The Bible contains many errors.
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 5 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- One day
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
No information
- Suspicious of pro's format? Well, I was as well.
- Pro has plagiarized his ENTIRE round one often copying word for word from this old web forum post.
- It is really a long compilation of lies and strawmen made by an atheist named Mr. Richard Packham that pro simply copied and pasted.
- These are not his arguments, they were stolen gish gallop lists from and he should by default lose the debate.
- The Bible: Pro provided a fake definition of the bible that is not mentioned anywhere in the source they posted for it. I propose we simply refer to the Wikipedia article posted for it by pro.
- Pro defines many as a lot of something. How much is a lot? Who defines what a lot means?
- There are 31,102 verses in the Bible. Pro's list amounts to less than 1% of it and as I will show, they are simply composed of strawmen, misquoted and misrepresented verses. If this was a statistical relationship that would not even qualify as statistically significant which would be at least 5%. I suggest we use this as an objective standard.
- Pro plagiarized his entire argument. It is all just copied and pasted and presented as if a pro wrote it.
- I am simply now debating as practice for my reasons because pro should already lose debate just for his plagiarism. I will only be responding to the major misrepresentations and out-of-context quotes in round one.
- Pro plagiarized this entire list from this underground forum post
- We can discard all of this because it is just copied.
- For the sake of apologetics, I will respond to the worst lies here.
- On the floods, "these numbers refer to different things. Forty days refers to how long “the rain fell” (7:12, niv), and 150 days speaks of how long the flood “waters prevailed” (cf. 7:24)" [2] or how long the waters poured until they were subsided in Genesis 7:24. The tenth month" simply marks when the tops of the mountains became visible, not when the flood ended. This is the 10th month of the flood [4]. The waters continually began to decline subsequently, and biblical scholars document the timeline of events [4] making the total length of the flood 370 days (371 if counting the first day and last day as full days). In other words, there is no contradiction here, pro just took all the verses out of context and misrepresented what they were saying.
- Abraham's name was stated first due to prominence and not necessarily because he was the oldest. Terah lived for 70 years before he had any sons, not Abraham specifically, so Terah was 130 when Abraham was born and died at the age of 205 as you state. No contradiction here.
- There is no contradiction in Jacob's family. 70 people are mentioned in Gen 46:27 and 75 are mentioned by Stephen in Acts 7:14 because Steven "is quoting from the Septuagint text (Greek Translation) which includes 5 children born to Ephraim and Manasseh in the count." Steven was a Grecian Hellenic Jew and the text "would have been the commonly used translation among the Jews who lived in the then Greek-speaking world" [5].
- 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 lists a genealogy. One of Jesse's sons died childless [6]. "The only children of Jesse reported in the genealogy are those who were still alive or who still had descendants to keep track of." This is not uncommon in the Bible. The list in first Samuel documents all the children who were currently alive at the time.
- The 600 shekels of gold were paid for the lands surrounding the threshing floor and the 50 shekels of silver were only for "the oxen, equipment, and the threshing floor itself" No contradiction here.
- The difference between these figures of the "men of valor," not uncommon, is the difference in who was included. "Both calculations are correct according to the groups which were included and excluded from each report" [8].
- With respect to Solomon, these verses describe and are referring different types of stalls.
- I will simply quote Bible Historian Eric Lyons with respect to Joseph's father. "Joseph's father Matthew gives the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, while Luke presents the genealogy of Jesus through His mother, Mary. Thus, Jacob is Joseph’s father (in Matthew 1:16), while Heli is Mary’s (in Luke 3:23)" [7].
- Again, pro plagiarized this entire section from the same forum post.
- I shall address some of this merely for practice in round two for fun, but these are stolen arguments and can all be discarded.
- I have won by default because pro plagiarized everything. Any statements I address should be taken as a willingness to clear up biblical misinformation and not credence to his "argument."
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
- https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/
- https://www.simplypsychology.org/p-value.html
- https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/
- https://biblethingsinbibleways.wordpress.com/
- https://evidenceforchristianity.org/
- https://apologeticspress.org/who-was-josephs-father/
- https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/
- Pro plagiarized his entire round one from this blog post. Concerning such actions, we can already discard the entire affirmative case.
- Extrapolating from this, pro has thus made no round one case, and forfeited round two, meaning I have won the debate by full forfeiture.
- I stated I would address some of the scientific points just for fun, but as pro has clearly run away in response to the revelation that my opponent's arguments are copied and pasted, so I think it is most prudent to end the debate on this note.
- Read pro's name. Is it an accurate description of him/her based on his or her actions in this debate? I believe this is the question that should be answered in voting decisions seeing as the allocation of points should be obvious.
- https://chaserhutch.wordpress.com/?s=contradiction [blog post pro plagiarized his affirmative case from]
First, Pro does not meet BoP because there is next to no analysis of the presented contradictions.
Plagarism is ovbious, and a clear example of cheating.
Con is able to answer 8 of the contradictions, and it would be unreasonable to ask him to answer everything that was copy pasted.
Then Pro FFs after being called out.
There is no possible ballot for Pro.
Since plagiarism cannot be counted as an original argument this is essentially full forfeit.
Pro’s gish gallop was unreadable and then he forfeited in the second round.
Novice once forfeited Round 1 out of 2 against me and the voters said it doesn't count as FF, guess it's only if it's Round 2 lmao
Thanks, it was indeed an interesting engagement
like the way your arguments have gone Novice.