CreateDebate


Debate Info

14
13
Yes No
Debate Score:27
Arguments:23
Total Votes:29
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (12)
 
 No (11)

Debate Creator

TERMINATOR(6778) pic



Can any part of the bible be considered an accurate historical source?

Yes

Side Score: 14
VS.

No

Side Score: 13
2 points

Certain parts are historically accurate... others, such as a Global flood, is up for debate.

Side: yes

What about 'Noah's Ark'? Isn't that still on a mountain in Turkey, just waiting to be discovered?

If it were discovered, would that be enough evidence to support the Bible's claim that Noah existed?

Side: yes
1 point

I'm sure there are certain things that line up with actuality. But they have to be supported by scientific evidence for me to even care.

Side: yes

What about the historicity of the bible?

Side: yes
1 point

Yes, the page listing the publisher, their city, and the date of publication. The rest of the book is a delightful fiction.

Side: a delightful fiction
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

Parts of the Bible are supported by secular sources. Are those parts also lies?

Side: No
Hadrian(483) Disputed
1 point

For all we know, your claim is a lie.

"Parts of the Bible"....

Which parts? (Chapter and verse)

..."are supported by secular sources.

What sources? When, where and how?

"Are those parts also lies?"

How would anybody know? You haven't supplied even the most rudimentary evidence to support your claim.

Side: arguments without proof go poof

Considering that the book was past down from generation to generation, and even if accurate data or documents existed, then I would have to presume dates and events were lost in translation and subsequently a book of fiction of stories akin to stories of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth fairy,

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
2 points

You realize that much of the bible was written by people who experienced it, such as Moses for the books of Exodus and Numbers, John for the books of John, I,II,III John, Matthew for the book of Matthew, etc.

What makes it any less authoritative than Pliny, Homer, Strabus, Livy, Pausanius, Horace, Herodotus, or any of the other Roman or Greek historiographers?

Side: yes

Yes, I do realize that Matthew, John, Luke and Mark all had first hand experiences. Yet, I have done first hand experiences as well, and I admit that some things can get exaggerated as well as everybody, and sure, I can't prove that they didn't exaggerate events, but nobody can't prove that they didn't exaggerate.

In the Bible's entirety, the 4 Gospels do have the most merit, yet doesn't make it factual without criticism, and for the rest of the book, it is nothing close to a dictum. The Book of Genesis is just absurd.

Side: No
2 points

The Bible was written by men, men with the prejudices and confusion and ignorance of their time and ours today. If man is inherently imperfect (and we are), we cannot hold this book to be a historical account, especially given the claims in it.

Before we base our existence on something, let's take the Reganist view of "trust, but verify" before we put all our chips on that table.

Side: No
1 point

Generally what an anthropologist who studies old cultures would do when presented documentation, before calling this documentation a genuine source, they would have to back up what is written with multible documentation from the same time. They would also date what was written. If it is from the actual time than it is attributed more relevence. If it is not, it has to have multiple accounts from independant sources or it is discarded. End of story. The Bible does not have multiple sources. Mathew Mark Luke and John were not from the time, Mathew, Luke, and John may never have even existed. There is no other documentation that mentions these people.

There's no old friars journal from 500 CE that says "Mathew is translating more material from the book of Mark today, I'm going to blah blah blah"

There's no monestary that lists Luke as a brother writting a version of the New Testament.

Mark is the only one that there is some evidence that person wrote down what we know today as the book of Mark. And it is believed the other three just copied Mark later.

Problem is, again, Mark was alive centuries after the fact, and himself was copying "O" which we know nothing about, and putting together a bunch of word of mouth stories.

Nothing. 0. Zip. There is not a spec of evidence in a journal or in any historical documentation from the actual time that mentions anything from the New Testament even in passing.

So no. What one wants to believe aside, nothing from the New Testament as of now can be considered an accurate account to be taught in schools and what have you.

I don't know that much about the Old Testament, but if I remember correctly it's a bit ridiculous. I'm pretty sure even the authors only meant it to be a group of parables and not literal.

Side: No
1 point

Can any part of Greek Mythology be considered an accurate historical source?

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

Yes. Troy and some details were true.

Side: yes
Liddy(36) Disputed
1 point

The story we have from the Iliad dates from about 400 - 600 years after the Trojan War, and is not history in any sense that a modern person would understand. But it may have a kernel of truth to it...or likely several.

The truth is no one knows for sure if the battle of Troy actually happened. The story may have been retold, changed and magnified over the years to the point where it is all fiction. However its a great read!

Side: No

Maybe 2000 years from now there will be a similar post about Harry Potter ¬¬

Simple fact is its merely a story book with no evidence to support it.

Side: No
TERMINATOR(6778) Disputed
1 point

Several problems with this argument - There is evidence to support it (Pliny, Tacitus, etc.)

Fiction was not nearly as common back then as it is now. If it were a work of fiction, why did so many people follow it from it's start? Why did the apostles all die horrible deaths if they new the work to be fictitious?

Side: yes
Hadrian(483) Disputed
1 point

"Why did the apostles all die horrible deaths....?"

They didn't. Certainly, you don't provide any evidence they did. Neither can anyone else.

Side: No