Debate Info

Yes No
Debate Score:38
Total Votes:42
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 Yes (7)
 No (13)

Debate Creator

Enaccpersona(232) pic

The bible is a history book not only a bunch of stories.

1. It's recorded evidence of things gone to past.

2. Just because it has knowledge from long ago does not invalidate it's validity.


Side Score: 19


Side Score: 19
6 points


Side: Yes
3 points

It's both, but at the same time, it is not.

Side: Yes

Some parts of it may cover events that actually happened but so do other religious scriptures and a lot of the bible is fairy tales such as Noahs Ark as we know it could not have worked in reality for a number of reasons.

Side: No
2 points

such as Noahs Ark as we know it could not have worked in reality for a number of reasons.

Please, list these reasons.

Side: Yes
ricedaragh(2494) Disputed
6 points

Here's a copypaste from the last time I had this debate.

Well, let us just say for arguments sake that he got the boat built, and that he got all the animals on there (simply because these parts have been argued a million times over), this is where the fun begins.

Noah's flood myth states that the Earth was filled to the top of the highest mountain with water. This is an extra 8.8 Kilometers (give or take) above sea level around the entire surface of the Earth, (where this water came from or where it went is another matter we'll have to ignore).

Now, Noah and his rag tag crew are in this Gopher wood boat on top of this unimaginably large body of water, and what do we know about the movement of water?

That's right, it's controlled by the moon's gravitational interplay with the Earth.

If you are in that boat and are near the moon you will find your boat rising up on the sort of wave that would make the Burj al arab look like a canary's tampon and then find yourself being fuck around like only an angry God can manage, probably (because this is magic wood) surfing along towards the bright side of the Earth at a speed reserved for interstellar travel (not that the animals will mind, they love this shit).

But maybe God canceled that, and it didn't happen you say.

OK, so this boat is sitting on top of this body of water, that has basically pushed all of the non water-soluble molecules into this now massively volumetrically reduced and highly pressurised atmosphere, volcanoes will still piss out all manner of nasty shit into this space and it'll go straight into their lungs/on to their skin/ into their food source (whatever that was and what exactly did they drink?)

So, they must have been encased in a bubble of some sort to protect them.

We all know the arguments about the animals on the boat and food sources and yadayadayada. What about the living things that were not on the boat?

Every single aquatic life form would have been completely displaced, this body of water would massively change their habitat and push them so far away from their food source that they would all probably starve, or die in the desalinated or highly salted environment they now found themselves in; add to this the billions of tons of pressure that would be added means that most living things below a certain depth would be crushed to death (including microbes).

Say that all of the above were avoided by our merry sailors, once the water subsided they'd find that there was no plant life at all, and that there was very little oxygen, given that plants don't function very well under miles of brackish water without sunlight or carbon sources, add the algae to this as well.

So, with out plants for them or the herbivores and other omnivores to eat there'd be very little food add to this no potable water and fuck all breathable air and you are in trouble son.

But hey, this is God right? surely he made it so they could survive anything.

That leads to the question; What is the point?

God is omnipotent, surely simply erasing all of the wrong doers would have been easier, or maybe, just maybe, not making the cunts in the first place.

He's also omni-benevolent, but that must mean that benevolence is actually slaughtering every living thing on a planet in a very horrible way, that includes children, the mentally retarded and all of the other living things that were not lucky enough to be selected for the fun boat.

Side: No
1 point

OK, to start if the flood levels reached the levels that they were described as (covering the highest mountains) then most of the animals would have died of the low temperatures due to the high altitude. Also when all of the animals got of the boat and started repopulating there offspring would have to breed to create the next generation so they all would have ended up inbred with lots of defects. Furthermore all the plants would have been killed in the flood so there would be no food left when they go out. There are many other pretty obvious flaws with the story.

Side: No

[Double Post]

Side: No

Then it would be subject to the same scrutiny as any other history book. Unfortunately, most events described are unverified, and many are so ludicrously implausible as to bear much more resemblance to mythology than to history.

Side: No
1 point

Often times the answers available in these debates presents us with false dichotomies. The wordings of the original claims could alleviate this issue to some degree but I don't think 99% of the people here care. Maybe I am just being overly exact...anyways off to the discussion.

The bible has some historical value that gets muddled up with non sequitur information (whether a deity was on X side of a battle is irrelevant from a historical standpoint, but not from a religious standpoint) and then completely implausible information and or issues of morality backed with only petitions of principle.

For instance many of the historical battles that took place within the bible had happened, whether any deity had anything to do with it is irrelevant to the historical accuracy of the issue.

The implausible information can be discussed (and has been discussed) in other threads, but the point is it is not history but myth making and or moral declarations.

Someone could write a book about about former North Korean dictator K J I and use historical instances to try to prove the divinity of his rule, and then use those instances to try to lend weight to his decisions. Would that book be a history book or would it fit more closely into other categories such as religion, propaganda (politics?) or inspiration.

The issue is how much history in a book, as well as the aim of the book, has to be present to call it a history book. Just because a book has some historical instances in it does not make it a history book.

Side: No

Historical errors and contradictions contained within the Bible:

1. “Star of Bethlehem” - No record of such a celestial event outside the gospel of Matthew.

2. Roman census in Jesus birth story – No record of any census that matches this description.

3. “Massacre of the Innocents” - No mention of this event outside the gospel of Matthew.

4. Jesus “of” Nazareth – No record of place called Nazareth prior to Jesus.

5. John the Baptist – Killed early in gospels, died in 36 B.C.E according to sources.

6. Sermon on the Mount – No mountains in Galilee.

7. Death of Jesus – Accompanied by blackout of sun, raising of the dead, and earthquake in the gospels. No record of this by any other source.

Side: No
lolzors93(3225) Disputed
1 point

Why does Julius Africanus say the following, then? “On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)

Side: Yes
1 point

As an historical reference the Bible is so unreliable as to need substantiation for every event it covers. It would be far more accurate to say the Bible is fiction vaguely and occasionally influenced by actual events when convenient, and then distorted further into fiction by thousands of years of re-translations. It would be far more efficient to go straight to reliable history resources.

Side: No