
I don't think you actually understand evolution, we didn't suddenly morph from apes into humans (well, we still are apes), it was a gradual process over millions of years.
We are apes. Evolutionary biologists recognise that Homo sapiens are African apes. Furthermore, apes are not our ancestors. Like what zombee has said, they're our cousin species.
Shouldn't there be none at all, according to survival of the fittest the weak die and the strong survive and evolve?
That is a misinterpretation of Darwin's theory. Evolutionary biologists do not say "survival of the fittest". The correct term should be "natural selection". What this means is that we evolve to adapt to our specific environments. Apes like gorillas live in the forested areas in tropical belts. They are well adapted to live in these areas and hence are able to survive till now.
Why have sex?
Because unlike religious people, non-believers have much more respect for females and their bodies. Unlike religious people, we don't see the female birth canal as a one way street.
Just because an ape has similar features of a man doesn't mean that they have come from us.
Make up your mind will you? Do you think that humans evolved from apes or apes from humans? Either way you are still wrong. No wonder you have such a myopic and primordial view of the world. Why don't you put down your precious holy book and pick up a proper book based on facts that are back by scientific evidence and research.
I think all the fairy tales in the Bible are the equal. Equally stupid. Because only idiots will be able to kid themselves that there can ever be a talking snake, a "poisonous" apple, or someone surviving inside a whale or "big fish". Oh, and what about walking on water, raising people from the dead (which we're told was quite a common sight during that time, according to the Bible, so it shouldn't be a "miracle"), turning water into wine, and feeding two hundred with a basket of fish and bread? I'm sorry, but that sounds like a load of magic tricks to me.
I think all the fairy tales in the Bible are the equal.
I agree (kind of), but Noah's Ark is pretty out there! And I love the Christians who say they are not supposed to be taken literally but rather are purely to teach morals: Please, someone explain to me what morals you learned when you found out your God went around massacring people. Extolling mass genocide = lessons of morality. HAHA! Who makes up this shit?
Exactly. Also, do you notice that Christians usually cherry-pick which stories are allegorical and which are supposedly literal? Needless to say, all the stupid ones are "allegorical". Well, if they're stupid and supposed to be allegorical, shouldn't the all-powerful invisible space daddy be able to put it in a better way? He is all-powerful after all...
And I agree with what you've said about Noah's Ark. Who are the Christians trying to kid when they tell us a 900 year old man is supposed to have built a giant boat which housed over 8 million species of insects and the other 99% of animal species that have since been extinct? Oh, and he must have worked out a way to keep the carnivores and herbivores separate in order for them to survive. Not forgetting the dinosaurs. And I supposed he must have worked out some sort of a refrigeration unit for the polar animals too.
Oh, my personal pet peeve is when Christians claim that the Ten Commandments are supposed to be the moral law/bedrock of society. How are the first two commandments, which basically talks about a jealous god forbidding humans to worship any other gods except him, moral?
Most Christians claim that the Commandments give them a moral code that is above all of us non-believers and, indeed, other religious people not of their faith. Therein lies the biggest problem I have with religion and religious people - arrogance disguised as humility.
Most Christians claim that the Commandments give them a moral code that is above all of us non-believers and, indeed, other religious people not of their faith. Therein lies the biggest problem I have with religion and religious people - arrogance disguised as humility.
You cite Christianity as an example, which I have no problem with, but then you generalize that specific example to all "religion[s] and religious people." I don't agree with that.
I think that it is a justified generalisation. Is it not arrogance for a religious person to suggest that when he/she dies, he/she will be saved, while the non-believers of their religion will burn in the various forms of hell espoused? And yet, they can claim that universal brotherhood is important to them. Now, if hypocrisy was energy, the religious can power the planet.
Is it not arrogance for a religious person to suggest that when he/she dies, he/she will be saved, while the non-believers of their religion will burn in the various forms of hell espoused?
I don't agree. Obviously, we should not include the stupid religions as The Flying Spaghetti Monster and Scientology. But then again, if we're going to reject these religions as stupid, we would have to reject all religions.
Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn't exactly believe in a God. So, the idea of theology with respect to Buddhism is quite different than the traditional Abrahamic religions or even the ancient Greek or Egyptian ones. Hinduism, on the other hand, espouses the idea of hell. To me, as long as one is religious and thinks that those who do not belong to their religion will go to hell, that is arrogance.
To be clear, I think that my use of the word "hell" was in very poor taste and judgement. What I find extremely patronising in Hindusim is the idea of karma. You might know this to mean some sort of a moral law of cause and effect. According to the Upanishads, it stated that an individual develops impressions, or sanskaras, from their physical and mental actions. I don't see how that deviates much from the idea of heaven and hell in Abrahamic religions. I find this extremely patronising because religious people are taught to do good deeds not for the sake of doing good, but because they're afraid of the fire and brimstone awaiting them after they die or because they're afraid of retribution. I don't see this as a form of morality worth following or even respecting.
Actually no. Hinduism is based on the belief that to achieve moksha, one must live a sin-free life. There is no substantial threat other than that you essentially go through the chakras as many times as it takes to get it right. What religion you sinecure to is irrlevant (to my knowledge). That's very different from get it wrongs and you are doomed for eternity.
Any structure that allows sin to go unpunished is impractical. The difference is Christianity send you to hell. Hinduism lets you grow upon it and better yourself until you are pure enough to become one with god.
Hinduism is based on the belief that to achieve moksha, one must live a sin-free life.
Which is exactly the problem I have with Hinduism as I have with all religions. I don't deny that what you have said is true, since I live in the multicultural society of Singapore where nearly 15-20% of the people are Hindus. There is a reason why Hindus lead a sin-free life, and that is to achieve moksha (which is defined as "The final liberation of the soul when it is exempted from further transmigration; the bliss attained by this liberation", according to the OED). To put it in another way, Hindus do good for a certain reward and/promise. Why should any moral person do good to obtain a reward for themselves? I don't think that one can be considered "moral" if one does good in order to receive a reward for themselves. That is just hypocritical.
Any structure that allows sin to go unpunished is impractical.*
I reject the use of the word "sin" because I prefer to use "morally wrong/evil". But you're right on this count because immorality should not be left unpunished. At the same time, it would be illusory to appeal to a supernatural form of intervention for reward and punishment as well, because there is no evidence for the supernatural.
And that is where we disgagree. You see moksha as a reward. I see it as the goal. Now there is a difference. Of course people want to achieve their goal. If the goal is to have lived by the will of God, then, ideally, that morally perfect life is a reward in and of itself, is it not? You could portray it as a means to and end, but I don't believe that is what true moral perfection is.
If the goal is to have lived by the will of God, then, ideally, that morally perfect life is a reward in and of itself, is it not?
I agree with the second part about living a morally perfect life is a reward in and of itself. However, viewing a morally perfect life as a reward can be done without religion as well. Occam's razor disposes of the need to believe in God in order to lead a morally perfect life, let alone seeing such a lifestyle as a reward.
You could portray it as a means to and end, but I don't believe that is what true moral perfection is.
I'm afraid you have a slightly misinformed view of my ethical beliefs. I don't believe that doing things as a means to an end is morally perfect, neither do I believe that the converse is true. What I believe is that humans should not use themselves or other humans as a means to an end. That, I believe, is part of what being "moral" is. For example, I would give selflessly to the less fortunate not because I want some farcical supernatural reward, not because I want to make myself feel better, but because I believe that giving selflessly is inherently good.
Occam's razor disposes of the need to believe in God in order to lead a morally perfect life, let alone seeing such a lifestyle as a reward.
I never realized how hard some debates can be...wow... ok. I would say this:
Can we accept as a premise that God's existence is not contingent upon one's perceived morality of religiously-based morality (if that makes sense)? Then, the source of morality (as long as it isn't out of fear) is irrelevant. Whether one is living morally with or without God's teachings, the morality itself is equal. So in essence, you are right, but I don't see the relevance of it.
For example, I would give selflessly to the less fortunate not because I want some farcical supernatural reward, not because I want to make myself feel better, but because I believe that giving selflessly is inherently good.
I think you may be generalizing Christian views a bit too much. To live a morally-perfect life, one must not live it through desire for a reward, would you not agree? So, under that definition, moral perfection can only come "because I believe that giving selflessly is inherently good." How is this not a view attainable through the virtues of selflessness and separation from material wealth that is I can safely say extolled more by Hinduism and Buddhism than any religion ever to have existed.
I'm not going to sit here and say atheists have no moral code. That is an absurd argument used by Christians/Muslims to defend god-given morality.
Can we accept as a premise that God's existence is not contingent upon one's perceived morality of religiously-based morality (if that makes sense)?
I would actually say that any morality is not contingent on whether or not God exists. In other words, even if we were to accept that God's existence is true, it would have no bearing on what morals are inherently true or false. This is where Occam's razor comes to play since it eliminates any attempt to multiply entities without necessity.
Then, the source of morality (as long as it isn't out of fear) is irrelevant. Whether one is living morally with or without God's teachings, the morality itself is equal.
Which was exactly my point. Furthermore, by disproving the existence of God or at least proving that it is very implausible for God to exist, it immediately disproves the need or even existence of a "God-given morality".
To live a morally-perfect life, one must not live it through desire for a reward, would you not agree?
I do agree. However, the issue is that, in general, Christians do not believe this is true. This is because they do good or believe they're doing good because of the promise of "heaven" or under the threat of fire and brimstone or both! That to me goes against, what we both agree on, that the ability to live a morally-perfect life is not contingent on the promise of reward or threat of punishment.
How is this not a view attainable through the virtues of selflessness and separation from material wealth that is I can safely say extolled more by Hinduism and Buddhism than any religion ever to have existed.
While selflessness and separation from material wealth are indeed virtues espoused by such religions, it does not dispute the fact that such beliefs that these are even "virtues" originated from the fact that there is a threat of punishment and promise of reward in the religions.
I'm not going to sit here and say atheists have no moral code. That is an absurd argument used by Christians/Muslims to defend god-given morality.
And that is exactly what I am saying. First, we don't need a god for morality. Second, since God very possibly does not exist, a "god-given morality"is itself incoherent and illogical.
I would actually say that any morality is not contingent on whether or not God exists.
You kind of flipped the argument. But I agree.
it immediately disproves the need or even existence of a "God-given morality".
Now you have confused me. When was I ever a proponent of God-given morality. What were we arguing?
Which is why (well, I can't say that. There are so many reasons not to be Christian it really is quite hard to pick just one)... which is ONE OF THE MANY REASONS why I am not a Christian. Again, we are in agreement.
it does not dispute the fact that such beliefs that these are even "virtues" originated from the fact that there is a threat of punishment and promise of reward in the religions.
Ah. That is what we were arguing. Forget the whole morality arguments because, if I understand you correctly, we are in agreement.
And that is exactly what I am saying. First, we don't need a god for morality. Second, since God very possibly does not exist, a "god-given morality"is itself incoherent and illogical.
Again, we agree. This is unprecedented. I can't possibly be agreeing with...you! Wow. There must be a logical flaw somewhere in there (even though my assuming so is ad hominem :) ).
When was I ever a proponent of God-given morality. What were we arguing?
I have never said that you were a proponent of God-given morality. I was just justifying why such a morality cannot logically exist.
Again, we agree. This is unprecedented. I can't possibly be agreeing with...you! Wow. There must be a logical flaw somewhere in there (even though my assuming so is ad hominem :) ).
That's because our discussions are based on rationality not rhetoric (like er... srom). Check out his post on the "is homosexuality good for society?" debate. I promise you'll find his views hilarious.
Yeah, I know that. I've been following the Republican bullshit on various news channels like CNN and Fox. I'm catching the CNN's report on the Iowa caucus now. But, if you look at the Republicans, they are the kind of people who are indoctrinating younger Americans like srom with this bullshit. That is another reason why I despise religion.
"Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn't exactly believe in a God."
This is patently false. Many Buddhist sects believe in Buddhist "Pure Lands," and it is the goal of Buddhist to be reborn in these pure lands that are occupied by future Buddhas (like Maitreya, Akshobhya, Amitabha, etc.).
"Hinduism, on the other hand, espouses the idea of hell."
Buddhism does as well. There are essentially 6 realms of rebirth in traditional Buddhism: Tusita heaven (where all the Pure Land Buddhas, bodhisattvas, and major gods live like Brahma and Indra); The "Jealous" gods (where the minor gods live); and the human realm (this is the preferred realm because it is the easiest to reach enlightenment as a human since you are neither too blessed with pleasures or too distracted by pain); and then the lower realms are as an animal; as a "hungry ghost;" and an actual hell.
Somehow Buddhism has become "secularized" at least in the West, despite its very superstitious beliefs (hells/heavens, rebirths, karmic "seeds," tantras, mantras, the jatakas are fairly miraculous as well, etc.).
Although, this post is not exactly relevant to the debate heading, but it bugs me a little when people assert that Buddhism is not religious.
Many Buddhist sects believe in Buddhist "Pure Lands," and it is the goal of Buddhist to be reborn in these pure lands that are occupied by future Buddhas (like Maitreya, Akshobhya, Amitabha, etc.).
This is true but there you have not shown a shred of evidence to suggest that Buddhists believe in a God. On the contrary, if you have read scholarly articles written by Buddhist theologians, you would see that they clearly do not believe in a God. (refer to the link below)
Although, this post is not exactly relevant to the debate heading, but it bugs me a little when people assert that Buddhism is not religious.
This is exactly the opposite of what I have asserted. I said that "Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn't exactly believe in a God." You're attacking a straw man.
"if you have read scholarly articles written by Buddhist theologians, you would see that they clearly do not believe in a God. (refer to the link below)"
This is false. From the article, "In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc."
This merely dismisses the idea of a creator deity; a god that is omnipotent and omniscient. It does not dismiss, however, the concept of multiple deities. As mentioned before, in many Mahayana and Vajrayana schools, there are focuses on Buddha Pure Lands, like that of Amitabha, and even the recognition of major devas (akin to deities) such as Indra (Sakka) or Brahma.
"This is exactly the opposite of what I have asserted. I said that "Buddhism is a religion, but it doesn't exactly believe in a God." You're attacking a straw man."
I misunderstood your post. It appeared to me that you were asserting the absence of mythic qualities in Buddhism.
Shut the fuck up. Darwin even admitted himself that the evolution theory was bullshit. Things dont evolve as in shapeshifting over time they add physical features or remove them as a means adapt to thier enviornment. And on top of that Science does prove the plagues. These occurences recorded in the Bible are God's bitchslap to science by the way.
You should check your facts. There is no good evidence that Darwin recanted his theory and science didn't 'prove' the plagues were sent by God- they all have other explanations. Sometimes science supports the Bible and other times it doesn't, but the idea that science is or should be threatened by the Bible is laughable. Science only wants the truth.
And coming onto a site intended for discussion to tell someone to shut the fuck up when they disagree with you? I hope you're no older than 12.
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.
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.
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.
This makes sense and I suppose I can understand why someone would believe the miracles of the Bible on faith. Can you understand why some people place more importance on evidence than faith?
Zombee, Whether you like it or not, you place faith in the evidence that is availalbe to you. Faith that it is right. Faith that all evidence has been presented. Faith that no farther evidence can be gathered. I think you get the point.
I personally haven't seen enough evidence to rule anything out, just like you haven't seen enough evidence to persuade you that your views aren't right. For now, we have to agree to disagree.
I don't have any illusions about persuading you to change your mind but the things I believe are not based on faith in the same way that religious views tend to be. I have a certain amount of trust in certain sources, yes, but to me, nothing and nobody is infallible and I take that into account. I'm well aware that there is always new information ahead that might make me re-examine what I think, and I would abandon everything I believe if I was presented with sufficient counterevidence. What could make you abandon your belief in God?
Well, you're wrong. I know exactly what would convert me and if I am wrong, it's something that would be entirely possible. If I can take your lack of an answer as any indication, that is probably the difference between you and me.
If by 'miracle,' you mean something wonderful or marvelous, I'm aware of many of them and they're great but they are explainable without anything supernatural.
If by 'miracle,' you mean something impossible without divine intervention...then you'll need to back up your claim that they happen every day.
You simply said it would take a miracle and you claim they even exist. I said nothing about divine intervention. Of course if you believe in this, that's okay.
What exactly are you arguing against here? Only a few posts ago, you said it would take a miracle. When I agreed, you immediately flipped sides. You're at least smart enough to know I haven't and wouldn't try to claim divine miracles exist, so you can stop whatever little game you're trying to play there.
If you were actually interested in a debate, you'd have already clarified what you meant by 'miracle' so we could get on with things. Instead, you're just waffling around and, I don't know, trying to trap me into saying I believe in miracles? As if that would be meaningful in some way?
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.
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.
Many spiritual seekers wonder why there is not more historical evidence to verify the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Here is something to consider. There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence. he Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. The Bible has the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that document Jesus' life. The balance of the New Testament has references to Jesus. There are 66 books of the Bible. Almost every single book of the Bible has either a prophecy about Jesus or verses that point to the Gospel message. There are over 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 original manuscripts of portions of the New Testament.
Why would there need to be more historical evidence? Because some would argue that the Bible can't be trusted, the manuscripts may not be trustworthy, or the Bible is not accurate. We will explore these concepts and prove the Validity of the Bible.
Bible Can Be Trusted
Some will argue that you can't trust the Bible because it was written by those who believed in God or Jesus. They will say that the authors were bias, so they did not write accurate information. If you were to use this argument regarding autobiographies, biographies, and history books (this is what the Bible is like), you would like to remove all these books off the library selves.
Autobiographies obviously have some bias because they are written by individuals about themselves. They certainly could misinterpret some of their experiences, but how many readers would toss out an autobiography as not a trustworthy book about the author? So, why toss out portions of scripture that are autobiographical?
Many biographies are written by people who loved the person they are writing about, but we do not question their validity. Yes, we may see some prejudices or favoritism in a biography, but we can overall trust most biographies, because if they were inaccurate there would be an uproar from others. So, why toss out portions of scripture that are biographical? Unless we have proof they are inaccurate, we need to give them the same trust we would a modern day biography.
There are certainly books about history written by those who have had prejudices. We see much more of that in recent years. But again, if someone was to write a very distorted view of something historical, don't we believe others would not be silent? However, regarding the history written in the Bible there was overall silence by those who were alive when the Bible manuscripts first appeared. It has only been in recent years that there has been a challenge to the historical validity of the Bible. What is interesting is that more and more there is archaeological proof to the historical accuracy of the Bible.
There is something that is unique about the Bible compared to any autobiography, biography, or history book - the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. This means it was God breathed. The authors of the Bible wrote what God had them to write. Yes, they wrote with their style of writing, but the accuracy of what they wrote was based upon being inspired by God. We know, as a spiritual seeker you may not believe this. That is ok. We are going to provide more evidence for the Validity of the Bible.
Bible Manuscripts
Some would argue that the Bible can't be trusted because we do not know if the copies we have of the Bible are accurate, or if the original manuscripts are accurate.
To determine the accuracy of the manuscripts, we can compare the Bible manuscripts to manuscripts of other literature. If we are going to be fair, we should not require more of the Bible than we do other literature, but the Bible will hold up to even more scrutiny.
The chart below lists some documents, how many known original manuscripts, and the time span from the first known manuscript and when the document was authored.
Author No. of Copies Time Span
Caesar 10 1.000 years
Plato (Tetralogies) 7 1,200 years
Tacitus (Annals) 20 1,000 years
Pliny the Younger (History) 7 750 years
Suetonius (De Vita Caesarum) 8 800 years
Homer (Iliad) 643 500 years
New Testament Over 24,000 25 years
After looking at the chart above, which document do you believe is the most trustworthy in being accurate regarding being closest to the original? Homer's Iliad does not even come close to the New Testament. Time span is critical when determining if the manuscript is close to the original. The longer the time span, the more of a chance of error. The first New Testament manuscript has only a 25 year span compared to 500 years for Iliad. Yet many of our readers would read Iliad as the gospel before the Bible.
We should also mention that of the 24,000 New Testament manuscripts they are 15 different languages and they all are accurate in their translation.
Let's look at one more point regarding the accuracy of manuscripts. It is the concept of textual variations and textual corruption. We will compare Iliad with the New Testament. The Iliad has about 15,600 textual line variations compared to the New Testament which has about 20,000 textual line variations. Not bad considering there are over 23,000 more manuscripts of the New Testament than the Iliad.
The Iliad has 764 lines of textual corruption whereas the New Testament only has 40 lines of textual corruption. So, which is the more accurate document?
*This data is from "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell 1979. There is a newer edition of this book which probably has even more powerful proof of the validity of scripture. As time allows we will update this page, better yet, why not get the book and read it yourself.
Christian Books
Bible Not Accurate
Even with all the evidence we have provided, some will still say the Bible is not accurate.
Archaeology and Science is continuously proving the Bible to be accurate. Over and over again, archaeological digs are finding artifacts that prove the various stories that are in the Bible. Read More.
One of the ways to prove the Bible is accurate is to explore the concept of prophecy. There are over 60 prophecies in the Old Testament that speak about Jesus. Every one of the prophecies were fulfilled in the life of Jesus.
There are also many prophecies in the Old Testament that have been fulfilled in history. Yes, there are some prophecies that have not been fulfilled. Some were conditional and the conditions were not met so they will never be fulfilled. Others are speaking of events yet in the future.
The Bible was written over a 1,500 year span so there is no way that many of these prophecies could have just been 'predicted' by the authors. There were over 40 authors so there is no way they could have conspired with each other.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
Do we need to go over this again how one would use a reductio ad absurdum argument to disprove the validity under all circumstance of the Bible? Religious folk tend to use the Bible as evidence to support their argument. An atheist would discredit the Bible's validity (through reductio ad absurdum) to discredit the argument.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
but you can't say you know the bible isn't factual
I can't say that everything is false. But I can say that some, if not most, are not factual.
To prove it is true or false you need a primary source, which you or I do not have.
And what constitutes such a primary source? How can I judge the validity of your statement if you refuse to be specific in the first place? Learn how to debate please.
Just because science says it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't.
Even if this is true, it commits the genetic fallacy.
People have to realize everyone is different, and everyone has different opinions.
Yes. But some opinions are falsifiable. Like how we know that Hitler's view that the Jews are "adders and vipers" is unethical. Even if everyone is entitled to have an opinion, it doesn't mean that every opinion is true. You would have to be under a serious mental disorder to suggest that we should accept and not criticise every single opinion. After all, even Christian philosophers have been criticising their own kind. For example, the prominent Oxford Emeritus Professor Richard Swinburne, a Christian, famously rejects the Moral Argument for God's existence. Are you going to condemn him as well for criticising Christians?
Telling a certain society that something they base their whole life on, is false is hurtful.
This is simply an appeal to emotion. Just because a statement is hurtful, it does not mean that the statement is true or false. You may not like the conclusion, but it does not follow immediately that the conclusion is false.
That's not constructive criticism, that's a complete insult whether it's true or not true.
How would you differentiate constructive criticism from insult? Is the line between the two arbitrary? You have not justified your claims so the best position is to reject all your claims.
People shouldn't judge others.
You seem to be doing a lot of judging by saying that "atheists shouldn't judge the religious". Why don't you practise what you preach?
If you feel as if religion is ignorance, keep it to your self.
If you feel that the new atheist movement is insulting, keep it to yourself.
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.