Instigator / Pro
0
1300
rating
221
debates
44.8%
won
Topic
#5153

The Bible is Stupid and wrong (challenge for TheAcademicChristian)

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
0
Better sources
0
0
Better legibility
0
0
Better conduct
0
0

After not so many votes...

It's a tie!
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
5
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
0
1500
rating
3
debates
66.67%
won
Description

No information

Round 1
Pro
#1
Let me explain it in a simple way as I did before.

Bible is stupid. Like, half of it is just God killing people for stupid reasons, such as doing homosexuality or witchcraft.

Bible is also wrong. It says do to others as you would have them do to you. Terrible life advice that can be turned and twisted in all ways, it can even justify rape, but following it would likely just make you get exploited by others who dont follow it.

Love your neighbor as yourself is an incomplete rule, as it doesnt say what to do when you have to choose between you and your neighbor.
Con
#2
I want to start by thanking my opponent for being willing to debate this topic with me. To start the arguments that can be presented for this debate can be numerous from my interlocutor. My opponent could think that the bible is "stupid and wrong" on moral grounds, or on the possibility of God existing at all. Based on the opening from the pro, I think it is on moral grounds so I will try to address each point adequately. 
Exegesis:
When talking about the Bible it is important that you exegete the text by looking at the historical context, the passage around the scripture, literary context, and how it fits in the bible as a whole (Exegesis). Right now my opponent has not brought any passages, but statements that are in the Bible, so it is possible my interlocutor is not looking at the context that I mentioned above. 
Killings in the Bible:
It would be hard to address everything that atheist believe is immoral in regard to deaths in the bible, but each of them can be addressed specifically. To exegete the passage, killings did happen in the Bible and it can be challenging when viewing this. Before looking at just single passages most people need to read the bible in context. 1. God can have a good reason for actions taken because, when individuals did not take this approach worse things happened. We see this with the Amalekites in the Bible when Saul spared them when each person was suppose to be killed (1 Samuel 15). Due to Saul sparring people King David had to fight the same people for looting and capturing women and children (1 Samuel 30). Later Saul's actions would have further consequences in (Esther 3) when it is discovered Haman was a descendent of the Amalekites and almost caused the entire death of the Israeli people. Sometimes we may not understand the killings in the Bible, but when put in perspective we know that reproductions can happen during biblical times if you didn't follow God's advice. 
God killing based on opponents statements
The Bible in the Old Testament had repercussions for homosexuality or witchcraft, but I do not know of a passage where God killed people over this (One could argue witchcraft, but I am mainly talking about homosexuality). I myself can't know for sure why homosexuality was condemned as harshly as it was in the Old Testament, but my theory was to ensure that the bloodline for which Christ would be born from would remain in tack so the world can be saved. We see similar harshness when the flood came, because the sons of God polluted the Israelite bloodline by sleeping with the daughters of men (Genesis 6) (I believe in a regional flood not global). God destroyed the world (that they knew at the time because I believe in a regional flood), and I think that may be the reason for the harshness in the Old Testament, because salvation was the most important thing. Once Christ came actions such as these were not punishable by death, because we see a situation in which a woman committed a sexually immoral act that would have gotten her stoned in the past, but Christ saved her (John 8). We are taught to actually love homosexuals and we are taught that we are all made in the image of God which includes anyone in the LGBTQ category (Genesis 1:27, but is also shown in many other verses in the Bible). Another item to consider in regard to sexual death was that a law had to be placed down so improvements could be made later. Sexual laws in the Old Testament were actually less harsh compared to surrounding neighbors (Early British Literature). Surrounding neighbors normally only punished women, while men were left unpunished and could sleep around, so this was used to give equality to women in these situations (Early British Literature). After progress was made, this could eventually change to nobody being hurt over this, because society started to become less barbaric. 
My opponent also mentioned witchcraft which I will admit I do not know much about, but it is still answerable if we view the historical context. The bible mentions in several places that child sacrifice tended to happen when worshiping false God's such as Molech and has been proven to be true based on an article from the University of Oxford (University of Oxford).
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
This again requires you to properly exegete the text. To start we see this in Luke chapter 6 verse 31 where the verse above it mentions "Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. If someone takes this saying out of context it is purposeful and the person who tries to harm others from this passage is immoral. We can also see this in Matthew chapter 7 where it mentions things such as not judging others, ask and you shall receive, and the saying in bold above. From both instances their are verses above that talks about being a better person, giving to people, and not judging others. If we look in context this is giving guidelines on how to be a better person, so individuals who use this for harm are twisting the Bible's words (Not attacking my opponent, because their are some sick people who do this). 
Love your neighbor as yourself 
 My opponent would have to lay out their objections to love your neighbors as yourself in more depth, because I am not 100% sure what my opponent means by needing to choose yourself over your neighbor. I will answer assuming my opponent means having a horrible neighbor. To start with it is important to know Christianity teaches a form of virtue ethics that Christians' must try to follow (Kilian 2010). Virtue ethics are performed through following Christ, in which your character is suppose to emulate him (Kilian 2010). In response to my opponent I will also back this claim up through scripture by citing  Philippians chapter 2, which says we should try to emulate Christ. If your a Christian you will fail in this walk, but I cite this because it answers my opponent's question. Jesus was know for calling people out who were wrong, or immoral so we are called to do the same with our neighbor if they are performing immoral acts.
My Opponents main issue
My opponent's main issue when looking at the bible can be summarized in a few different ways. 1. They are not reading the full message/exegeting the passage, 2. They are not looking at scholar's work to try and gain a better understanding, 3. Using examples that are not seen readily in the Bible.
Regardless I am looking forward to this debate and I am glad my interlocutor set this up. (Thanks for the long response time set up, it allowed me to enjoy my break from work). 
References
Research guides: Biblical studies: Conducting exegesis. Conducting Exegesis - Biblical Studies - Research Guides at Marquette University. (n.d.). https://libguides.marquette.edu/c.php?g=36796&p=2974240
Kilian, B. (2010). Virtue ethics for Christians. CedarEthics: A Journal of Critical Thinking in Bioethics, 10(1), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.15385/jce.2010.10.1.4
NIV Bible (Not doing a whole citation for this one, but wanted to put it so you know what version I am using in case I have to quote the Bible more often). 



 


Round 2
Pro
#3
The verse about killing homosexuals:

"If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death"

My opponent went on to justify killing homosexuals, which proves that Bible is stupid and wrong because justifying the killing of homosexuals is stupid and wrong, and to claim that an all powerful God couldnt find a better way is itself a contradiction that makes Bible wrong and stupid.

Bible is filled with contradictions.

""The Bible is an unreliable authority because it contains numerous contradictions. Logically, if two statements are contradictory, at least one of them is false. The biblical contradictions therefore prove that the book has many false statements and is not infallible.
Examples of Old Testament Contradictions
The contradictions start in the opening chapters of the Bible, where inconsistent creation stories are told. Genesis chapter 1 says the first man and woman were made at the same time, and after the animals. But Genesis chapter 2 gives a different order of creation: man, then the animals, and then woman.

Genesis chapter 1 lists six days of creation, whereas chapter 2 refers to the “day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens.” Genesis 1:2-3 claims that God created light and divided it from darkness on the first day; but Genesis 1:14-19 tells us the sun, moon, and stars weren’t made until the fourth day.
Chapter 1 reports that the fruit trees were created before the man, while chapter 2 indicates they were made after him. Genesis 1:20 says the fowl were created out of the waters; Genesis 2:19 alleges they were formed from the ground.

Contradictions are also seen in the biblical story of a worldwide flood. According to Genesis 6:19-22, God ordered Noah to bring “of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort . . . into the ark.” Nevertheless, Genesis 7:2-3 relates that the Lord ordered Noah to take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens, and only the unclean beasts by twos.
Genesis 8:4 reports that, as the waters of the flood receded, Noah’s ark rested on the mountains of Ararat in the seventh month. The very next verse, however, says the mountaintops could not be seen until the tenth month.

Genesis 8:13 describes the earth as being dry on the first day of the first month. But Genesis 8:14 informs us the earth was not dry until the twenty-seventh day of the second month.
The Old Testament contains an interesting contradiction in the story of the census taken by King David and the resulting punishment of the Israelites. God was so angered by the census that he sent a plague that killed 70,000 men. According to II Samuel 24:1, the Lord had caused David to take the census – which makes the punishment appear even more nonsensical. But an attempt was later made, at I Chronicles 21:1, to improve God’s image by claiming that Satan incited the census.

Further, the Old Testament is contradictory as to whether the Lord commanded the Israelites to sacrifice animals to him. At Jeremiah 7:22, God denies he ever gave the Israelites commandments about animal sacrifices. In contrast, Exodus 29:38-42 and many other verses depict God as requiring the Israelites to offer animal sacrifices.

In the New Testament, there are contradictions between the genealogies of Jesus given in the first chapter of Matthew and the third chapter of Luke.
Both genealogies begin with Jesus’ father, who is identified as Joseph (which is curious, given that Mary was supposedly impregnated by the Holy Ghost). But Matthew says Joseph’s father was Jacob, while Luke claims he was Heli. Matthew lists 26 generations between Jesus and King David, whereas Luke records 41. Matthew runs Jesus’ line of descent through David’s son Solomon, while Luke has it going through David’s son Nathan.
The story of Jesus’ birth is also contradictory. Matthew 2:13-15 depicts Joseph and Mary as fleeing to Egypt with the baby Jesus immediately after the wise men from the east had brought gifts.

But Luke 2:22-40 claims that after the birth of Jesus, his parents remained in Bethlehem for the time of Mary’s purification (which was 40 days, under the Mosaic law). Afterwards, they brought Jesus to Jerusalem “to present him to the Lord,” and then returned to their home in Nazareth. Luke mentions no journey into Egypt or visit by wise men from the east.
Concerning the death of Judas, the disloyal disciple, Matthew 27:5 states he took the money he had received for betraying Jesus, threw it down in the temple, and “went and hanged himself.” To the contrary, Acts 1:18 claims Judas used the money to purchase a field and “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

In describing Jesus being led to his execution, John 19:17 recounts that he carried his own cross. But Mark 15:21-23 disagrees by saying a man called Simon carried the cross.
As for the crucifixion, Matthew 27:44 tells us Jesus was taunted by both criminals who were being crucified with him. But Luke 23:39-43 relates that only one of the criminals taunted Jesus, the other criminal rebuked the one who was doing the taunting, and Jesus told the criminal who was defending him, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”
Regarding the last words of Jesus while on the cross, Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 quote Jesus as crying with a loud voice, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Luke 23:46 gives his final words as, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” John 19:30 alleges the last words were, “It is finished.”"

"There are even contradictions in the accounts of the resurrection – the supposed event that is the very foundation of the Christian religion. Mark 16:2 states that on the day of the resurrection, certain women arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. But John 20:1 informs us they arrived when it was yet dark. Luke 24:2 describes the tomb as open when the women arrived, whereas Matthew 28:1-2 indicates it was closed. Mark 16:5 declares that the women saw a young man at the tomb, Luke 24:4 says they saw two men, Matthew 28:2 reports they saw an angel, and John 20:11-12 claims they saw two angels.

Also in the resurrection stories, there are contradictions as to the identity of the women who came to the tomb,[7] whether the men or angels the women saw were inside or outside the tomb,[8] whether the men or angels were standing or sitting,[9] and whether Mary Magdalene recognized the risen Jesus when he first appeared to her.[10]
As a final example of a New Testament contradiction, the conflicting accounts of Paul’s conversion can be cited. Acts 9:7 states that when Jesus called Paul to preach the gospel, the men who were with Paul heard a voice but saw no man. According to Acts 22:9, however, the men saw a light but didn’t hear the voice speaking to Paul.

The foregoing examples are just a few of the hundreds of contradictions contained in the Old and New Testaments. Each contradiction is an instance where at least one of the verses is wrong. Thus, hundreds of contradictions mean there are at least hundreds of incorrect statements in the Bible."


Bible says that people will be payed according to their deeds, then contradicts that by punishing infants who have no deeds.

"He damned the whole human race and cursed the entire creation because of the acts of two people (Genesis 3:16-23; Romans 5:18); he drowned pregnant women and innocent children and animals at the time of the Flood (Genesis 7:20-23); he tormented the Egyptians and their animals with hail and disease because pharaoh refused to let the Israelites leave Egypt (Exodus 9:8-11,25); and he killed Egyptian babies at the time of the Passover (Exodus 12:29-30).
After the Exodus he ordered the Israelites to exterminate the men, women, and children of seven nations and steal their land (Deuteronomy 7:1-2); he killed King David’s baby because of David’s adultery with Bathsheba (II Samuel 12:13-18); he required the torture and murder of his own son (e.g., Romans 3:24-25); and he promised to send non-Christians to eternal torture (e.g., Revelation 21:8).

Besides the unfairness and heartlessness contained in Christian teachings, the Bible has other violent tales that are opposed to civilized standards of morality. Among the most shocking Bible passages are those that portray God as ordering or approving the extermination of various people, including children and the elderly.
  • At I Samuel 15:3, the prophet Samuel gives King Saul this commandment from the Lord: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
  • Ezekiel 9:4-7 has this harrowing account: “And the Lord said unto him, Go through . . . the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark. . . .”
  • Hosea 13:16 describes a punishment from the Lord: “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”
  • Deuteronomy 32:23-25 says that after the Israelites incited God’s jealousy by worshiping other gods, he vowed: “I will spend mine arrows upon them. . . . The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs.”
  • In Numbers chapter 31: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”"

Con
#4
I again want to thank my opponent for being willing to debate this topic, and I will do my best to answer each objection.  
Homosexuality 
My opponent goes on to state that I approved/justified killing homosexuals even though I never did.  I mainly came up with a hypothesis that I am open to being wrong due to me being a Christian who is two steps away from being agnostic. I actually went on to say that homosexuals were made in the image of God, and my main answer was that God had to form laws that were improvements from the surrounding area, but he could not push it too far because the people would rebel (Early British Literature). I can actually back this up with a neutral source that deals with the science of program evaluation, in which it mentions that when implementing a program it must be feasible (Fitzpatrick 2010). We actually see that even with trying to provide laws that would have been more progressive for its time, we still saw the Israelites rebel with the Golden Calf. My opponent also claims that an all knowing God could do better, but that would take free will away, because we saw that the Israel people defied God when putting this law down, so it is evident humans had to progress so that we could give rights to all when it was plausible.
Points my opponent brought up that I answered already
What is upsetting about my opponents reply is that I actually already answered some of his questions before he tried to throw it as a random contradiction. His verses from 1 Samuel was quoted as God being evil for wanting to kill everyone, but I gave a detailed reason before he even used this. Saul did not go through with this and it almost caused the death of the Israelite people. My interlocutor needs to reread my section labeled killings in the Bible, because he put this down as a random quote where God is just killing people even though I painted the whole picture. He never attacked the reasoning behind my claim. This interpretation answers his claims from Genesis 3/7, Romans 5, Exodus 9, Numbers 31 and Exodus 12 unless he can poke holes in my interpretation. My claim on this actually answers the issue with God killing David's child, because the child was birthed through an affair where King David had Bathsheba's husband killed. One of the first thoughts that come to mind on this would be an argument pro choice people use in that, the quality of life for that child may not have been good due to him being born in this type of environment. We are unsure for the exact reason God did this, but remember that my 1 Samuel example shows that even though we may not understand the full reason behind God's actions, we can see that the one time it was not carried out rougher consequences took place.  
Genesis Claims
So I am a theistic evolutionist, and when we view the Bible in it's ancient near east context, we can see it is the correct interpretation. To exegete this we can view biblical scholar Peter Enns which shows that when we view history and the context in which this is put, the six day creation was more of an attack on paganism which was to show "God had dominion over these" (Other Gods). (Enns 2021).  We can see that the order this was made in was used specifically to show God being more powerful than these false God's (Enns 2021). When viewing the text that he put for Genesis 6 vs Genesis 7, and Genesis 8 I want to reiterate that I believe in a local flood which seems to be the correct interpretation when viewing the appropriate context. If we view Genesis 6 vs. 7 we can see that this is simply a continuation and not a contradiction because these chapters are next to each other, and part of how you exegete a text is by viewing the chapter before an after. Also for most of the animals it was to gather two of each group for the most part with the exception being the clean animals in the area. After the other Genesis claims my opponent somehow thought that Genesis 8:13 and :14 contradict because it says that the earth was dry, but then somehow did not dry until later. These verses are taken out of context, because they are back to back and verses that are right next to each other won't contradict because it is describing the full items happening.  Verse 13 says that it dried up from the earth and the next verse says that it ended up completely drying later.
Jeremiah 7
My opponents objections to this chapter when looking at verse 22 makes no sense because that chapter and verse says that animal sacrifice happened. It mentions "I did not just give them commands about burnt offerings and sacrifices, but I gave them this command." This verse mentions sacrifices. 
New Testament claims
My opponent opens in the new testament by saying that an item is contradictory due to the genealogy being shorter in Matthew than in Luke. The problem is that Matthew's Genealogy starts with Abraham while Luke's starts with Adam. My opponent also mentions that one book follows down the line of Nathan's while the other follows Solomon's line. Again this one isn't contradictory, and the one thing that was brought up that could be a conflict, is that Joseph seems to have different dad's when comparing the chapter. This can simply be answered in that Luke is an account of Mary's line where Matthew is an account of Joseph's line, which makes sense when you know they are related (Sanders 1913). 
One item my opponent thinks contradicts is Jesus's parents going to Egypt in Matthew while Luke makes no mention of this. Simply put if someone leaves out information it is not a contradiction. It is plausible that they went after the trip to the temple in Luke 2:39. 
Matthew 27 vs Acts 1 seems to contradict because it shows that in one instance Judas threw the money down and hung himself, while the other shows him buy a field and die with his intestines out. First it is plausible that his intestines being out could be after him hanging himself. Also in both accounts a field was bought with Judas's money, so he still bought a field in both cases "Potter's field".
John 19 vs Mark 15 is one that does not require a deep dive to show this is not contradictory. John 19 says that Jesus carried his own cross while Mark 15 says Simon did. It is probable that Jesus had to carry it for a time, and John does not say he carried it the whole way. Each of the other Gospel accounts say that Simon carried it, so this is simple to solve. 
Matthew 27 vs Luke 23- My opponent mentions this is a contradiction because one account mentions both criminals making fun of him while one shows one that repents. In this scenario can't both be correct? Couldn't one of the criminal's change their mind especially knowing that they are going to die? I change my frequently when I hear different perspectives, so it is not unlikely that he saw Jesus and heard things which changed him.
Gospel accounts on Jesus's death- In the Gospel accounts Jesus's last words resemble what is mentioned in Luke, because Matthew, John and Mark never claim that the word's Christ mentioned in these narratives were his last words he spoke. John and Luke are a little harder to interpret with this because John mentions the statement my opponent made, and then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. It still does not say this is his last words, and this is actually only showed in Luke 23:46. 
The resurrections accounts mentioned in Mark 16, John 20, Luke 24, and Matthew 28 tell items in different scenarios, but I fail to see how they contradict. One account mentions it is dark, one says dawn, the others say early in the morning. It can be dark and morning time and dawn takes places right as morning is happening. As for who went to the tomb, Matthew and Mark make mention of both Mary's, but the rest mention it being women. For this to be contradictory they would have had to say that these specific people were the only ones who went to the tomb during this time. 
In his claim for Acts 9 vs Acts 22, he mentions that they contradict due to Acts 22 saying that Paul's companion did not hear a voice while Acts 9 says they heard a voice. This is taken out of context because Acts 22 never says this, it just says they did not understand the voices (Bowman 2013). 
Old Testament Idolatry 
My opponent mentioned chapters in the Bible which come from Ezekiel 9, Hosea, 13, Deuteronomy 32, where God used harsh words/actions due to Idolatry. I mentioned in my first rebuttal that Idolatry was used to sacrifice babies so harsh punishments were given. I cited experts on this, so this did happen as a practice which my opponent did not address (University of Oxford). 
Final Remarks
I won't have room to answer his moral claims with Genesis and Revelation this round or his statement about the census, but I will address it later in the debate. I would like to point out that my opponent 1. Did not exegete the text  2. He also did not address most of my rebuttal 3. He is using bias text due to them not being peer reviewed/.edu sources.  4. His whole arguments are just a copy and paste from one website, so he is plagiarizing.
References
Enns, P. (2021). The evolution of adam: What the Bible does and doesn’t say about human origins. Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J., & Worthen, B. (2010). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Pearson
 
 


Round 3
Pro
#5
Contradictions in the story obviously mean that the story is wrong. Absurd things also mean that story is wrong. Lack of evidence for claims also means that story cannot be considered real and Bible asking to be treated as real is wrong.

Contradictions are logically impossible to exist, so the story in the Bible (that has contradictions) couldnt have happened and therefore, is not real.

Further, there are many absurd things in the Bible, such as disproportional punishments.

Justice implies eye for eye, not "you burn alive eternally because you didnt believe in me".

The word justice has nothing to do with morality of the God of the Bible. He claims to be just, but he is not.

He punishes great majority of people with eternal great pain, when those people in most cases did no such thing to anyone.

Further, because there is lack of evidence for all the stories in the Bible, and no evidence to prove God of the Bible was found despite thousands of years of search for such evidence, it follows that we must treat the Bible as the collection of unproven assumptions. Since fairy tales themselves are nothing but unproven assumptions, this makes Bible a fairy tale.

My opponent didnt explain how an all powerful God couldnt find a better way than killing homosexuals. All powerful by definition means having all abilities. There is no reason why God couldnt have created a barrier between Jesus and homosexuals, as opposed to killing homosexuals. My opponent claimed that not killing homosexuals would violate free will, but we can all agree that killing homosexuals violates their free will.
My opponent has to defend position that God killing homosexuals is justified. Further, since New Testament too condemns sex between two males, my opponent must defend that people should condemn homosexuals today as well. If he says that homosexuals should not be condemned, he is saying that Bible is wrong. So, whatever path my opponent chooses, I will address it in the next round.

"The Problem of the Bible (How the bible is literally full of errors in nearly every way possible.):
I. Which Bible?
A.  Over 450 English versions of the bible
B. All are translated using different methods and from entirely different manuscripts
C. Thousands of manuscripts disagreeing with each other wildly in what verses and even books they contain, and how those verses read.
D. Different translations teach entirely different things in places, some often leaving out entire chapters and verses or containing footnotes warning of possible error due to uncertainty about the reliability of the numerous manuscripts.
II. Availability - current estimate is that 2,251 languages, representing 193 million people, lack a Bible translation. Bible claims to be available to everyone.
III. Historical and Geographical errors in the Bible
A. River Gihon could not possibly flow from Mesopotamia and encompass Ethiopia (Gen 2:13)
B. The name Babel does not come from the Hebrew word 'balbal' or 'confuse' but from the babylonian 'babili' or 'gate of God' which is a translation of the original Sumerian name Ka-dimirra. (Gen 11:9)
C. Ur was not a Chaldean city until 1000 years after Abraham (Gen 11:28, 15:7)
D. Abraham pursued enemies to 'Dan' (Gen 14:14). That name was not used geographically until after the conquest (Judge 18:29)
E. Gen 36:31, telling of Jacob and Esau, lists kings of Edom "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." This must have been written hundreds of years later, after Israel had kings.
F. Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews" (Gen 40:15).  There was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.
G. The Egyptian princess names the baby she finds "Moses" because she "drew him out" of the water (Heb meshethi).  Why would she make a pun in Hebrew (Ex 2:10)?
H. No Egyptian record exists mentioning Moses or his devastation of Egypt.
I. Moses refers to "Palestine" (Ex 15:14).  No such name was in use then.
J. Law of Moses is the "statutes of God and his laws" (Ex 18:26), but it closely mirrors the Code of Hammurabi, which was penned 1800 BC, hundreds of years before Moses.
K. Priests are mentioned at Ex 19:22-24, but they are not provided for until Ex 28:1.
L. Moses mentions Rabbath, where Og's bedstead is located (Deut3:11).   Moses could not have any knowledge of Rabbath,which was not captured by the Hebrews until David's time,500 years later (2 Sam 12:26).
M. Jericho and Ai (Josh 8) were both ancient ruins at the time of the conquest of Canaan, according to archaeologists. Jericho's walls were destroyed centuries before Joshua.
N. Kings are referred to at Deut 17:17-19, before Israel had kings.
O. The Wilderness is viewed as history at Num 15:32, showing that Numbers was written later.
P. The Sabbath law was unknown when the man gathered sticks at Num 15:32-34.
Q. Book of Joshua refers to Book of Jasher in the past, mentioned at 2 Sam 1:18, therefore Joshua must be post-David.
R. Captivity is mentioned at Judg 18:30, making it post-Exile.
S. David took Goliath's head to Jerusalem (1 Sam 17:54).  But Jerusalem was not captured until 7 years after David became king (2 Sam 5).
T. David paid 600 shekels of gold for the threshing floor (1 Chron21:22-25).  But shekels of gold were not yet used in business transactions (this is the only use of the term in the OT).
U. Psalm 18:6 mentions the temple, thus cannot be by David.
V. Defeat of Sennacherib did not happen at Jerusalem, but at Pelusium, near Egypt, and Jews were not involved, contrary to 2 Kings 19.
W. Ninevah was so large it took three days to cross, i.e. about 60 miles (Jonah 3:3-4).  Yet it had only 120,000 inhabitants, making a population density of of about 42 people per square mile for a city.
X. Daniel's account of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar is historically inaccurate; Nebuchadnezzar was never mad.  Belshazzar, whom he says was king, was never king, but only regent. Belshazzar was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar, but of Nabo-nidus.  Babylon was not conquered by Darius the Mede, but by Cyrus the Great, in 539 BC (Dan 5:31).  Darius the Mede is unknown to history.
Y. Chronology of the empires of the Medes and Persians is historically incorrect in Isa 13:17, 21:2,        Jer 51:11, 28
Z. Esther (and all the characters in the Book of Esther except Ahasuerus [= Xerxes]) is unknown to history, even though itclaims that its events are "written in the chronicles of the kings of Media and Persia" (Est 10:2).  The Book of Esther  is not quoted by any pre-Christian writer, nor mentioned in NT, nor quoted by early Christian fathers.
A1. Mordecai became prime minister to Xerxes (Ahasuerus), who reigned 485-465 BC.  But Mordecai had come to Babylon in 596 BC with Jehoiachin  (Esther 2:5-6).
B1. The office of "High priest" of Mark 2:26 did not exist in David's day.
C1. None of the Gospels are mentioned by early Christians, e.g. Paul, Pope Clement I (97 AD), Justin Martyr (140 AD).  The first mention of any Gospel is by Irenaeus (185 AD).
D1. There is no mountain from which one can see all the kingdoms of the world (Matt 4:8, Luke 4:5).
E1. Jesus as a historical figure is not mentioned by any contemporary non-Christian writers.
F1. Matt 2:1 says Jesus was born in the reign of Herod, who died 4 BC. Luke 2:2 says he was born during Quirinus' governorship of Syria, which began 6 AD.
G1. Thieves were never punished by crucifixion (Matt 27:38, 44).
H1. No crucifixion would have been performed on the eve of Passover.
I1. There is no contemporary historical confirmation of darkness covering the earth at the crucifixion (Matt 27:35, Luke 23:44).
J1. There is no contemporary historical confirmation of the slaughter of the innocents by Herod (Matt 2:16-18).  Josephus, whose history contains much criticism of Herod, does not mention it.
K1.There is no contemporary historical confirmation of the graves opening and the dead appearing to many at the crucifixion (Matt 27:52-53).
L1. in Mark 7,  Jesus quotes the septuigant while arguing with the pharisees, in a portion of the old testament (Isaiah 29:13)  that reads drastically differently from the Hebrew text. A Palestinian reading from a Greek text that contradicts the Hebrew to orthodox Jews is unusual to say the least.
M1. In Mark 10:12 Jesus tells Palestinian listeners that a wife who puts away her husband commits adultery, this would have been meaningless to Palestinian listeners where only men could divorce.
N1. In Mark 5:13 Jesus casts out devils and forces them into 2,000 swine who then run down into the sea and are drowned, this is said to have occured in Garasenes - 31 miles from the sea. In Matthew, which was written later, this is changed to Gadara which is much more feasible.
IV. Scientific Inaccuracy of the Bible
A. Earth is about 6000 years old, as calculated from the genealogies in Gen and Luke 3. (see the problem of a young earth later in the outline)
B. Birds were created before land animals (Gen 1:20, 24). - Fossil record shows exact opposite
C. Earth has four corners, and floats on water (Isa 11:12, Ps 24:2, 136:6, Rev 7:1).
D. Earth is a circular disk (Isa 40:22).
E. Earth is flat (these verses were used for centuries by the church to prove this:   Ps 93:1, Jer 10:13, Dan 4:10-11, Zech 9:10, Matt 4:8, Rev 1:7)
F. Earth does not move (Ps 93:1, 96:10, 104:5, 1 Chr 16:30).
G. Death or illness is caused by sin (Gen 2:17, Lev 26:16, 21, 25, Deut 7:15, 28:21, 27, James 1:15).
H. God himself believes that a house or clothes can have leprosy and he details the remedy. Lev 13, 14.
I. Seed must "die" before it grows (John 12:24, 1 Cor 15:36).
J. Snakes eat dust (Gen 3:14, Isa 65:25).
K. Every beast shall fear man (Gen 9:2).
L. The ostrich abandons her eggs (Job 39:13-16)."

Well, there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible. We can safely say that there is no difference in evidence for fairy tales and evidence for claims in the Bible, which makes Bible a fairy tale.

Con
#6
Even though I am happy this conversation is still going, I am a little upset by my opponents response because of some of the tactics my opponent is trying to use. Each of the points he is trying to make is plagiarized, where he is copying and pasting items verbatim from his website he put in the comment section. This is perplexing, because I called this out in the previous rebuttal which everyone can look and see for themselves. I am linking an article by the University of Oxford which shows that this is frowned upon in any setting where you are sharing ideas (University of Oxford). In addition to this my opponent isn't engaging with points that I already answered that could be challenged. He is ignoring them to just pump out more points, which is actually frowned on in debate rules. In many debate organizations, if you are not addressing your own contingence or if you are not addressing your opponents counterpoints, it could lead to deduction of points or even losing the debate in total (Dropped Argument) (Normally I do not like .org sources due to bias, but I wanted to put it because their are different debate organizations so they will naturally be labeled with .org or .com). The fact that he is not trying to tear down my main points or go against my rebuttals leaves a few different possible reasonings from my opponent. 1. He doesn't understand how to analyze a text, 2. He doesn't care to try and answer them because he is going to continue just copying and pasting this whole debate 3. He is unaware that their are scholars who are biblical scholars who are atheist that he could use against me at any point 4. He is using this as a tactic because with this being a word limit debate he can copy and paste to make it seem like I don't have an answer to his points even though most are easy to answer, or 5. He is unaware how this is an issue on academic grounds.
Rebuttal answer to items my opponent did not plagiarize 
My opponent plagiarized most points, but a few he did not plagiarize. His reasoning for things such as contradictions are the story is wrong, lack of evidence means it is wrong, eternal punishment, and he ends by using a strawman calling it fairy tales. Even with the strawman towards the end, my opponent's best points came from this small section that he did not plagiarize. To argue against these points I will point out a few different things. 1. My opponent has not pointed to any contradiction, because based on the dictionary definition a contradiction is "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another." (Oxford Language). The objections up until this point have been answered by 1. exegeting the passage 2. looking at scholars 3. viewing the context in which something was written. If you recall from the last rebuttal that due to my opponent copying and pasting, their were some situations I needed to just read the full chapter to see that he did exegete the passage. Even then my opponent seemed to drop arguments, which means his arguments weren't strong to begin with. 
His claim for lack of evidence is an interesting one in that it is true that their is not overwhelming evidence to prove something for certain dealing with God. As someone who is a researcher who uses statistical models shown in Andy Fields textbook (Fields 2018) or research models from the Research Tool (Friedman 2006), I would be foolish to think we could know for certain their is a God or not. To get to that I would have to point to some tactics in the Research Toolkit which talks about qualitative and historical sources, which I can use to do things like show Jesus existed and show information about the apostles. This of course brings limitations and is why I am a Christian who is two steps away from being agnostic. 
His point on eternal punishment was actually good, because it is a moral argument that for once ties in with his point from Revelation in the last rebuttal that I did not get to answer. First not every Christian believes in Hell, the last chapter of Revelation points to what could be a physical hell. We could say that it is plausible but we are unsure because Revelation has a lot of metaphors in them (Calvary). This is why so many people are divided on the contents in the book, but the Old Testament Hebrew often mentioned the grave or Sheol, which could be interpreted if you die without being a part of God's elect you just cease to exist. Their are many different views of hell which are shown in an article I am attaching below (Four views of Hell).
Homosexuality 
I can see why my opponent is holding this thread so long, because their are Christians today who are down right hateful to the LGBTQ community. With that being said my opponent said I did not provide a basis for an all powerful God having to do this, he mentioned a barrier between Jesus and killing of homosexuals even though during Jesus's day he condemned killings under sexual items, and he mentioned it hurts homosexuals free will. He again goes on to say that I agree with killing homosexuals, which was not my stance in this debate. Even though I answered this through scholarship, that was secular and Christian I will still continue making my case about this. First the definition of being all powerful actually puts barriers to things (Omnipotence). Like God is unable to do something like create a stone that he can't lift (Omnipotence). This would also mean that if he created beings to have free will, him physically intervening to force something to happen that was against the cultural norms of that society would not have worked. I actually gave examples on how their was still rebellion regardless, which means if it was more progressive it may not have worked. Yes this was rough to homosexuals, but the basis for this eventually called for the basis of not killing people for sexual actions. Also another possible statement for this rough law was that the nations around them wanted to kill them off, so they needed as many people to be born as possible for safety issues (Homosexuality and the Bible). This again is not me saying that this is something I believe is right, but the ancient world was brutal which is why everything was brutal at the time (Which I dislike had to happen because some evil Christians use this to actually harm this group currently which Christ Himself would condemn). My opponent mentioned also that the New Testament is against this practice, which I would argue is true. Some Christians argue that homosexuality in it's Hebrew context was never condemned and the practice mentioned above is a man having sex with a boy, which has fractured the church. I don't know if I buy into this argument, but I am willing to change my mind based on evidence. Regardless he is possibly right on the New Testament taking this stance, but that has nothing to do with the deaths of the Old Testament because they were later rejected. 
Objections he plagiarized 
His objections are easy to answer even though I won't be able to get to all of them. 
1. He starts out by stating that their are multiple versions of the Bible with multiple translations, with manuscripts conflicting, and availability with their not being a Bible for each language. To start I fail to see how that last one would show that the Bible is wrong, just that everything has not been translated into every language. In addition the first part of this point with multiple translations, is interesting, but they all teach the same same thing. Now their are some things that don't translate over well from the Hebrew and Greek, so it is important to look at history, experts, and the original language. This does not show anything is wrong, just that we need to look at the appropriate context as cited by my early sources in my opening. His claim about manuscripts conflicting needs to be proven, which he is unable to due to his source being bias. The source he cited can actually lie about stuff while .edu, .gov, and peer review sources can't without penalty from the university. 
To continue he starts with Biblical claims with Geographical errors with Genesis 2:13 with the River Gihon not possibly flowing from Mesopotamia and encompassing Ethiopia. This actually is not in the Bible, the claim was that it encompassed the land of Cush. It makes not mention of Mesopotamia. 
My opponent continues with the claims about Babel not coming from Hebrew in Genesis 11:9, but this does not conflict because this has been translated for easier understanding.  
Conclusion
 Unfortunately I have no room to continue to show how these plagiarized points are wrong, but I feel that due to my opponent continuing to do this it was more important to show his flaws in doing this over just answering his claims that were not critically looked at like how scholars view them. Many of his points you can just go to the chapter and see he is wrong by reading the full chapter. The fact that he has not been challenging my rebuttal answers to his claims shows that his methodology is extremally flawed and would not stand up to academic analysis even if his position ended up being correct.
References
 Friedman, B. D. (2006). The research tool kit: Putting it all together. Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition. SAGE.
https://umaffirm.org/study/Homosexuality%20and%20the%20Bible.pdf (Is a peer reviewed source, just didn't format it like I would for college text)
Round 4
Pro
#7
Okay, no more copy pasting from websites.
him physically intervening to force something to happen that was against the cultural norms of that society would not have worked.
It was God who physically intervened into the world to bring the law regarding homosexuals into effect. So he physically intervened to violate homosexual's free will.
In fact, God has for many times physically intervened, either by showing himself, either by destroying people or nations, either by healing and doing miracles as Jesus.
He also intervened to change cultural norms.
My opponent basically has to concede that Christians should condemn homosexuals, which, despite not being self contradicting, is stupid since it causes them to kill themselves.

Christian God is usually defined as all powerful being, the infinite being or simply uncreated creator. Often he is described as totally good in the Bible.
1. There is no explanation for the existence of God
Some religious people have said that God is eternal and uncreated.
This is logically impossible, as eternity cannot exist and cannot be realized in any way. In fact, eternity cannot come into existence, as eternity by definition means "no end", so to come into existence, it would have to have an end. A logical contradiction.
For God to be eternal, past would have to be eternal, past would have no end, which is logically impossible, as with eternal past, we can never logically reach the present.
In eternity, number of causes would be infinite or there would be no cause at all, which in both cases would mean that there would be no actual cause to anything and things wouldnt need a cause in order to exist.
So God being eternal or timeless is impossible.
There is also no way to explain how eternity is even possible, as eternity by definition cannot be caused. So nothing can create eternity, making eternity uncaused.
As a result, there is no way to explain how God came into existence or why a different God or Gods doesnt exist instead.
But even if eternity was possible, it would work for atheism as then our world could simply be eternal and need no God.
2. There is no explanation for what causes God to do things
Why would God do anything? There is no reasonable explanation as to why God would create this world or any world. There is no cause which causes God to change, to act, to create. So a God would not create nor act.
3. The problem of perfection
A perfect being would create the most perfect world possible. Every part of that world would be perfect. Every rapist would be the perfect creation of God.
There is no explanation as to why the greatest and most perfect being would create a world filled with evil and non-perfections and random situations happening to random people.
Since each of us can imagine a better world, there is no logical explanation as to why a morally perfect and all powerful being created an unperfect world.
If you claim that this world is morally perfect, then you concede that every rapist is a morally perfect being.
Since world can only be morally perfect or morally unperfect, there is no 3rd option to save Christians.
So they must either concede that their God created a morally unperfect world, or concede that every rapist is a morally perfect being.
To make matters worse for Christians, they invented heaven.
Why would God put people on Earth, and then send them to heaven?
Why not send them to heaven immediatelly?
4. There is no way to justify punishing evil
If creating evil is a good action, then there is no way to justify punishing evil.
So God who created evil people would have no justification to punish them, as God himself creates evil.
Further, if creating evil is a good action, then all evil people are good.
5. Unjust disproportional world
Our world is filled with injustice and unjust treatment. In fact, randomly, good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good people, all at the completely disproportional random rate.
A perfect being would be perfectly proportional. Its creation would also be perfectly proportional. Why perfect being would create this random disproportional imperfection remains a mystery.
6. Disproportional punishment
Christian God does not follow "eye for eye" justice system that he said it should be followed in the Old Testament.
In fact, God of the Bible punishes majority of people with eternity of infinite pain of burning alive, when most of them didnt cause so much pain to anyone.
The punishment which God uses is infinitely disproportional to the sins committed, which contradicts the Bible's claim that God rewards according to deeds.
He punishes great majority of people with eternal great pain of burning alive, when those people in most cases did no such thing to anyone.
As we can see by basic law of logic, 
Morally perfect being would by definition only do morally perfect actions and create only moral perfection. Since Christian God created evil humans, earth and diseases, it follows that evil humans are morally perfect beings. If they were not morally perfect beings, we would reach a conclusion that morally perfect God created moral non-perfection, a logical contradiction and impossibility.
Therefore, when Bible claims that God is morally perfect, yet God's actions obviously result in evil, where moral perfection cannot result in evil or contain evil, it follows that Bible again contradicts itself.
By law of excluded middle:
1. Proof determines what is real
2. Proof doesnt determine what is real
Since there is no proof for Christian God, to argue that Christian God is real, one would need to argue that proof doesnt determine what is real. In that case, there would be no way at all to determine what is real and what is not, because by abandoning proof as a determinant for what is real, you abandon the only way to determine what is real and what is not real.
Christians are not morally best people. Since Bible is followed by people who are not morally best, it follows that teachings of the Bible couldnt create morally best people. This means that either teachings of the Bible are not morally best, either people cannot follow teachings of the Bible. Both cases make Bible redundant as a source of teachings, thus making Christian God illogical since he, it is assumed, gave teachings that didnt improve people's morality any better than teachings of some other religions that are, it is assumed, not from God.

In the Bible, chapter of revelation, God tortures entire planet with diseases, wars, animal attacks and poverty before Jesus comes back to kill the entire planet except a small minority of 144,000 people. Today's population is 8 billion people.
Since God promised to kill 99% of humanity, we can conclude that Christian God is insane.

Further, Bible claims that all non-belivevers will go to hell.
If you do only good deeds, but you dont believe in Jesus, you go to hell to burn.
So yeah, in Christianity, logic doesnt apply.
Christians were faced with famous moral question:
If person only does good deeds but doesnt believe in Christ, will that person go to hell?
If no, then one does not need to be Christian to avoid hell.
If yes, then Christian God is a madman.
God who creates evil
Due  to his omniscience, Christian God knew that some people he creates  will be evil and will burn alive for all eternity.
God still chose to create them, making God responsible for their evil and their suffering.
The causation link is simple.
God creates person X. Person X creates evil. Thus, God creates evil.
Some Christians have tried to bypass the causation link by using poorly defined term "free will".
However, free will doesnt solve the causation link. Merely adds to it.
God created people with free will. People with free will created evil. Thus, God created evil.
If God didnt create those people, evil wouldnt be created either.
Therefore, we see that God is responsible for evil.
Its kinda like this example:
Would you give birth to a child if you knew that child will be evil and will be tortured for all eternity?
The moral answer to that is no. No one should give birth to such a child.
Yet God willingly and knowingly gave birth to nations upon nations of such people.

My opponent complains about character space, so here is extra 1700 characters I wont use.



Con
#8
Before I start I want to say, that my opponent is ok to take all of his space. I more pressed on this because if my opponent just copied and pasted points down it would be impossible to answer everything, vs. if my opponent did what he did in this round I may not have to answer each thing because we may agree on some items. 
Homosexuality 
 Before answering this I want to critique his last point where he says that I have to condemn homosexuals. This is not really the case, because as pointed before some people actually think homosexuality was not condemned in the Bible and that the ancient Hebrews translated it as a grown man sleeping with a boy. I personally don't take this position, because it seems like older sources say it is a sin, but I am open to viewing this again. My view is that this is not a sin that would affect salvation, because some sins are worse than others in the Bible. I can bring articles about this, but we see King David is still saved even after his affair which is considered the same type of sin. 
My opponent mentioned that God would have "intervened in the world to bring a law dealing with Homosexuality" as a response to my point on it possibly taking free will away. First I will mention that I see the point that my opponent is trying to make, because he mentioned that God physically intervened numerous times which I agree with. As a way to understand my point I am not saying God can't intervene at times in the world, just that he is not going to force individuals to think a certain way. Forcing them to think a certain way would be the part where he won't intervene because it impacts free will. To back this point up I used a program evaluation source to show that you have to create a program that are feasible when first implementing, and I used a Christian source that is pro LQBTQ to show that many liberal Christians think that rough punishments happened because of them not having reproduceable numbers to protect themselves from neighboring countries (Previous rebuttals). 
Explanation for God
I am not sure if my opponent wants me to make an argument for the existence of God, so I will give an answer along with analyzing some of his points. Before making my own arguments I will answer my opponents point on it being impossible for eternity to exist, which shows God to be improbable. To answer this, many scientist actually believe the world is eternal but this is highly debated (Noter Dame). If the world in fact is eternal, then their is a possibility that their could be an eternal creator (Noter Dame) (Not my area of expertise so if my reasoning is off forgive me). 
Arguments for the existence of God to me would be a historical argument, because scholars can show that Jesus was more than likely real (McDowell 2014), the apostles were more and likely real (McDowell 2014), and that many of them were killed in the name of Jesus (Bradford 2014) (last point is more argued on). This is something I can show with sources form Ernel Bradford, Sean McDowell, and even atheist scholar Bart Erhman (YouTube).  From this form of argumentation their are some obvious limitation that my opponent can list, and being someone who is in grad school to be a researcher, I can see why some people don't believe in God because their is evidence that can point in the direction, but their are possible limitations and even errors someone could make if they affirm God without anything else.
Why does God do things
I may disappoint my opponent, but I would rather be truthful in saying that I am not 100% sure I have a great answer for this. This to me doesn't show the Bible has errors, just that if their is a God we don't understand the reasoning for each move (I said if because I don't want to make an argument from ignorance). An article from GCU mentions that "he created people out of love, for the purpose of sharing love." (GCU). I can go more into this if my opponent wants something more concreate, I am just making sure I answer all points first. 
Problem of perfection
 My opponent mentions that a perfect being would want to make the most perfect world. In addition my opponent mentions that we could all imagine a better world, which I would agree with. I could mention stuff about the fall, and even though I recognize Evolution as a fact, I believe that their was a fall. Even though I could, it would take longer for the audience to understand my point, so I am going to cite an article from GCU which mentions that suffering is used as a tool of sanctification. GCU states that "Suffering causes our focus to turn inward, to face those parts of ourselves we might otherwise ignore. God can use suffering then to develop us into better people: the people who can love and enjoy Him forever (Romans 5:3-5; James 1:2-4)." (GCU). More answers can be given on this, but suffering can be used to make us better individuals and make us thankful for the life we can live if Heaven does exist. In addition to this point I want to answer my opponents question on why we don't go straight to heaven. To answer this I will cite GCU in saying that it was to give us "Free will to accept or reject him" (GCU). Basically if we were born straight in heaven we would not have the same free will due to us being born in an environment where we would be made to be with God/serve him without choice. 
Unjust disproportional world
 My opponent in this section mentions how the world is filled with unjust treatment with good things happening to bad people and that this would happen at a fair rate if their was a God. I am going to answer with a cliche Christian answer in that, this is looking at the short term and if their is a God one day we will have the opportunity to prosper in heaven. Along with this I will say that due to us having free will this is going to happen, where bad people undercut good people. If God intervened this again could affect free will because the actions to do either good or bad are influenced by God's actions.
Justifying Punishment and Disproportional punishment
I placed these two sections together because they seem related, but if I am wrong I will leave my opponent to redirect. My opponent mentioned that it seems like their is no way to punish bad people due to God creating evil people. To reiterate what was placed in the GCU article, we were given the ability to choose for ourselves (GCU). If we are given the ability to choose for ourselves bad people would come into this. If these people had free will then punishment could be justified. The degree can be argued, because I know some people who think punishment should happen but hell is too harsh. This is partially why I cited my citation on different views of Hell in the previous section, because their are many Christians and even scholars who don't believe in the traditional hell many think about.  
In answering the claims about disproportional punishment, I think my GCU articles answers points dealing with an imperfect world that involves evil beings, diseases, God being perfect and everything not being perfect. My opponent mentions punishing people with hell and uses the chapter in Revelation with the 144,000. To answer this first Revelation is a book that Christians have been arguing about since it was canonized, so we are unsure if this is physically what happens which I explained in my citations on Hell and Revelation in my previous reply. In addition the Bible uses numbers as symbols, which was done a lot in the far east (Enns 2021). This means that the 144,000 could be symbolic, like the numbers are in Genesis or it could be the Jewish people who survived and devote themselves to Christ (Revelation 7). 
I answered his point about their being no evidence for God in that their is, but it is not a definite proof due to it being a historical sources and not experimental research. This shows that this is not all Christian who are abandoning reason, but their are different interpretations to evidence. 
His claims on all people who are good, but don't believe in Jesus go to hell can be challenged by viewing my hell article and by stating that if hell is real this still is not the case because God has been shown to make exceptions in these cases (Romans 2).
My opponent stated also that Christians aren't the best people, but I wanted to ask my opponent if he would want data to go against this claim?
God who creates evil
This section was answered through much of my argumentation throughout this rebuttal, through the GCU articles and my hell article. If a person becomes immoral, they chose it because if God created beings who would be all good and follow him, their is no choice for humans. I fail to see the causation link because I have seen atheist who would be against us being born in heaven in a perfect world because our choice to follow or not is really taken away. Getting to causation requires a little more than this and is outlined by Andy Fields (Fields 2018).
References
Bradford, E. (2014). Paul the traveller: St. paul and his world. Open Road Media.
Enns, P. (2021). The evolution of adam: What the Bible does and doesn’t say about human origins. Brazos Press, a division of Baker Publishing Group.
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics: North American edition. SAGE.
Round 5
Pro
#9
Thank you for the debate. I dont feel like adding anything to arguments now in the last round of the debate. We had good talk and I hope we debate again sometimes in the future.
Con
#10
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. This debate has been interesting and I have enjoyed sharing this stage with my opponent. Similar to what my interlocutor said, I would love to eventually debate my opponent again. In a debate on this type of topic it is normal to see a heated type of debate and I hope that I have at least treated my opponent with respect. My final statement will mainly be used to clarify arguments, clear up statements that could be confusing, and answer some Bible verses my opponent put. 
Homosexuality and The Bible
This seemed to be the biggest point of contention which I understand due to the hate homosexuals face currently. My answers to my opponent's points about God killing people over sexuality mainly dealt with pragmatism. Things such as Israel needing more people so that they would be able to defend themselves, the law was better compared to neighboring countries which was some progress for its time, the Israelite people would not have accepted a more progressive law at the time, and the possibility of Jesus not existing if same sex union would have happen are all possible reasons for this law. My main point from this was more about whether it would have been practical to implement something more progressive, and that we don't have the same knowledge that God would have if he is real. If their are items that were thought about from scholars that I mentioned earlier in the text, it is likely God had additional knowledge on the situation. Now I would like to point out as critical thinkers we should not say because God has additional knowledge we shouldn't question or look for the answers because this would prevent individuals from looking into religious claims and seeing if their is some merit to them. This is why I cited secular scholars, pro LGBTQ biblical scholars, and regular biblical scholars to arrive to my position.  As stated earlier Christians' should always make sure to treat anyone who is a part of the LGBTQ group in a way that shows that they were created in God's image. Individuals who are Gay should always be loved by Christians and I will always call out fundamentalist who discriminate against them even though they are considered my own "Brothers and Sisters in Christ". Their are many stances on this issue with some Christian's thinking that the Bible never condemned homosexuality and others saying it does. Regardless of this my example with King David showed that if this is considered a sin, it would not get in the way of salvation for anyone as long as you are a follower of Christ (For Christians, this is not me endorsing sin, just putting their are worse sin's than this and it is shown if you love Christ that this sin would not imped salvation.)
Virtue Ethics
This section goes into the previous one in that often times their were harsh rules in the Bible, that by our standards may not make sense. Part of this would have to do with the time period individuals were raised in. Christianity works on a form of virtue ethics where you try your best to emulate Christ (Kilian 2010). We can see how the harshness in the Old Testament became more relaxed in the New Testament as time progressed. As time moved on we could make decisions on the law where items could be corrected. Part of Jesus's actions towards others and how he interacted with the law changed how punishments worked. Part of this is how killing for sexual sins is deemed wrong and other items such as slavery was later condemned (Mckivigan 1984) (My opponent never mentioned slavery, but I know this is a major issue for many people so I decided to talk about this. Horrible stuff still happened after the abolitionist movement, but I wanted to give an example where Christian's were at the forefront). The Bible is almost like a living document in that it is not just a rule book, but some things will change based on the time period lived in and how Christ would act/respond in the situation. 
Why did I use a .com source?
I critiqued my opponent for doing this, so I am admitting I used one but for a different reason. I was quoting an atheist New Testament Scholar in an interview because I have not had the chance to read his work yet. In the interview he admits that he thinks Jesus was a historical person and that many of the apostles died in his name. He gives limitations to a historical argument, but I will not go into too much detail because this part was vaguely touched in the debate.
Are Christian's the Best People
My opponent mentioned how Christian's aren't the best people, and I asked if he wanted me to show data to go against this. This is was not a pivotal part of the debate so I will keep this section short, but we can find that intrinsically religious people typically are less likely to commit crimes, more likely to give to the poor, and are more likely to do things such as community service. If anyone wants the research I found on this, I can provide it, but for now I am placing one article on this so that anyone can look into this (Wright 2001) (This talks mainly about how religion has some deterrence against crime). A limitation to my argumentation is that this is not the case for people who are extrinsically religious (people who do it for social reasons), or fundamentalist (scariest kind of religious person). The basis for this is to show if the person believes in God and goes to church to worships him because they love him become some of the best people while extremist or people who do it for social reasons are seen in a more negative light. I put this because it is time for Christian's who love God to call out hate from other groups which includes our brothers and sisters at certain points. 
Bible verse answers
I will spend the rest of the time answering passages my opponent put throughout the debate. Again I will not get to each one because I want to make sure I am properly exegeting the text and providing adequate answers to each thing presented. This is something that I don't think has to be done, because I explained issues in my opponent's methodology for his points, but I want to do it to show that each item listed has an answer (Even though this was a copy and paste job, my opponent talked to me in that he was trying to work more on getting references, so I wanted to make sure I put this in the debate rebuttal because it shows he was trying to be honest. The methodology for it was just flawed and my reasons were stated earlier.) 
In round three my opponent has a section which called for geographical/historical errors. In this section I can answer his claims from Genesis chapter 11 and 14 and Exodus 15 by stating that the reason names may have been different is because the Bible has been retranslated several times from different languages (Revision source). This means that their future names may  have been used. In looking at this one may view this as a flaw, but when you translate a document from it's original language we can see some items are put for us to understand items easier. This does not show that the Bible is wrong, more that we have to study it carefully, view scholars work on items, and view the historical context of the situation.
 The last thing that I will address before ending is his claims about Egypt not having the plagues that happened to them in their history. My opponent is correct on this claim, but this is actually common in the ancient world when something does not go the countries way. I am linking a sources which mentions that the Egyptians sometimes kept embarrassing parts of history hidden (Wheeler 2002). This source actually went on to say that because this would have been seen as an attack from the God's, they would have hid it and not wanted to relive this part of history. We can actually see that this is not just an ancient world thing, but happens in our current time too. An example of this comes from how the US downplays racism from our past today with even some of our founding father (Jefferson being the main one) saying that African American's were not as smart as white people (Givens 2023). The rough parts of history are often hidden if possible so that people view things more favorable for that country. 
Closing
In short I enjoyed this debate and I feel that my opponent is a kind and honest person that I would love to debate again. With that being said, I do not think the work was been done to show that the Bible is wrong/stupid. First my opponent copied and pasted stuff, which he admitted (He mentioned why and I understand, but still hurts his case.) Second the majority of items that I addressed, he did not go back to which means that these contentions are yielded. One could argue I did not answer everything, but I pointed out flaws in my opponents methodology which addresses everything in some way. Broadly I showed that the passages my opponent brought up were not exegeted like how scholars suggest people study the Bible. My opponent later went for God not being a possibility of being real as a reason for the Bible being wrong, but we unfortunately didn't get into that for long because it was towards the end of the debate. This means that most of my opponents arguments were either dropped, not researched in a scholarly way, and not exegeted like scholar's suggest.   
References
Givens, J. R. (2023). School clothes: A collective memoir of Black Student Witness. BEACON